HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 353-16 - Busch.RestrictedDevelopFinalPlan.R2016-006CUP.RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Michael Busch applied for a Restricted Development Final Plan #R2016-
006CUP to allow for the development of a 29-unit three-story multi -family residential building on
three lots within the R-2 Low Density Residential District. The property is located at the corner of
the west frontage road of US 52 and Third Street S.W., with addresses 1709-1717 Third Street
S.W, Rochester, MN; and,
WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows:
Commencing at a point 149 feet West and 379 1/2 feet South of the Northeast
corner of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4), Section 3, Township 106, Range 14,
for a place of beginning, thence West a distance of 50 feet, thence North a
distance of 180 feet, thence East a distance of 50 feet, thence South a distance
of 180 feet to the place of beginning; reserving the right of travel by public
through, over, and across the South 33 feet thereof and for use thereof for a
public highway.
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the NW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 106,
Range 14, Olmsted County, Minnesota and running thence South along the East
line of said NW 1/4 a distance of 199.5 feet for place of beginning; thence West
parallel with the North line of said Section, 99 feet; thence South parallel with the
East line of said NW 1/4 a distance of 147 feet; thence Southeasterly 104.84
feet to a point in the East line of said NW 1/4 which is 179.5 feet South of the
place of beginning; thence North 179.5 feet to the place of beginning.
Commencing at a point 6 rods West and 379 1/2 feet South of the NE corner of
the NW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 106, Range 14, for a place of beginning,
thence 50 feet West, thence 180 feet North, thence 50 feet East and thence 180
feet South to the place of beginning, Olmsted County, Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, since the property is zoned within the R-2 (Low Density Residential)
Zoning District and a three-story, 29-unit apartment building is not listed as a permitted use
within that zoning district, the Applicant is proposing the development through the restricted
development process; and,
WHEREAS, this application requires a two-step review process consisting of a preliminary
plan and a final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows the Type III, Phase II procedure with a
1
hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council. The final plan phase
is a Type III, Phase III procedure with a hearing before the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.706 states the Council must approve a restricted development final
plan if it finds the development satisfies the criteria listed in R.C.O. §62.708, subd. 3 or a
modification for any unmet criteria has been granted as provided in R.C.O. §62.712; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.712 states the Council may waive the need to satisfy certain
approval criteria if it finds-
1. The applicant has demonstrated that the plan as submitted adequately
compensates for failing to address the criterion in question; and,
2. The strict application of any provision would result in exceptional practical
difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such
property, provided the modification may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purposes
of this ordinance or the policies of the Land Use Plan; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments), subd. 3 provides the
relevant criteria for the review of this application; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department applied the criteria found at R.C.O. §62.708, subd. 3
(Final Type III Development Plan) to this application and prepared the following findings of fact:
A. Public Facility Design: The Final Plan satisfies requirements for
public utilities and infrastructure. The development will be required
to complete pedestrian facilities onsite and adjacent to the site
within the public ROW. RPU has comments in their referral and the
applicant must comply prior to issuance of building permits.
B. Geologic Hazards: No known geologic hazards exist on the site.
C. Access Effect: The Final Plan complies. The requirement for a
traffic impact study was waived by the Engineer. The plan identifies
access from 3rd Street SW that aligns with 18t" Avenue SW. The
access meets LDM requirements for access management (distance
from driveways and intersections).
D. Pedestrian Circulation: The site plan identifies pedestrian
connections to the public sidewalk at three locations. The applicant
will have to secure MnDOT approval to connect to the sidewalk
along the frontage road. Pedestrians can move safely within and
2
across the site and adjacent properties. The applicant has modified
the Final Site plan to draw attention to the entrances.
E. Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscaping plan has been
submitted that screens the commercial uses to the north and
screens the proposed multi -family use to properties on the west
and south. The applicant cannot install plantings off their property
without proper permission. The plantings identified within MnDOT's
property should be considered hypothetical and a condition of
approval requires MnDOT's and City approval prior to installation
of plantings on MnDOT's property.
