HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 526-08 •
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2008, the Common Council of the City of Rochester approved the
request of RP Second Street L.L.C., for a variance as to the required number of parking spaces
to be provided for the development identified as Incentive Development #R2007-007CUP and
known as "Shoppes on Second" and,
WHEREAS, the Council's decision of July 7th was memorialized in writing in a Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order document entitled, "In Re: Appeal #R2008-002AP" and
dated July 8, 2008 (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A); and,
WHEREAS, on October 31, 2008, the attorney for RP Second Street L.L.C., informed the
City that RP Second Street wanted to withdraw its request for the variance (a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit B); and,
WHEREAS, based upon the October 31St letter, it appears there is no need for the
variance granted to RP Second Street L.L.C., as memorialized in writing in the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order document entitled, "In Re: Appeal #R2008-002AP" and dated
�ly 8, 2008.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the City rescind the variance granted to RP Second Street L.L.C., on July 7, 2008
for the development known as "Shoppes on Second."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council rescind and nullify the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order document entitled, "in Re: Appeal #R2008-002AP" and dated
July 8, 2008 (Exhibit A).
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF I��G1EN'1�3�R. , 2008.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: ��"AAJ
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS ' DAY OF Il1b�'EYY)fI� , 2008.
•
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Res05Mesddnd.F0F1
s
•
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
• CITY OF ROCHESTER MINNESOTA
In Re: Appeal #R2008-002AP by Findings of Fact,
Jordan Realty Corporation Conclusions of Law,
and Order
On June 16, 2008, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to hear the appeal of Jordan Realty Corporation ("Appellant")
concerning a decision of the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission. On May 28, 2008,
the Commission approved RP Second Street, LLC's request for a variance (Type III, Phase I,
Variance Request#R2008-007VAR) as to the required number of parking spaces.to be provided
for the development identified as Incentive Development #R2007-007CUP and known as
9
"Shoppes on Second." On May 30, 2008, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Rochester
Common Council from the Commission's decision pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733.
Appellants' legal counsel, Ken Moen, appeared at the hearing and spoke in favor of the
appeal and in opposition to the requested variance. A representative of Shoppes on Second
appeared and spoke in opposition to the appeal and in favor of the requested variance. Several
citizens also appeared and testified. The Council considered the testimony as well as the
evidence submitted to it as part of its meeting packet, a copy of which is attached and identified
as Exhibit A.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Common Council of the City of
Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
• 1
• FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This appeal is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733.
2. RP Second Street, LLC is proposing a development identified as Incentive
Development #R2007-007CUP and known as "Shoppes on Second." The proposed
development will consist of commercial, retail, restaurant space and one level of parking under
the building.
3. The Shoppes on Second development proposes 168 parking spaces on site. The
floor area, as defined in R.C.O. §63.422, for the entire space is 34,339 square feet including a
proposed restaurant. The parking requirement found in R.C.O. §62.383(D) is four spaces for
every 1,000 square feet results in the need for 138 spaces. The proposed restaurant is 4,052
square feet open to patrons and requires an additional 41 parking spaces (ten spaces for every.
•1,000 square feet). The total required parking spaces is 179 resulting in a deficit of 11 parking
spaces.
4. The Shoppes on Second development sought a variance (Type III, Phase I,
Variance Request #R2008-007VAR) of 11 parking spaces to the parking space requirement of
R.C.O. §62.383(D).
5. On May 28, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
Appellant's variance application, applied the criteria found at R.C.O. §60.417 and, based upon
the following findings of fact, approved the application for the variance.
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There does not appear to be
extraordinary or exceptional conditions that apply to this property that do not apply
to other business centers. The site is however constrained by access limitations
and site dimensions. The applicant proposes one level of parking under the
proposed commercial space that substantially reduces the surface parking
required and minimizes the loss of landscape area. The valet parking allows for a
more efficient use and control of the parking spaces available to customers.
. 2
• REASONABLE USE: The variance is not required to provide reasonable use
of the property. However, the proposed variance allows for an efficient use of the
property available for this development while controlling the potential effects of
height on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The location of the development
will allow for relatively safe and easy access from the adjacent residential
neighborhood thus allowing for and encouraging pedestrian access to the site
reducing the demand for vehicular access.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of the variances should not cause
detriment to adjacent properties. The site is located adjacent to First Street N.W.,
where an additional seven on-street parking spaces are proposed by the developer
in cooperation with the City. The underground parking will allow the building to be
kept to two stories on the north side of the site and not create a building out of
scale with the adjacent commercial buildings or the Kutzky Park residential
neighborhood to the east.
MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the minimum number of
parking spaces for a Business Center with the gross leasable area and
commercial uses proposed in this application.
• 6. On May 30, 2008, Appellant filed an appeal from the Planning and Zoning
Commission's decision to approve the variance. The appeal was filed with the Common Council
pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733.
7. The Common Council reviewed the application for the variance and considered
those facts and conditions described at R.C.O. §60.417. This ordinance provides that the
Council may grant a variance to the provisions of the Land Development Manual if it finds that:
A. There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or
physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to
other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district;
and
B. The variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property
involved; and
C. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
3
materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the ordinance, and will not adversely affect
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and
D. The variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property.
8. R.C.O. §60.417 also provides that extraordinary conditions or circumstances
cannot be the result of an action of the applicant or property owner in control of the property.
9. R.C.O. §60.417 also provides that a variance cannot be granted if the
development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with the development of adjacent
parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable
economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of the ordinance.
10. At the June 16th public hearing, Appellant's representative testified that:
A. There is nothing special about this property and it has no exceptional
• circumstances. It is a typical development that has typical parking requirements
that apply to all development projects. The only problem is that the proposed
project is too large for the site and requires more parking stalls than the developer
can provide. That is not an exceptional circumstance.
B. A variance is not required to allow the property owner a reasonable use of the
property. The property owner enjoys a reasonable use of the property simply by a
slight reduction in the size of the retail space and restaurant space so as to reduce
the required number of parking stalls.
C. The granting of the variances will cause detriment to the adjacent property owner
since overflow parking, caused by the lack of adequate parking spaces, will occur
on its property adjacent to the Shoppes on Second.
D. There is no need for any variance. You build the project to meet the required
number of parking stalls. This matter can be easily resolved without the granting
of the variance.
11. At the June 16th public hearing, a representative of the owner and engineering firm
for this project testified as follows:
A. There are exceptional circumstances for this site. Site access is a limitation
4
on this site. There is no access to the Site from Second Street S.W. This
is a limiting factor in terms of attracting business to the retail establishment.
B. The Second Street corridor is a unique concept. The group studying the
future development of this area is meeting to establish standards based
upon smart growth and walking, rather than driving, to retail establishments.
People will be walking to this project which means there will be a diminished
need for parking. There will also be valet parking.
C. This will be a great welcome to the City. This is an efficient and reasonable
use of the property.
12. At the June 16th public hearing, a citizen appeared and stated that the study group
for Second Street Corridor has yet to finish its business. The Council would be advised to not
set a precedent for in the first development application presented to it by granting a variance
from the Code of ordinances. He stated the Council should be careful of the precedent it may
establish.
• 13. At the June 16th public hearing, a representative of the Kutzky Park neighborhood
appeared to support the project. There is a study group currently reviewing the development
rules for the Kutzky Park Neighborhood area. He stated the development rules should be
different for downtown neighborhoods.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This appeal is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733.
