HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 593-03 RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Romano's Macaroni Grill requests an amendment to the Final Plan for the
Planned Unit Development which covers the Apache Mall Shopping Center to allow for the
construction of a 6,820 square foot free-standing restaurant in the location of the former
Montgomery Wards Auto Store. The property is located north of 16th Street S.W., west of
Apache Drive S.W., and east of Highway 52; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission,at its October 22, 2003, meeting,
analyzed the proposed amendment according to the ordinance regulations applicable to
conditional use permits and restricted developments; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission made findings of fact for each of the criteria for each of the
ordinance regulations; and,
WHEREAS,`the criteria for a conditional use permit, as listed in R.C.O. §61.146, and the
relevant finding of fact made by the Commission are as follows:
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 provisions for vehicle loading, unloading, vehicular
and pedestrian circulation should not create hazards.
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 the a one story restaurant building will
be not 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 should provide adequate
• protection to neighboring properties from detrimental
features.
• 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage
problems that may be created by the development.
This proposal replaces impervious surface with impervious
surface and landscaped areas and is not expected to
generate increased run off or drainage problems.
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.
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 City
previously approved calculating the parking ratio for the
Mall at 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. At this ratio,
adequate parking will be provided. Parking stall length
shown on the Plan should be at 17' not 18' as labeled, and
drive isle widths should be at 25.. not 24'as labeled; and,
WHEREAS, the criteria for a restricted development, as listed in R.C.O. §62.708, and the
relevant finding of fact made by the Commission are as follows:
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. There do not appear to be any
capacity concerns related to the public facilities.
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; The scale of
the proposed expansion is not of a magnitude to require
the preparation of a traffic impact study. The addition is
not expected to impact local residential streets.
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 scale of the proposed expansion is not of a
magnitude to require the preparation of a traffic impact
study.
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 sitingof the structure substantial) block vistas
Y
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 B-4 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.
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. The proposed amendment includes a
detailed landscaping plan that includes foundation
plantings around the building as well as trees within the
parking areas and appears to meet or exceed
requirement of the B-4 District.
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 City previously approved
calculating the parking ratio for the Mall at 4.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet. At this ratio, adequate parking
will be provided. Parking stall length shown on the Plan
• should be at 17.. not 18' as labeled, and drive isle widths
should be at 25; not 24- as labeled.
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. The proposed use is
compatible with the existing uses on the property and
the surrounding properties.
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. Any
modifications to the public water system would need to
be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to
construction. '
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 accelerating 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. Existing access to the Mall
will be utilized to access the restaurant. There should
not be any impact to local residential streets.
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.
• 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. The project includes a detailed
landscaping plan which should enhance the appearance
of the surrounding area.
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. The outdoor trash
storage area will be screened from view.
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. Parking lot modifications adjacent to the
building are proposed with this project. Dimensions
shown on the Plan are not consistent with the
requirements of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual. Parking stall length shown
on the Plan should be at 17; not 18' as labeled, and
drive isle widths should be at 25; not 24'as labeled.
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 development is consistent with the
underlying zoning district B-4 with the exception of the
number parking stalls being provided; and,
WHEREAS, based upon its findings of fact for each of the applicable ordinance
regulations, the Commission determined that the proposed amendment is appropriate and
complies with the standards provided by Sections 61.146 and 62.708 of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances, subject to the following conditions:
1. Parking lot modifications adjacent to the building are proposed with this
project. Dimensions shown on the Plan are not consistent with the
requirements of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual. Parking stall length shown on the Plan should be at 17', not 18'
as labeled, and drive isle widths should be at 25', not 24' as labeled.
2. 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.
3. Grading Plan approval is required, prior to construction.
WHEREAS, the Common Council concurs with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
findings of fact and recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Common Council of the City of Rochester
that Final Plan for Planned Unit Development covering the Apache Mall Shopping Center is
amended to allow for the construction of a 6,820 square foot free-standing restaurant in the
�ocation of the former Montgomery Wards Auto Store.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval is subject to the above-described three
conditions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS /N DAY OF �tt�� , 2003.
�IDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: VX,J
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF � ����- , 2003.
r =a.
m
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(8,eal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
•
ZoneMoo\PUD.amendmal1.2