Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 306-05 E C 1 • RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Richard Emerson requested an amendment to Planned Unit Development R-53 (Northview Village) to construct a single story 3,662 square foot structure on the property for a barber and beauty shop facility. The property is located along the south side of 37th Street N.W.; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its June 8, 2005, meeting reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by Section 61.146 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact: 61.146 Standard for Conditional Uses: The: zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden. upon public facilities. The development likely generate additional traffic on the local street; however, the development is located at the very beginning of the cul- de-sac roadway so the additional traffic should not be traveling past the majority of the residential dwellings. As proposed, the site layout utilizes 10th Lane NW for the parking lot traffic circulation was is not acceptable.. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. The construction of a one story free standing commercial building should not be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood. 3) The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. . The proposed amendment meets the minimum amount (45%) of landscape area, 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. • Grading and drainage plan approval is required and a Storm Water Management Charge will be applicable for all impervious surface associated with this project 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of . occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. Exterior lighting should not create undue hazards to motorists traveling in the area since the development will need to comply with exterior lighting standard "B." 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the.buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. The proposed development does not appear to create hazards related to site access for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. Not applicable 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration; or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. The proposed amendment to R-53 does appear to comply with the standards of the R-3 District; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its June 8, 2005, meeting reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by Section 62.708 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact: 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: is 2 • a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. There do not appear to be any capacity concerns related to the public facilities; however, the applicant will need to provide additional information to RPU on the planned plumbing fixtures within the building to determine if the proposed 1" water service is large enough to handle the peak demand. If the extension of public water, and/or the addition of hydrants(s) is required, the execution of a City-Owner Contract and dedication of an applicable pubtic utility easement will be required prior to construction. The existing 1 %" copper water service stubbed to Lot 1, approximately 70 feet east of the building will need to be abandoned properly at the main in the street if not used for the building. b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. Not applicable • c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. The placement of the building is< utilizing the existing topography of the site. d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; The proposed development should not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential street. The development likely generate additional traffic on the • local street; however, the development is located at the very beginning of the cul-de-sac roadway so the 3 • additional traffic should not be traveling past the majority of the residential dwellings. e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. The development likely generate additional traffic on the local street; however, the development is located at the very beginning of the cul-de-sac roadway so the additional traffic should not be traveling past the majority:of the residential dwellings. As proposed, the site layout utilizes 10th Lane NW for the parking lot traffic circulation was is not acceptable. f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: 1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; • 2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. The proposed construction of a one story building is compatible with the surrounding development g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. The proposed building location would be consistent with permitted uses in the R-3 District h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. The proposed project appears to meet adequate building separation to the orientation of the existing buildings, open spaces, and street frontages. • 4 • i) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. Bufferyard plantings were not identified on the site plan. Based on the proposed used, as a personal service business, a type "D" bufferyard is required adjacent to the property to the west and a type "S2" bufferyard to the south and east j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. The site layout provides adequate amounts of parking and is providing approximately 49% landscape area. k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the • proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. It appears that the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding uses, there are commercial uses located to the east and west of the proposed development. These lots have been planned for non-residential uses since 1995; and, WHEREAS, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment of the PUD subject to the following conditions: 1. If the extension of public watermain, and/or the addition of hydrant(s) is required for this project, the execution of a City-Owner Contract, and dedication of an applicable public utility easement, will be required prior to construction. 2. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required and a Storm Water Management Charge will be applicable for all impervious surfaces with this project. 3. The owner shall construct a concrete sidewalk along 10t" Lane NW is concurrent with the development of the property. 5 • 4. All existing unused water services must- be abandoned properly at the main per the requirements of RPU. The proposed water service must be sized to handle the probable peak demand of this building. 5. Lighting, signs, exterior storage and other site features must meet the requirements for an office use in the R-3 zoning district. WHEREAS, the Common Council, at its July 6, 2005, meeting, considered the matter, concurred with the Commission's findings and recommendation, and adopted the Commission's recommended conditions as its own. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Common Council of the City of Rochester that applicant's proposed amendment to Planned Unit Development R-53 (Northview Village) to allow the construction of a single story 3,662 square foot structure on the property for a barber and beauty shop facility is in all things approved subject to the above five conditions. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS L�M 0'2Y OF 1200 5. Cr- PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: aa&uC�/YL NPU" ,Z� CIV CLEF�g APPROVED THIS DAY OF ; 2005. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) ZoneMPUD.amendR53 6