Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 426-16 (a) - ALATUS.RestrictedDevelopPrelimPlanR2016-022CUP.RESOLUTION WHEREAS, ALATUS, LLC, applied for a Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #R2016-022CUP. The Applicant proposes to develop a 13-story building with 347 residential units, 21,000 square feet of retail/office space, and a 560-space parking facility. The property is located along Second Street S.W., between 14t" Avenue S.W., and 15t" Avenue S.W.; and, WHEREAS, the property is described on the attachment; and, WHEREAS, since the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family), PUD — Planned Unit Development, and B-1 (Restricted Commercial District), and since the proposed mix of intensity and density of development is not permitted under these zoning designations, the Applicant is proposing the development through the restricted development process; and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.700 recognizes that certain land uses which are generally not allowed within a given zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning regulations;" and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.700 further states that the ordinances providing for restricted developments encourage innovation and experimentation in the development of land that would otherwise not be possible under the established zoning district regulations; 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 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 preliminary plan if it finds the development satisfies the criteria listed in R.C.O. §62.708, subd. 2 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 1 of this ordinance or the policies of the Land Use Plan; and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments), subd. 2 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. 2 (Preliminary Type III Development Plan) to this application and prepared the following findings of fact: A. Capacity of Public Facilities: City sewer and water and other utilities are available to serve the site. An adequately sized water service must be shown on the Final Plan. Stormwater sewer capacity will be evaluated during the development of the Grading and Stormwater Management Plan approval process. Low impact stormwater design principles will be implemented to attenuate stormwater discharge to less that pre -development rates. B. Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the property. There are no slopes and the parcel is flat. The site has no known sinkholes and there are no hydric or floodplain soils. C. Natural Features: The site is has some change in elevation on the site, with elevations varying from approximately 1020-1032. The site is developed with multiple structures and does not possess substantial natural features. The applicant states they will step the building to match existing grades on the site. D. Residential Traffic Impact: Entrance and Exit from the site will be from a 14t" Avenue SW and 15t" Avenue SW. The project proposes on and off site roadway improvements, which are recommended to be completed prior to the opening of the project. The proposed project abuts residential property south. A revised Traffic Impact Report submitted by the applicant is under review by the City of Rochester Transportation Professionals. The parking facility and site access have been design to minimize impacts to residential streets. Access to the parking facility will have entrances from 14t" Avenue SW and 15t" Avenue SW. The project proposes to limit traffic from existing south from the parking facility along 15t" Avenue SW by redesigning the 15t" Avenue to not allow traffic to flow south. The traffic table indicates 15t" Avenue south of the `Choker' has a total volume 703 trips per day. 2 Section 64.127 of the Land Development Manual indicates that a local street should not exceed 1,000 average daily trips. The traffic report indicates that "The proposed development is expected to meet the requirements of Service Standard # 4 Residential Street Impact, south of the proposed garage access where the most impact to the existing residents would occur". The commercial business associated with the project are expected to have vehicular access from Second Street SW. The project is anticipated to generate minimal truck traffic. The truck traffic that does service the site will enter and exit the site along 15t" Avenue SW. The traffic analysis indicates that the trip generation of the development is anticipated to be low during the evening and nighttime hours. The parking facility and modifications to the street network are designed to discourage traffic on adjacent residential streets. The proposed modification are limited to the current development configuration, future development of the Third Street SW as outlined in the Official Map 19 layout, will require modifications to the infrastructure proposed by the developer to limit traffic flow south on 15t" Street SW. E. Traffic Generation Impact: The traffic report under review indicates a number of transportation improvements required and recommended prior to the opening of the project, which are highlighted below: ■ A dedicated east bound right turn lane is proposed for Second Street SW at 14t" Avenue SW. This proposed configuration may require additional ROW from the development. ■ The modification