2. Based upon the substantial amount of testimony received at the public hearing, the
Common Council determines that:
A. There are extraordinary or exceptional conditions that apply to this property that do
not apply to other business centers. The site is constrained by access limitations
and site dimensions. The applicant proposes one level of parking under the
proposed commercial space that substantially reduces the surface parking
required and provides a public benefit by minimizing the loss of landscape area.
The property's unique location puts it in place as the entry way to downtown
5
Rochester. It is expected to be attractive and inviting to visitors arriving in the City;
B. The variance is required in order to provide reasonable use of the property. It is a
reasonable use of the property to allow its efficient use while controlling the
potential adverse effects of height on the adjacent residential neighborhood. It is a
reasonable use of the property to provide for its relatively safe and easy access
from the adjacent residential neighborhood in order to encourage pedestrian
access and discourage the demand for vehicular access to the property. This
property can achieve those reasonable uses only through the granting of this
variance;
C. The granting of the variance should not cause detriment to adjacent properties.
The site is located adjacent to First Street N.W., where an additional seven on-
street parking spaces are proposed by the developer in cooperation with the City.
The underground parking will allow the building to be kept to two, stories on the
north side of the site and not create a building out of scale with the adjacent
commercial buildings or the Kutzky Park residential neighborhood to the east. This
site's proximity to a major employer and an established residential area will
promote walking rather than driving, which will reduce the need for parking spaces.
There has been no showing of any potential detriment to the Miracle Mile
Shopping Center as a result of the granting of this variance. No harm has been
shown should 11 vehicles seek parking at Miracle Mile Shopping Center. Indeed,
• it is possible that the additional vehicular traffic may benefit Miracle Mile Shopping
Center in terms of exposure of retail establishments to new or additional
customers; and,
D. The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship
would be a variance to the minimum number of parking spaces for a Business
Center with the gross leasable area and commercial uses proposed in this
application.
3. Based upon the substantial amount of testimony received at the public hearing, the
Common Council determines that all of the conditions listed in R.C.O. §60.417 permitting the
granting of a variance are present in this case with respect to the request for variance.
4. Based upon the substantial amount of testimony received at the public hearing, the
Common Council determines that there is no legal basis to reverse the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Commission and that such decision should be affirmed consistent with this Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
0 6
• ORDER
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733, does hereby
affirm the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Appeal #98-27 and does hereby
grant the variance requested by RP Second Street, LLC, for the reasons stated in this
document.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this Z day of Jul 008. ,
Dennis L. Hanson
President of the Rochester City Council
Approved at Rochester, Minnesota this 84L day of July, 2008.
Ardell F. Brede
• Mayor of the City of Rochester
Fo2o ne0SV a flan ce B-007
7
LxH18ic
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 6-16-08
'1 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
rAGENDA SECTION: `
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING DEPARTMENT C_'
PREPARED :
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appeal#R2008-002AP by Jordon Realty Corporation appealing the BY:
Harford
?; decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on Variance#R2008-007VAR Senior Planner
regarding a variance to the required parking for the Shoppes on Second project. The
property is located in the B-4 (General Commercial)Zoning District and is located at the
intersection of 16'h Avenue SW and 2 Street SW and south of 1 Street SW.
1:
June 11, 2008
{
Rochester Planninz and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On May 28, 2008, the Rochester City Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conditional use permit to
allow an amendment to an approved Incentive Development for Shopper on Second Street located at the corner
-} of 160' Ave., SW and 2nd St, SW. They also approved a variance request of the applicant to the number of
parking spaces required for the development. The property is zoned B-4 (General Commercial)district.
iThe City Planning and Zoning Commission approved the variance request based on the findings in the staff
k
report. The applicant plans-168 parking spaces on site while the number of parking spaces required for a
business center that includes a restaurant of this size is 179. The variance approved by the CPZC was for 11
spaces and to allow for valet parking for the restaurant.
77r
NO
03tfis�L� lo4 s
��{.�c
e�-� al
miff,
Attachments:
f 1. Copy of a Staff Report dated May 20, 2008 and attachments
2. Nrnutes of the May 28,2008,City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
r= Distribution:
x 1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
S. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 16,
2008,in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 SE 4`�Street.
0;
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by
to:
Page 10
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: May 28,2008
Mr. Svenby explained that the variance decision ma by the Commission could be appealed to
the City Council by the applicant. He stated t th Commission can either approve the
conditional use permit final plan or deny the d' onal use permit final plan.
III, � - -fl� ate• a.l a _—�`�,� e, _ � , ;�dJ.P= - -
_ S
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Type III, Phase I Amendment to approved Incentive Development IZ2007-007CUP and
Variance R2008-007VAR RP Second Street. LLC The applicant proposes a business
center on land at the intersection of 16th Avenue SW and 2nd Street SW and south of 1st
Street SW The proposal has been amended to change the land area available for the
project and removing the one level of parking and the second story of retail space has
been moved to the main level The applicant also requests a variance for the parking
standard of 62.383 D.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated May 2D, 2DOB, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Campfon stated that the applicant will provide 16B spaces on site but is required to have
13B regular spaces and 41 spaces for the restaurant. He asked if that meant the variance was
for 11 parking spaces.
Mr. Svenby responded yes.
Mr.Wallace opened the public hearing.
Representing Jordan Realty Corporation, Mr. Ken Moen (Moen Law Firm, 4D0 South Broadway,
Rochester MN 55902), addressed the Commission. Jordan Realty Corporation owns and '
operates Miracle Mile Shopping Center. He stated that they are concerned that the proposed
development does not have enough parking spaces and that individuals would need to park at
Miracle Mile. He stated that the applicant is proposing either too much retail or too large a
restaurant for their site. He stated that findings should indicate that there are no extraordinary
conditions that apply to this site as they only need to reduce some space on site. He stated that
the granting of the variance would be detrimental to adjoining commercial parking areas as
parking would overflow into their space.
Mr. Moen stated that Jordon Realty Corporation is in favor of the conditional use permit, subject
to meeting parking standards.
The applicant's representative, Jose Rivas from Yaggy Colby Associates (717 Third Ave SE,
Rochester MN 559D4), addressed the Commission. He stated that the development, in revised
form, is an improvement of the previously approved plans. He explained that it is an incentive
development process and feel that they are making the development attractive and promote
pedestrian access to the site from all four sides of the building. They are also encouraging
walkability. He showed renderings of the proposed development. He pointed out that the
revised plan now shows two access points going into the underground parking facility.
Pigpage l
Cit pig Zoni ng Commission Minutes
Searing Date: May 28,2008
Mr.Wallace asked if there is access to the frontage road.
Mr. Rivas responded no.
Ms. Moe asked where the clock tower was shown in the original plans.
Mr. Rivas responded that they are looking at having a clock tower or sculpture by the 2"d Street
entrance or by the drop off area to the east
Mr. Navitsky asked if the neighborhood supported the proposed plans.
Mr. Rivas explained that they have been working with Kutzky Paris Neighborhood Association
and that they are favorable to the plans.
Mr. Dallmann questioned what the applicant could do to fit in the 11 parking spaces needed.
Mr. Rivas explained that a retail use requires 3par that there be an additional 10 parkingking stlls to satisfy the suare
Spotsthe zoning district Having a restaurant on she
spots per 1,000 square feet of restaurant space.
Mr.Wallace asked if the applicant is still proposing to have valet parking.
Mr. Rivas responded yes.
Mr. Rivas stated that Miracle Mile employees could park in their underground parking lot.
Mr. Campion questioned if it was possible to fit 11 more parking spots in the design.