F. Site Status: The site is ready for improvements. The applicant has
submitted a final plat to combine the parcels that is going through
the review process. Completion of the final plat will be required
prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Screening and Bufferyards: The landscaping plan identifies
screening and bufferyards which will adequately buffer and screen
the use from the single family dwelling to the west and commercial
properties to the north.
H. Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent
with the preliminary plan approval. The applicant has modified the
entrances to enhance their visibility and access.
Internal Circulation Areas: Off-street parking areas comply
with LDM standards. The proposal meets the LDM requirements for
number of parking spaces.
J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposal complies with the
requirements of the LDM except setbacks and height as noted in
the zoning analysis table. The applicant requests modifications to
ordinance requirements per Section 62.712. If the Council concurs
with the findings below for the four modifications, the project may
proceed and would comply with ordinance requirements.
K. Non -vehicular and Alternate Travel Modes: The proposal
includes pedestrian oriented -space and convenient pedestrian
access to the building entrances from public sidewalks. The
proposal also includes bike racks interior in the lower -level garage
and exterior, in front of the building. Transit access is nearby
3
located on 2nd Street SW. The building is also walkable to
commercial and employment locations. Two parks are within
walking distance to the northwest, Zumbro West Park and Cascade
Lake Park and trail system; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department's July 7, 2016, staff report states that, if the City
supports the application, Planning Department staff would recommend the following conditions of
approval be imposed-
1. The Final Plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of building
permits/zoning certificates for the site.
2. Strike the Bufferyard `D' standard on the Final Plan and instead state that
bufferyard requirements are those of the approved landscaping plan. The
landscaping plan is the one that has the electronic received stamp, `by
Karl Burhop, 3.40 pm, July 7, 2016'. This is the landscaping plan included
in the Commission's packet. The landscaping plan should be modified per
condition #3.
3. On the site and landscaping plans, the six foot fence should be relocated
so that the fence is between the multi -family use and plantings on those
areas adjacent to the west side residential use. The fence should be on
the `heavier' use side and plantings on the `lower' use side.
4. Though the comparable project is an incentive development within the R-
3 zoning district, the project is within the R-2 district. Therefore, four
boulevard trees will be required along the City's ROW.
5. Any proposed private features within the TH 52 West Frontage Road
ROW will require City and/or MnDOT approval. The proposed
landscaping within the ROW should be viewed as conceptual until
approved by the road authority. Any landscaping or construction currently
shown in the MnDOT controlled ROW along the east side of the property
is subject to approval from the appropriate representatives at MnDOT and
the City of Rochester Public Works. Approval is required in writing prior to
issuance of building permits:
A. A Miscellaneous Work Permit Application by the City is needed for
trees in the ROW and will be considered an addendum to MnDOT
Permit 6A-US-2008-21550, TH52 Corridor Landscaping.
B. A sidewalk connection will require a MnDOT Access Permit by the
Developer with existing access control at the ROW.
21
6. A MnDOT Drainage Permit will be required by the Developer for the
relocated storm sewer ditch and culvert with the ROW, prior to issuance
of building permits.
7. A photometric plan satisfying the zoning ordinance requirement for multi-
family in the R-2 shall be submitted prior to approval of building
permits/zoning certificates for the site.
8. The plan should be updated to identify the size and material of the water
service. The connection to the existing water main must be shown as a
tapping sleeve and valve.
9. Keep the boulevard trees a minimum of 10' from the existing public water
main that is located with the 17t" Avenue SW ROW (as shown on the
plan; and,
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2016, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on this restricted development final plan, reviewed the application according to the
requirements of R.C.O. §62.708, and recommended approval based upon Planning Department
staffs recommended findings of fact subject to eight of the nine conditions of approval described
above (condition #7 should be deleted); and,
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2016, the Common Council held a public hearing on the
restricted development final plan request and permitted all interested persons to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the August 1st
public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning Commission's recommended
findings of fact and eight conditions of approval as described above; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
submitted at the August 1st public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant
satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 subject to the eight conditions of approval recommended by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester
that the Restricted Development Final Plan #R2016-006CUP requested by Michael Busch is in all
things approved subject to the eight conditions of approval as stated herein (conditions #1 - #6,
#8, and #9).
5
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
DAY OF , 2016.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2016.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone 15\RestDevFi na1.1606
m