HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 347-06 • RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Richard Hawkins requested an amendment to Planned Unit Development R-
11 (Cedarwood Plaza) to allow for an increase in the size of the freestanding business sign
located on the property. The property is located along the east side of 18th Avenue N.W., and
north of 41st Street N.W.; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its May 24, 2006, 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 proposed amendment should not affect vehicular loading,
unloading, parking for vehicular and pedestrian circulation and will
not create hazards to safety, or impose a significant burden upon
public facilities.
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 proposed amendment should not affect the intensity, location,
operation or height of existing structures and will 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 does not affect the existing on-site
bufferyards or landscaping.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems
that may be created by the development.
Not applicable.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists
traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of
1
• occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and
diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
The proposed amendment does not include any additional free
standing lighting. A lighting plan was not submitted. If the PUD
amendment is approved, and additional exterior lighting is proposed,
an exterior lighting plan must be submitted and meet the
requirements of the B-1 District
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 amendment does not interfere with emergency vehicle
access to the site.
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 PUD R-11 does comply with all the
standards of the B-1 District with the exception of submitting and
receiving approval for the lighting plan, if increased lighting is
proposed. A plan for any additional lighting for this proposed
amendment must be provided, meeting lighting standard "B"; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its May 24, 2006, 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:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned
utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed
• development.
2
• Utilities are existing and available within this development.
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.
Not applicable.
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;
Not applicable.
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 proposed development should not cause the capacity of
adjacent streets to be exceeded,
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;
• 3
• 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 increase in square footage for the
existing free standing sign 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 sign location meets the required setbacks and
is consistent with permitted uses in the B-1 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.
Not applicable.
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.
There are no changes relating to the existing landscaping
regarding the proposed amendment for increased square foot
of the existing sign.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
•
4
• The proposed amendment increasing the square footage of
the free standing sign is compatible with the existing uses on
the property and the surrounding properties; and,
2) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility
facilities meet the requirements and specifications which the
applicable utility has adopted.
Not applicable.
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of
geologic hazard have been incorporated into the development plan
or such areas have been set aside from development.
Not applicable.
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed
and located so as to:
1. Provide adequate separation from existing street
intersections and adjacent private driveways so that traffic
circulation problems in public right-of-ways are minimized;
• 2. Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with
factors such as noise from acceleration or idling vehicles or
the glare of headlights from vehicles entering or leaving the
site.
In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified
potential problems in the operation of.access points, plans for
private improvements or evidence of planned public improvements
which will alleviate the problems have been provided.
The existing ingress and egress points will remain in the same
location. The proposed amendment will have no effect
relating to the ingress/egress points.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure
that pedestrians can move safely both within the site and across
the site between properties and activities within the neighborhood
area, and where appropriate, accommodations for transit access
are provided.
Not applicable.
•
5
• e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has
been prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent
with the landscape character of the surrounding area.
Not applicable.
f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the
future maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including
common areas, the completion of any platting activities, and the
provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of
required public improvements, screening and landscaping.
Not applicable.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard
design contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which
are adequate to satisfy the need identified in Phase I for the
project.
Not applicable.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with
the principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to
Height, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design.
Not applicable.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and
loading areas and circulation aisles to serve these areas meet
ordinance requirements in terms of design.
Not applicable.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is
consistent with the requirements of the underlying zoning district for
similar uses in regards to signage and other appearance controls,
and with general standards such as traffic visibility and emergency
access.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the underlying
zoning district B-1.
If additional lighting of the free standing sign is proposed, a
lighting plan must be submitted. In preparing this plan, the
lighting standard "B" shall be used; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment of the
PUD subject to the following condition:
1. If additional lighting of the free standing sign is proposed, a lighting plan
must be submitted. In preparing this plan, the lighting standard "B' shall
6
• be used; and,
WHEREAS, the Common Council, at its June 19, 2006, meeting, considered the matter,
concurred with the Commission's findings and recommendation, and adopted the Commission's
recommended condition 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-11 (Cedarwood Plaza) to
allow the increase in the size of the freestanding business sign is in all things approved subject
to the above one condition.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS I OF , 2006.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: &t 1.
�U - CITY CLE
APPROVED THIS d D4h DAY OF �/1Le� 12006.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone05\P,MamendRl l
,1.
7