Mr. Rivas responded that to add the 11 parking spaces they would need to sacrifice other
amenities (ex. landscape from 18 percent to 10 percent). He stated that the applicant is more
concemed with how attractive the development is than not having 11 parking spaces.
Mr. McGuine explained that the concern is that a variance is needed to not require 11 parking
spaces.
Mr. Rivas explained that the current economics of development demand a certain square
footage to make it work He indicated that 2 or 3 parking spaces could be put in the design, but
more than that would change the landscape amenities.
Mr.Wallace asked if underground parking was only under the building footprint.
Mr. Rivas responded that it was a little larger than the building footprint.
Mr. Dallman asked, if some parking was'compact' parking, could all 11 spaces could be fit into
the design.
Mr. Rivas responded no.
• Ms. Moe asked what impact valet parking had on parking.
.,.E EE• ... .E E .,F 11 .E F ,.
• gas -•
— — am— .
P c a q._a�Y. j c r. s-`� —�..,s E E E 6�a�t �7 � �.,;�•^- a �a�._ -3����__���:
., yi....�� �Fy�
rTa?a Prlscl-ltF�(-fie a� E' I e 1e
„F .-t- r..,--_ '?t -r M ^-i S....Ja'_ - t'r"-- -"t s.-1•r� ie
�-1 E; P i_� e I�.f+�-�i a s a��. �•��'��h�y a.., �,o,� �r
z`y ti e5
i_��s �L, rS-r��� r cry �' .-r.i N- } cif' F�...,��-`a5'�"r ti'i"` z*•�e. �-- y'�r''
•-t..st��1.�•c-- �J. f�"�ar-,1-r7+•-T ti]!ti-r-�'�' .-*`- v-�+j., � �`��-..a L-.•r_•-F-� �-"�-'..mac
-'
� ,� r� �f+ '�.�1 f �.�^�.r - ..u,..'y�II �•� -,�. •.er_' `�,�-8, �.,'te-.-...,... �'`.r - 'r Tr ,r
�r�[�c B^.i 0 �B ��L���tG r.�a _E L, a��i•tEY C.'C C O��.E� ���aw-_� ��-���� -!r.`C•�''���g:
n r;#.
�-- 1 C�u�-•�- Fir � F? �1 _ ':u. 5 ?7 J 'L-�`c+� -4�tiC.S � -L'�"_"�
F`e �,.r�.`''�'��r-. ,F�-����i�-t-�.a5<."ZT -:.•.y°z�; o 'e fie-yr e ` �---sE '��Ce [�`i���o �e ��{'
._
rsttjh.....`iti=, =�'S 5 ta'--ba �ciky a PFl rP vt -c•' -l�r'r... � � '�; 3
�s i} R r1
Ih - -Y&. �.�r ', a-f�ri ►per .FJr Fz'' ,�a..a5sra'u}�-- elan,..rrc�F]o ;rr-
l -W V-t 1 +.Y -,rL J a�.ii
i. O ?I- rF ,r tir y ,F
4-FY.� i- - -Y'4
.-i�Cc"tw `L'a�A ,++e,��t''� a _ c.�r4�r �.-i-Y-ha
e•'� ,--�� "_`. 1 s C ;y., e 1 c [ E G' .�r__a
r L.,� a •�-
y��� �"— C `Ma"1
-°a .9`Al:l�tn, ,,�,x _Y"c .,. r '3.
I�- E 5 �•r^�'tB�-';_►��e.1JiP1 e3` �E fe Ft1b L E�3s_-ae-x°� 7ae [fit ;
WW"
oat
ii" so�-- -y3.-r �e}.1'kzt-, - Z an-
T-
09BRIEN & WOLF, L.L.P.
Iilll
TERENCE L.MAUS Law Offices THOMAS WOLF(1929-2007)
DANIEL J.HEUEL I I I I I A.R.DeBOER(Of Counsel)
JAMES R.CARLSON 206 South Broadway,Suite 611
ROBERT B.SPELHAUG Associated Bank Building
JILL 1.FRIEDERS P.O.Box 968
RAYMOND L.HANSEN Rochester,Minnesota 55903-0968
TELEP17IONE(507)289-4041 FACSIMILE(507)281-4778
(800)537-3506
October 31, 2008
HAND DELIVERED
Judy Scherr
City Clerk's Office
City Hall
201 4th Street SE,Room 135
Rochester MN 55904
Re: Variance Request No.: R2008-007VAR
Appeal No.: R2008-002AP
Applicant: RP Second Street, LLC
Rochester City Council Resolution Approved: July 8,2008
Our file: 43624-22
• Dear Ms. Scherr,
I represent RP Second Street,LLC. Please be advised that they have determined to formally
withdraw their application and request for the variance referenced above.
A copy of this letter is being provided to the Honorable Joseph F. Wieners who has been
assigned to a motion for summary judgment on November 10,2008 in Court File
No. 55-CV-08-7837,to confirm that this matter is now moot. A formal Stipulation of Dismissal
will be filed once the City Council has had the opportunity to act upon this letter.
Si erely,
I
a ' J. Heuel
DJH:plg
cc: Honorable Joseph F. Wieners(Court File No. 55-CV-08-7837)
Terry Adkins,Rochester City Attorney
Stevan Kvenvold,Rochester City Administrator
Kenneth Moen
Monte Mills
RP Second Street LLC
i
x+t 'efCdf C. kt �Cf6Ytf
May 6,2008
Rochester-Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester,MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III,Phase I AMENDMENT to approved Incentive Development R2007-007CUP
and Variance R2008-007VAR by RP Second Street,LLC to permit a business center on land at the
intersection of 16"'Ave and 2nd St. SW, south of I" St. SW(amended to reflect a change in land area,
building and parking revisions).
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced Incentive Development Request is complete and our comments follow:
1. Our records indicate that there is an existing 2" copper water service stubbed to the property south of
the intersection of l'St. and 16d'Ave. SW.This must be verified in the field at the time of
construction. If this service is found live then it must be abandoned at the main in 16d'Ave.per our
requirements. ,
2. The utility plans for the water main reconstruction in 1't St. SW have been approved
Please contact us at 507-280-1500 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
0644A plto��
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang,RPU
Mark Baker,City Public Works
Vance Swisher,Fire Prevention Bureau
RP Second Street,LLC
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities,4000 East River Road NE,Rochester,hfimesota 55906-2813 ,
telephone 507-284-1540 facsimile 507-28D-1542
a
10
• 05/06/08
Referral Comments Submitted By: GIS/E911 Dated.
Department Staff: Randy Growden
Planning File: R2008-007VAR by RP Second Street LLC
Sho es on Second
/building. Any existing E911
An official E911 Address will be required for this property will need to be validated. An address
Addressing associated with the building and property neto-date site fan will be required.
request application form will need to bee coled out and an n act either Bruce Whetstone (507-328-7145)
Address fees maybe applicable. Please
whetstone.bruce@co.olmsted.mn.us or Randy Growden (507-328-7142)
growden.randy@co.olmsted.mn.us.
•
The hand to reach for...
DATE: May 14,2008
TO: Jennifer Gamess,Planning
FROM: R.Vance Swisher, Fire Marshal
SUBJ: Type Ili. Phase I Amendment to approved Incentive Development R2007-0007CUP and
Variance R2006-007VAR RP Second Street,LLC. The applicant proposes a business
center on the land at the intersection of 161.Ave SW and 2nd Street SW and south of 1"
Street SW. The proposal has been amended to change the land area available for the
project and removing the one level of parking and the second story of retail space has
been moved to the main level. The applicant is also requests a variance for the parking
standard of 62.3B3D.
With regard to the above noted project plan,the fire department has the following requirements:
1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and
installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior
to commencing building construction.
a) The minimum fire flow for this commercial development area shall be no less than 1,500 gpm at
20 psi.
2. Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle access roadways shall be
serviceable prior to and during building construction.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front,which is
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4'
high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3'high if located on a rural mail
box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended.
c: Donn Richardson—RPU Water(e-mail only)
Mark Baker—Rochester Public Works (e-mail only)
Yaggy Colby Associates (e-mail only)
•
Referral Comments Submitted By: MnDOT Dated: 05/16/08
•
Department Staff: Jennifer Gamess
Planning File: R2007-007CUP by RP Second Street LLC
Sho es on Second
—Original Message
From: Debra Persoon-Bement[mailto:Debbie.Persoon@dotstate.mn.us]
Sent: Friday,May 16, 2008 8:08 AM
To:Khan Muhammad; Planning Referrals;Svenby Brent
Cc:Chris Moates;Greg Paulson;from MnIDOT
Subject: Forthcoming comments
en
' Mn/DOT functional group schedules and the given time to revi time to respond oe hi hde�llowing elopment review. The
1
do not correlate; Mn/DOT will need adediti to reionspond and in writ ng, once the appropriate individuals
Mn/DOT Planning Office intentions a P
have reviewed this development, prior to the May 28th City Planning and Zoning Commission
r -
e I Amendment to approve Incentive Development R2007-0D7CUP {nndo wand at
iance
Type III, Phase proposed a business center
R20OB-007VAR RP Second Street, LLC. The applicant prop
osal
the
intersection of 16th Avenue SW and 2nd Street SW and south c an Street emoving the onrePevel
has been amended to change the land area available for the project.
I
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
2122 Campus Drive SE WORKS
Rochester, MN 559D4 201 4t'Street SE Room 10B
Rochester,MN 55904-3740
507-32B-2400
FAX—507-328-2401
FROM: Mark E. Baker
5. The final details regarding the I'St SW design will be resolved with Public Works
as part of the City-Owner Contract and construction plan review and approval
process.
6. The proposed truck loading dock at the northwest corner of the building will not
be allowed as lYkDOT will be retaining controlled access to I't St SW along that
portion of the Property's frontage-
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in
the City-Owner Contract,and Development Agreement,and will include but are not
limited to(rates through 7/31/08):
• •'• Sewer Availability Charge(SAC)@$213939 per developable acre
❖ Waxer Availability Charge(WAC)@$213939 per developable acre
Storm Water Management Area Charge—TBD
❖ Existing Pedestrian Facilities Obligation/Pedestrian Ramps TBD
❖ First Seal Coax-TBD
•:• Street Signs,as determined by the City Engineer
❖ Plant Investment Fee(PIF)—TBD and collected through the Building Permit
process for individual lot development
o:\commomRoWIann1ng\PIanrdng 2DMIncentiveDev 07-07 Shops on 2nd REVISED 5-14-DB_doc
�
ROCHESTER.
•
Minnesota
Consolidated Planning Department DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
T�- Co WORKS
2122 Campus Drive SE . 201 a Streit SE Room 103
Rochester, MN 55904 Rochester,MN 559D4-3740
507-32B-24D0
FAX—507-323-2401
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 6129107 REVISED 511610E
11ie Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Incentive Development#07-07
and VAR#�7-�4 for the proposed Shops on Second development The following are Public
comments based on the current plan
Works comments on this proposal from 6-29-07,new
revisions are indicated in BOLD:
sp56Lfically Public Roadways,
1. There are inadequate on and off site public facilitirent Facilities,to accommodate the
Sanitary Sewer,Water,and Storm Water Managem •
development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the
City Council has determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said
development. Alternatively,the Ownaddeveloper may request to j Din with the City
in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development,and
Owner may enter into a development agreement,prior to final development approval,
that outlines the developer's and City`s obligations related,but not limited to:access,
stormwater management(including any obligations for off-site facilities),
transportation improvements(including any off-site improvements necessary to
accommodate this development),pedestrian facilities,contributions for existing&
future public cam,and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties
where applicable.
2. Grading&Drainage Plan approval is required prior o development,
Charge for as well increase
ny
payment of any applicable Storm Water Management
in impervious surface.
3. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required concurrent with development along
the entire frontages abutting 166'Ave SW& 11 St SW,including a connection of
pedestrian facilities on la St SW to the existing facilities along the East Frontage Rd.
The obligations regarding payment to the City for previouslyconstructed
b addressee
pedestrian
facilities along the frontage of 2nd St SW&the East Frontage
Rd will the development agreement
4. Execution of a City-Owner Contract is required prior to construction of any public
infrastructure needed to facilitate the development of this Property.
0.\CDMIADMRO\MPlanning7larming 2DDB\incenUveDev 07-07 Shops on 2nd REVISED 5 14-o6.doc
NX,
ROCHESTER
- Minnesota -
TO: Consolidated Planning Department DEPARTMENT OF PUBUG
2122 Campus Drive SE WORKS
Rochester, MN 55904 2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester,MN 55904-3740
507-326-2400
FAX—507-328-2401
FROM: Mark E. Baker
5. The final details regarding the 1'St SW design will be resolved with Public Works
as part of the City-Owner Contract and construction plan review and approval
process.
6. The proposed truck loading dock at the northwest corner of the building may
not be allowed as MnDOT may be retaining controlled access to 1° St SW along
that portion of the Property's frontage. Public Works is not opposed to the
proposed access locations provided the westerly access points that do not comply
with LDM 64.143 are for service/deliveries only.
• Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be further addressed in
the City-Owner Contract,and Development Agreement, and will include but are not
limited to(rates through 7/31/08):
❖ Sewer Availability Charge(SAC) @ $213939 per developable acre
d• Water Availability Charge(WAC) @ $213939 per developable acre
❖ Storm Water Management Area Charge—TBD
•:• Existing pedestrian Facilities Obligation/Pedestrian Ramps TBD
First Seal Coat-TBD
❖ Street Signs, as determined by the City Engineer
ee Plant Investment Fee(PIF)—TBD and collected through the Building Permit
process for individual lot development.
•
C.\Documents and SettingslplajharflLocal Setungs7emporary Internet F1es\0LK44UncentiveDev 07-07 Shops on 2nd
REVISED 5-23-06.doc
R CHESTER
0
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
2122 Campus Drive SE WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 10B
Rochester, MN 55904 Rochester,MN 55904-3740
507-328-2400
FAX—507-328-2401
FROM: Mark E. Baker
DATE: 6/29/07 REVISED 5123/08
to ment
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Incentive Deve p #07-07—
and VARg are Public
_ #07-04_for the proposed from 6 29-07 new oelmmnts basedeon the Curren Plan
Works comments on thus proposal
revisions are indicated in BOLD:
1 There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Public Roadways,
Sanitary Sewer,Water, and Storm Water Management Facilities,to accommodate the •
development of this Property. No development will be allowed to occur until the
that all required public facilities are adequate for said
City Council has determined
the Owner/developer may request to join with the City
development. Alternatively, develop we and
in making these inadequate public facilities adequatefor P nt,
Owner may enter into a development agreement,prior to final development approval,
that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related,but not limited to: access,
stormwater management(including any obligations for off-site facilities),
transportation improvements (including any off-site improvements necessary to
accommodate this development),pedestrian facilities,contributions for existing&
future public infrastructure,and the extension of public utilities to abutting properties
where applicable.
2. Grading&Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development,as well cr
payment of any applicable Storm Water Management Area Charge for any increase
in impervious surface.
3. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required concurrent with development along
the entire frontages abutting 16`h Ave SW& 1"St SW,including a connection of
St SW to the existing facilities along the East Frontage Rd.
pedestrian facilities on 1
The obligations regarding payment to the City for previously constructed pedestrian
facilities along the frontage e Rd will be addressed in
of 2 d St SW &the East Frontage,
the development agreement
4. Execution of a City-Owner Contract is required prior to construction of any public
infrastructure needed to facilitate the development of this Property. •
CADocuments and Settings%plalharflLoml SsttingATemporary Internet Fi1es\0LK4411ncentiveDev 07-07 Shops on 2nd
REVISED 5-23-08.doc
9 =
• ! � z
00
1-10
\I mg
� I3�
iiii\ � e I
h3 I■II �..■...
��Isli ■ ",MEN III il
rill
.wall.■■
WON
IN o
11 ..■nr---
auug -—
E
.,
milli
�..�\
1
:I
0
'A\
7I
F
I I =
tg I
I
I
I.
i a
y I
� I
N � ,
o I
I
1
y
Z
CZ
N
H
o
0
N IO
J 1
E
I
I
i
SHOPPES ON SECOND
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PACKAGE fE .
—7 s ROCHESTEP,MINNE50TA ier Ems`€
p e : PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
���D1 REVISED
I.tdY 7 7 7tIt�R
V ,
o n
1
,
I
1
1
1
1 I I p@ WAY
1 ;
fig --- - ---- L
1 �
tall piOSSWAIX p
L
I I
t
I
, , 1
1 1 1
OtE�AY
I ,
1 I 1 '
' I ' TWO WAY i
1
I
, 1
,
1 I'
I '
: E € SHOPPES ON SECOND3�
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PACKAGE
ROCHESiER,MINNESOTA
SED LOWER LEVEL PARKING PLAN •�- r°
RECEI.'E
MY 2 2 W REVISED
I
j >
o
, I
I 1 1
1 I
_ 1
1
1 1 i
' 1
ra 1
_ 1 1
1
I 1
I I I 1 '
N
I
I , -
O 1
, I I
1 1
I I 1
-------------
SHOPPES ON SECONDS€= Ej
E
f z f [E eEE�E�` I E
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PACKAGE
"[} s ROCHFSTEF MINNESOTA
j _ L B F�feF= Lert
p - _ p ZCrj ED MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN °•' E.E.
MAY 2 2 2008 R Fv i S F n
Y
ale
D AGGY
GoI.RY=
■�[ m ■����I��r --gip s. i��� � '� .
�■i
f ,1 / ///. / � /.ate■ r;
!
■
■ a�cr�rana�u aC�lxTi9b
:arree+u:zfyfx.
ME
..........
%/%///I �•...,,:�t;
��
■ ' � . o
��»yryry'CntO�U.tCe L'^lw nel � PEN
�
I
I
4 being in the parking structure.
(2) of these being on the surface lot and the remaining ( ) g •
our proposed surface and building parking account for 161 stalls, therefore being 20
p oremployers, we
stalls short of the 191 required. With the proximity to housing and major
are anticipating to make up for these 20 stalls with pedestrian,bus and cyclist traffic.
which this project offers the neighborhood and the Second
The following are incentives,
Street Corridor.
' Design Features:
Architectural D gn
1 Building entrancccess to neighborhood
es which promote building a
2. Using high quality building materials which are consistent with the urban fabric
as stone, cast stone,masonry, glass, decorative railings, etc.
such
3. Variation of materials and building facade to help to break down the scale of the
building to a pedestrian and neighborhood scale.
4. Green design features such as energy efficient lighting, low flow
showerheads/faucets,energy efficient mechanical systems, etc. .
Proximity to Neighborhood Facilities:
1. The building is walkable from major adjacent employment destinations and other
neighborhood amenities. .
Site Features beneficial to neighborhood: parking and make the
1, Increased landscaping around parking area helps to screen
parking lot aesthetic value increase for the neighborhood.
2. Mixed-use nature of building enhances quality of urban life.
RECEIVED
APR 3 0 2003
ROOHESTER-OLIN STED
p' . INiNG DFFARTA�ENT J
Final Building Design:
Since the owner is very conscientious of the high profile of the project, the building will
feature natural stone, masonry, and appropriate, yet distinct signage.The exterior walls of
the building will feature changes in materials height and relief to help give the walls a
pedestrian scale and aesthetic. Architectural sills, caps, planters, and pilaster details will
P the quality of the building and the
be natural stone or cast stone to further exemplify qu
desired tenants.
All faca
des of the building will be viewed from adjacent streets and have been designed
propriately. The primary face of the building will be towards the south(Second Street)
ap
and this side will feature two entries and abundant windows. This elevation will also
feature several lighted bollards that will highlight Pedestrian/vehicle separation
The east-facing facade of the building will feature a 12' wide staircase,
Ply) ortions of the wall will be covered in
landscaped planters, natural stone walls, and p
cascading plant material. These designed amenities are intended to make the building he
welcoming to the Kutzky Neighborhood as possible. The north and west facades
uali materials and windows. The north
buildings will also feature the same high-q ty and a well screened
facade of the building will feature the access for lower level parking
CEIV ED
service access.
ROCHESTER-OLMSTI
Internal Circulation Areas: e- WN1NG DEFARTME
The(1) proposed parking lot access apron meets design criteria for access
Ordinance Requirements:
The Shoppes On Second is designated as a Business Center use within B-4 zoning• W
a Type III Incentive Application, the floor area ratio is 0.51 oust over the osmaxim m
lan
allowed of 0.50). The existing site offers a green space area of 47%. Thep p P
offers a green space area of 19%, well under the 10% min. green space requirements for
B-4 zoning.
. Spaces- Of these 181 stalls, 80 will be,
The Business Center will require 181 total parking P
required for the restaurant Parking and another 101 stalls will be needed for the
commercial space.Within the 181 stalls, 6 are designated to be handicap accessible, with
�3
Access Effect:
The access off of 1" Avenue SW will drive
The proposed site has two access points.
directly into the lower level parking structure. The access apron from 16'h Avenue SW
will enter the site from the east and allow visitors to park in the surface lot or circulate
down and into the below-grade parking level.
Pedestrian Circulation:
The Shoppes on Second development will be a beneficial and unique addition to the
mixed use nature represented along the Second Street SW corridor. With its close
proximity to both the Saint Mary Campus us and the Kutzky Park Neighborhood, this
P
project will help to serve the diverse needs of both residents and visitors of the area, as
well as providing an attractive entrance into Rochester from Highway 52. With a
diversity of tenants and the correct building density, this project should merge well with
the walk able and sustainable nature of the neighborhood.
The site design on the south side of the building will feature a parking.lot for 21 cars and •
a decorative plaza space. The decorative plaza will feature colored concrete, benches,
landscaping, decorative lighting, and a clock tower or sculpture feature.
Foundation_and Site Planting:
Landscape amenities have been added to the perimeter of the existing parking lot and
adjacent to the buildin, see landscape plans C4 for further details. Landscape detailing
has been provided on the eastern edge of the building to soften the relationship to the
Kutzky Park Neighborhood_
Screening and Buffer yards:
Screening from the existing parking lot to 2nd Street SW has been provided to the public
right of way. Minimizing views to the parked cars will make for a more peaceful
pedestrian experience along the corridor, while providing shade for parked cars.
RECF ,' .D
AF R 3
RpGHESTER-DLu'TED
LING DEPARTM
y,'!`sr_F,?�^'!:^.i.�•:f�TtsS�r;-�,.��r_.i;t:ti!'.'_` � _ .� s F.
;F:�?.rr�;;:y•'�_.ti;�"5:::�'t'"y�"�'2.a"-�''S:v>.+k ^-�i:_�?�'i=;4s;..:�m.'•i�.� i.:e
�Y?�Ti �>�. ai.s'r'•' xl-L� �.iwws;S�:Cr�i:Lr:•
ON SECOND
SHOP �+�+ •,.:, YA
RO CHESTER,MINNESOTA
CENTIVE D APPLICATION s, . >x.:..::..::..:..::.::'.
1N DEVELOPMENT o.tiA`T>'s.•
EVE � = �s
GENERAL DESCRIMON
on Second will feature commercial and retail uses, restaurant
The Shoppes l 8 U U S C A P E A fl Ci11 T E C T
spaces, underground parking (within the perimeter of the building) and a very
5UR
attractive public plaza feature. - r ; "�•, 'x
The project is located between 16t' and 17`h Avenue SW and lrt and 2"a Street
SW and is zoned B-4(General Commercial).
With the amount of information being submitted at this time, we are requesting `B o i h e's t e't D f fi c
the Final Development Plan review be waived in lieu of this inclusive ? 77h-:.ira.Ave���e
-•.
submittal :sa7 zaB�sas4.
.'30Z-2B6.5D56;FaX
Criteria for Approval of Site Plan: ' -
_.DIplsnf?it1 Bff
fi51;fiQ'1.-9p40�.:.
Public Facility Design:
A proposed 6" fire and domestic service will be fed off the existing 6" m a's o e'[itg o f f i c
641 424-044:
watermain in 16th Ave. SW. The sanitary sewer service for the new building '.D a I.a.f e I d o f f i ce•
will also be tied into the existing 15" clay sanitary main in 16th Avenue SW. A .,Y. .. ... 1.
storm.sewer system will address the on-site needs of the project including catch f.,t `
basins, roof drains, manholes and storm sewer piping. It is anticipated the site
storm water will be tied into the existing 42" storm sewer in 17`h Avenue SW
(Kighway 52 Eastl!frontage Road).
RECEIVED
Geological Hazard:
APR
Not applicable `-...
ROCtiESTER-OLMSTED t=-
p!,'�NN1NG DEPARTMENT _
I e
Page
7
May 23, 2008
•
EXCERPTS FROM THE ROCHESTEE ZONING RDINANCE AND LAND
DEVELOP
ENT
Matters Under Consideration: The review of a conditional use is necessary to insure
that it will not be of detriment to and is designed to be compatible with land uses and the
area surrounding its location. It also must be consistent with the objectives and purposes
of this ordinance.
61.146 •
Standards 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.
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.
3. The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4. The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be
created by the development.
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:adjjacent properties.
6. The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing
buildings on the site,for emergency vehicles.
adequate access to the site,or to the
al change in the
7. In cases where a Phanse Ie a�roved Phas has been e plan, such such thare is a t he etvised plans will not
Phase II site plan from pp
meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
B. 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.
•
Page 6
May 23,2008
3. The development consists of separate parcels. The applicant will need to provide
evidence of ownership of Parcel "B" as labeled on the site survey and control of
the separate Lot 1,Schleif's Addition.
4. The building shall be constructed as shown on the Exterior Elevations panel of the
submittal material. The applicant agrees that no deviation to the appearance of the
building, design, exterior fagade, landscaping or streetscape will occur, from the revised
plans The applicant must identify the major wall and
window finishes on the revised exterior elevation drawing.
5. Execution of a City-Owner contract and a Development Agreement is required prior to
construction of infrastructure and permit approval.
6. Signage for this business center shall meet the requirements of Section 63.227.
7. The permittee for this development shall construct water services as required by
Rochester Public Utilities.
8. The applicant will be required to submit revised plans to the Planning Department for the
1st St. changes requested by the Public Works Department prior to scheduling the public
hearing before the City Council.
9. The proposed truck loading dock at the northwest corner of the building does not
driveway separation requirement meet the t of the zoning ordinance. The applicant
will need to obtain approval by the City Engineer for the driveway or receive
approval of a variance to the Section 64.143.
NOTE: The applicant must comply with the�dquirements of the RPUf the Fire ommentsOdated June 19a2007 and
tment as identified in
the referral comments, dated May 14, 2008,
revised comments for this application.
i
Page 5 \
May 23, 2008
3. The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
Significant landscaping has been proposed for the site and will provide adequate
protection to neighboring non-commercial properties.
4. The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be
created by the development.
NA
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.
NA
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.
NA
7. In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved,there is a substantial change in the
Phase 11 site plan from the approved Phase I site plan,such that the revised plans will not
meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
NA
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.
NA
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above findings, the Planning staff recommends approval of this Incentive
Development Preliminary Development Plan, subject to the following conditions or modifications
that were placed on Incentive Development OR2007-007CUP at the time of approval of the
original plan on April 16,2007 with changes as noted by bold type or strike-through:
1. ,
., 0144 Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required
concurrent with development along the entire frontages abutting 16"' Ave SW and
is'St SW,including a connection of pedestrian facilities on 15t St SW to the existing
facilities along the East Frontage Road. The obligations regarding payment to the
City for previously constructed pedestrian facilities along the frontage of 2"d St SW
and the East Frontage Road will be addressed in the development agreement.
2. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required for this project.
V Page
^� May 23, 2008
_ V
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT:
The granting of the:variances should not cause detriment to adjacent properties. The site is
located adjacent to 115t St., NW where an additional 7 on-street parking spaces are proposed
by the developer in cooperation with the City. The underground parking will allow the building
to be kept to 2 stories on the north side of the site and not create a building out of scale with
the adjacent commercial buildings or the Kutzky Park residential neighborhood to the east.
MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the
alleged hardship would be a variance to the minimum number of parking spaces for a
Business Center with the gross leasable area and commercial uses proposed in this
application. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial.
Findings can be made to support the variance being requested.
incentive Development.-
The first Incentive Development application was approved by the City Council on April 16, 2007.
The Final Plan review was waived by the Council. The revised application and conditional use
permit (proposed development excluded the MNDOT property) was approved by the CPZC in
July,2007.
Criteria & Findings:
The criteria to be considered when reviewing an amendment to the Incentive Development are
listed in Paragraph 61.146, which is attached for your review. This section considers the
suitability of the area and the site design. The amended plan may be approved if it is found that
the development is not detrimental to and is compatible with the land uses and surrounding area,
and satisfies all of the criteria, Staff recommends approval with the following findings:
Standards 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.
This proposed I development has been amended due to sale of the adjacent MNDOT
property such that the surface. The proposal does include the underground parking as in
the approved incentive Development and allows for ramp access from the surface parking
lot. The building access has not changed substantially in this revised submittal. The
amended proposal will not create hazards to safety or impose 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 previously approved Incentive Development found that the building and uses are
• compatible with the area and the site.
Page 3
May 23, 2008
ill, n
landscaped plaza adjacent to the surface parking and easily accessible from the 2d St.
5 P P
sidewalk,and planned focal point in the plaza;
6. substantial landscaping around the surface parking lot and on the east side of the site
facing the Kutzky Park neighborhood.
7. outdoor dining patio.
The CPZC approved variances for the previous project covering the parking requirements,
specifically valet parking and total spaces required. A variance to the parking requirement is
required for the revised plan. However,due to the changes in the floor area and mix of tenants a
new variance is required.
The applicant is providing 18%landscape area while the B-4 district requires 10% as a minimum.
A truck loading dock is proposed for the northwest,comer of the building to allow truck deliveries
to park on the lot and not in the parking lot or do
on 1 Bt St., SW. The driveway must be 75 feet from
the intersection of the Frontage Road and 1 St_, SW. The driveway for the truck loading ck•
does not most that requirement. Under 64.146 the City Engineer can grant a reduction in the
applicable spacing standard. If not granted the applicant must amend the development plan or
request a variance to the standard. MNDOT currently retains control of 1�St. SW along that
g
portion of the Property's frontage. They have indicated by phone on May 22"d that they do not
advise placing a driveway for truck loading at the location shown on the site plan.
VARIANCES:
The applicant has requested a variance for the number of parking spaces required for the
it development.
The applicant will provide 16B parking spaces on-site. The floor area, as defined in Section
63.422, for the entire space is 34,339 square feet including the restaurant. The parking
requirement of 4 spaces/10DO square feet applied to this floor area thus requires 133 spaces.
The restaurant is 4,052 square feet open to patrons and requires an additional 41 spaces (10
spaces/i OOD square feet). The total required is 179 spaces. The applicant is providing valet
parking to manage the parking needs for the restaurant. The variance needed is to the required
number of parking spaces identified in Section 62.393 D.
Section 60.417 lists the findings required to approve a variance. In this case the staff suggests
the following findings:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS:
Then: do not appear to be extraordinary or exceptional conditions that apply to this property
that do not apply to other business centers. The site is, however constrained by access
limitations and site dimensions. The applicant proposes one level of parking under the
proposed commercial space that substantially reduces the surface parking required and
minimizes the loss of landscape area. The valet parking allows for a more efficient use and
control of the parking spaces available for customers.
REASONABLE USE:
The variance is not required to provide reasonable use of the property. However, the
proposed variance allows for an efficient use of the property available for this development
while controlling the potential effects of height on the adjacent residenfia!neighborhood. The
location of the development will allow for relatively safe and easy access from the adjacent
residential neighborhood thus allowing for and encouraging pedestrian access to the site .
reducing the demand for vehicular access.
i
Page 2
May 23, 2008
Development application. Section 62.614 requires a Type 11% Phase I review of substantial
amendments to an approved Incentive Development.
The proposed development, as submitted and approved previously, and as now amended,will
consist of commercial, retail, restaurant space, a plaza,and one level of parking under the
building. Thee site changes are reflected in the table.
Site Factor March,2007 Plan June,2007 P-lan M
ay, 08 Plan
Site Area Total site 84,758 s.f. 47,934 s.f. and 10,700 in
leased
including 26,124 s.f. of s.f. of leased land— 0,700 s.f.Total
MNDOT land 58,634 s.f. , 2 s.f.
39 861 s.f. 45,500 s.f. upper level
Building Faotprint 40,578 s.f. 52,220 s.f. lower level
Total Building 131,'410 s.f. including 2 130,030 Earlkdi�n
g 2 97,720 s.f. in
1
Area levels of arkin levels of level of parkin
Gross Floor Area 36,591 s.f. (excludes 35,i57 s.f. 41,279 s.f.gross floor
vertical circulation area
shafts and storage
areas) also 1000 s.f.
outdoor area of which
383 st is service area
Floor Area Ratio 0.76 ; 0.62 with leased 0.60 with leased land 0..a51Se AR including
land 15,026 s.f. or 18%of
Landscape Area 13,561 s.f. or 16% 5,250 s.f. or 9%;
primarily located on the Reductioe Area the lot area included— the leased land
MNDOT property
5.91% landscape area
required with proposed
landscaDing
Parking Variance approved for Total required of 172 Required spaces for
valet parking and spaces; 174 spaces retail—138;41 spaces
spaces—185 spaces provided on site for the restaurant
provided; 186 required space.Total of 179
required. 168 spaces
rovided on site.
Parking will be provided on one level under the commercial spaceland in a surface
lot between SW as
the building and f d St., SW. Additional on-street parking will be provide along
shown one o site accommlodThe arng lot is landscaed in a ate an entrance for the underground(lar park ng.ion as the first proposal but
redesigns
The building elevations show a substantive change,that being the removal of the second story on
the west and of the building. The main level has been expanded due to the additional land area
obtained from the MNDOT. The building elevations show.
1. the tallest port;on of the building located adjacent TH 52 on the end of the building
opposite the residential neighborhood, although it now has one level of commercial space
not two as in the previous approvals;
2. variable roof line to fit into the variety of buildings along 2"d Street;
3. vuindows on all sides of the building including the north side facing Miracle Mile and visible
from the Kutzky Park neighborhood;
4. variety of finishes on the fagade including brick veneer, stone veneer, natural stone;
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT �o�..... gER.MINNF�
2122 Campus Drive SE,Sufte i00•Rochester,MN 559D4-4744 `�:•' R�
U
- www.co.olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning
COUNTY OF �O ,
� _ �AGRATED•ADGOST•5•
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: John Harford, Senior Planner
DATE: May 20, 2008
RE: Type III, Phase I Amendment to approved Incentive Development
R2007-007CUP and Variance R2008-007VAR RP Second Street, LLC.
The applicant proposes a business center on land at the intersection
of 16 Avenue SW and 2"d Street SW and south of 1st Street SW. The
proposal has been amended to change the land area available for the
project and removing the one level of parking and the second story
of retail space has been moved to the main level. The applicant also
requests a variance for the parking standard of 62.383 D.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: RP Second Street, LLC.
c/o Rick penz
3725 Enterprise Drive, SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Consultant• Yaggy Colby Associates
• 717 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Project Narrative
3. Amended Site Plan and Elevations
4. Referral Comments
_Development Review:
Location of Property: The and south of 1"St, SW. The erty is located at the comer o
SW. property currently isused
as a surface parking lot.
Zoning: The properties involved in the application are located in the
B-4 (General Commercial) district.
Summary of Proposed Development:
The applicant now has access to the land owned by the MN Department of Transportation that
was a part of the original application on a schedule conducive to the proposed construction
schedule of the applicant. The applicant therefore has submitted an amended Incentive
BUILDING CODE 5071328-7111 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/328-7100 • HDUSING/HRA 507/328-7150
PLANNING/ZONING 5071326-7100 - WEWSEPTIC 507/328-7111
0� FAX 507/326-7955
�� AN EQUAL OPPOMNrrY/AFFIRMATrVE ACTION EMPLOYER
1
.11t•1 ... •1 1 •11 11 •1 . 1
_���'-...,+ys�_ �.. r -�-X'`y--� `.�-s`r=�.�,,��y. r� -•_r,t� �"? �-'ST'� t�:..i�' ��t t • €+ s t�T'
to I
s�'1 r`[ t L
ON 1-Elan 1 1 52fl �M / S r p1 cl 6 3.'�sJ -•> -5$'
. � .•`t���C Sf C � � ,.i,��..�F+'-•-.71�aR"�,.L-rtF.srti` r^- �.J�i���u.
�.tiY6.3U r l 1 a Ls�' f T jNFriFF � �F�i c+ tS rr �.!" �
r-�rat,�aa•+--N --�3' +'
iiM
K..' � t--!���f; T O G C .2 L� F E c t t E C G Y ��-c-�s=r-+."'---��•—�-;"'�`�
IN
� C.,3"]
!
-R',(' < �cn u•S`1 Epp�L. p L�'�4b}.,.����'r�-• D' j`'r -"'�' -�,-'-- '�.- ..� r---�"'u-
�' -F�
L��_._.E��,--Lys^li" s��a,�r�•SY�a'"i2=Elt'��-�J'-^-"`YiT��"-",��`Y-�'1't'S'r�-`(`13 �� � -i l��
3<v ^_ :5L
.'T-vv:L `�3.-.
yam. '��-- -1- �r�-z3.7�'F n�.•� - �. °'--'�"'
Fm
• • - 1 1 1 • • •• • 1 1
1 1 • !].Itr.7m • • • • • •
• • — - •
• • •• • • •
• - • • - - • fit • • ry • • 1 - - • •
fff
F L"�7'r'--gym?,-� b �dC' A •4 A E x,yam ! .. F C n, r it-Fr's^ his
'ft �TINURE� r
,, �k'-".' ,a:'`r' � `}+ .�v
, S.' -f- a;1 r-f+ -�r-'r-i'�d- ..�.,� '�-•.L :.,,s,,,�,,;i��r k W y ,e�`-`;�N-tom-�` ;. �=
NI�r"r-�'�''�''�' �• .�•,�.^�N.c�.
,
T
� 1°a/ •�r _ n�k th..�-,]a���'s^
�c ' �;•, .z;._� r� "'•r - L---; '-''�.`���,,,,�cr-tC b.L IP iFRuy l T�L
- 25 � .rLr •..7.�-' Iq
`".t.+-,�"`-�L .�"F .+4i �'..^`�Yc �.yF�'�T{^�]�.],'-�'�Y"�t .�'� Za�•!c, 'r'•-t'J.••�-'.i�
6 p4 � n'
1 --", sir l�r�` ' •�Q� �`.
P�5�3Hi ! ? -A y 6 tiG b B t� 3LS ur i j y� �a�+ 4f1
J.'Y 'Sa �._, __S_ �e,rg"•- e--�' w' y'r?" 4c_._
Eye i i Vti l b f P.
t' t �,1,` t r tt 1_`c[e1e-TAis Tf� -�,, �_ ��- -at�- •s,
� k
fl a t E`V tl n ti,���- �a's5 a';��.�-� F L .'�-:�-�-➢ e _ e t"e� `���o,.r"�• �
E '� �`� r .
�'1 t �Cam`'F'''�5 is � P F e r 't- � �.r �•i L i n t a �F. r n f e �� � :mot �,-:°.:'
�c r s b x„e�"""`ai�i,,�r �"��'�-� �-'xr�'- '^ - '" .,.�-��^•3ew-€'� �.:�.z'� Yt-
f fir, "t �.n-ice n
!' f iu L a{c� c E•f G P VT P �„ Ff ram.• - �-.c-t.r r
f � � -10- -�`r4 I� me_
w—=
E . yONE
�'@! i
� t�e f inks �;�o s a7!• � �i'` 6 161 f t e o f r FA 6 6 ,
it��c ° PP 4!�.E.�...rs,-'c,s.. .1-�,�--�--Ls�.�...�.�.�-�-s.; 'k �'�-5• "����-a o-�.'�r... �� ���•,�.. '"��i'��'�`"^'
-� - kr
i t D.
t Rq c L�r' "O
yid 1tm.
�".` ""_ +•'..'.s..�.,.�..� �'�`•`��'�-��--.�+��-i•;--�^ '�� '�"�^'��.��i�� 'J""""� ark-�..
t Ct�•',_-� �.�,✓�c� s...Ll�-.r t-
} -
f'i'��T"''T" '�a�•--'-•hi.�,�� -c-,,..a..z- � ---'..-"":F'- ,��� m
�Y' rbSO
OF
��"' L ...t / r7 f A L I 4 tE��3J s`rt 'ter- �n�
[ �.. y--V���� 7 =a��;-TF�.,.. .-tom.r<. '[�,.�? �.�' +v°�-'--•-"' "'e y„�-�.,t�.._,'� xt���.:� u-•-i�y
hB�'
y� �h��e0�`r�."'j�.�'r+.F.L,_� ����t � ° "" eC'a''F�6 -6'€A1"�.�i�F�`o`�k�_•_��.ttt-�a�e -.0 w �-�'�.'�i
3��� C��-.�lL �I F_ ' x1t MA
n ARm
ZM
��In
tom'3�i _-T .r S-„ ""+61 �.7('•r�sf"'y C., �- -F'."-.t ,' �..�' 7�
RE
C Mug: ci-3t,-
lu
I�- ""''"-'t'r-�- -e�.-ks�r-"i^^-.. t_c�..: -'7�,� �r �`'-'ram' �--"� _-'-w"-�'�'�.,,,�� w ,.�•�a-" �e
-R--�<F��
Y x - r= t^ 3��:� .a.-f.--T.• "�"`.,,,t�^s'"^.:+'4w.+.� '-L"'-r°,C-"��-.'.'.S-4U. ±,.r- G+` ��k+ i�._r':i r
�*-r .�- �..-.4„�. f ��1 � 4.., •-ti��}'-�`'t.�`��-.�a-ri �s.j Tr"��rn'•�,'s'.lr.- � ,ti„_-n�Y"- y�'-`"'7'��."`
l_J' o _ a�tFl-F�L1Fi r1`i-'S f- T{ Qr �a� - ° ! t r r w n
re-�e�c��.
��-"t� -y,;,•'-' t '�"''�-`�� s•,.
'r-`'r- t -tt:=s7� n f ._1 f -ti-N c c fi„ � :.z �: -aY�' '' s` L� ,,, v,s✓�- �
r-?-';-E .-��.t ''vrTj �.�-•-, : , .r f� ems,+ .,.r--� � "''
�' -`�•-`-''S �. ."s, 4y�'`_f�?-3;1''
r y Y �.'�-. M1- ;�r it#�-"�s_,L�•„_Ti_ �~ �c7'�jr'" J, �'Fw1L'x.L�,.1-,� �•7�
sx_i r {-�
'^"*� 1 0 f NA�Fficlll�
1....C' _ .•:1�''y�-� f 1 t 't!- T P ,G?
-o
At^c�
tE
C�cam, -a�' •, F} L-�F L n } .r 1E:
w yc't' "-"ER .
.�,.ud�.i �y7...M.
14•3.rF
�.�T'm`�� N.E c ! r-f- t n r Cr•* � '�•-•,r 9, E t AI f - S IIE 'Tt e c ""F-*-
Bin _. �-.°uS� L°.
R.
ONS, i,� '�-•�'t,� +-s. �,�-
; .,..,. �tiw �. ...+ .. .^_xo.,��" .
r e Kr t b! F FF�"F'F"f� e o
cif-.-k,.y's'r .�.5 r �"•��-_' -rQ�1��„� �•,F, "�r.�" ySd_ t,�,-t�„'".�%,--"44",�,'G'se
I rT•`< ��,,,r +,•'�''y�...i.'•3ma...�7 •b�•,i•����--, �r N}" `�M1�.-qy--^ui.-,��ai�.� s.s �.� z