of lane configurations within the MnDOT controlled areas associated with Trunk Highway 52 will require coordination and co-operation with MnDOT. The applicant does not indicate if these improvements are acceptable to MnDOT. ■ Signal optimization study along Second Street S.W. ■ The project proposes to construct a traffic signal at the intersection of 15t" Avenue SW and Second Street SW. 3 The Traffic Impact Report is under review by the City. The applicant will need to coordinate the comments developed in review and analysis of the information from the City to update the Traffic Impact Report. A final Traffic Impact Report will need to be approved by the City prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Final Restricted Development Plan. F. Height Impacts: The proposed building height is 168 feet to the penthouse The R-4 and CDC-RES standards indicate there is no Maximum Height associated with the development. The Second Street Corridor Study indicates a maximum number of floors at six levels above ground. The proposed project has a 13 floor residential tower. The project is bounded by public streets on the north, east and west. The expected shadow pattern is anticipated to fall into the public ROW and will not have a dramatic effect on adjacent properties. A shadow study will need to be submitted with the final plan. The existing conditions of the site, including existing topography and existing buildings, limit views from adjacent residential dwellings. It is not anticipated that the proposed structure would change the views or vistas of nearby residential dwellings. G. Setbacks: The applicant is proposing varied setbacks from the standards outlined in the R-4 or CDC Residential Standards. The development proposes commercial development along Second Street SW that has no setback and a 13 story residential tower starting on the third level which varies its setback from 0 to 27 feet. The setbacks along 14t" Avenue vary from 14 to 53 feet. The setbacks along 15t" Avenue SW are as small as four foot for the residential units on the west side of the parking facility. The setback along the south boundary adjacent to the three-story walk up units is proposed at 19.2 feet with a five-foot pedestrian walkway between the building and property line. The proposed setback from the parking facility to the new dedicated Alley ROW is identified as 16 feet. 21 The three-story townhome residential units that have the primary access on to the alley identify a setback of 27 -32 feet. H. Internal Site Design: The site appears to focus the highest intensity uses along Second Street SW and allow the intensity of uses to be reduced as you move toward the residential neighborhood. The proposed internal configuration of the parking facility provides a buffering effect to the adjacent properties. The project proposes a variety of common shared open spaces including deck spaces to view downtown and an amenity courtyard. All of the residential units have an internal access to the parking facility. The townhome units have front yards and porches. Along Second Street SW the project will provide public seating, bike racks, benches to activate the pedestrian realm adjacent to the ground level retail. Screening and Buffering: The applicant has provided a conceptual landscape plan and indicates the project will have 9.9% landscape area. The R-4 & CDC -Residential standards indicate a 20% requirement. The project provides screening of the parking facility by placement of residential units in strategic locations. The layout of the building components locate the townhouse units as a buffer between the higher density residential tower located near Second Street SW. The areas of the building that are directly adjacent to the existing residential properties appear provide and appropriate area to allow for buffering or screening. The area adjacent to 14t" Avenue proposes a 19.2 foot setback with a five-foot sidewalk between the building and the property line. This configuration will leave room for foundation plantings and canopy trees which will assist to soften the transition between the three-story townhome units and the nearby residential property. The alley area adjacent to 15t" avenue proposes a ten -foot area which will leave room for foundation plantings and canopy trees between the alley and the southern building face of the parking facility. The applicant will need to provide a detailed landscape plan showing the canopy trees and foundation plantings are incorporated into the site. J. Ordinance Requirements: Required off-street parking for the 5 development has been identified. Spillover parking can be accommodated within the parking facility. The project provides recreation spaces in excess of the requirement but the landscape areas provided is under the requirements identified in the R-4 or CDC -Residential Standards, see the appendix for information on Zoning Analysis and Comparable Development Standards. K. General Compatibility: The proposed project provides a unique entry point or gateway into Rochester from TH 52 which is identified in DMC Development Plan and the Second Street Corridor Framework Plan. The project is proposed as 13 stories which will be one of the tallest structures in the area and will exceed the heights proposed in the Second Street Corridor Study and Draft DMC District Design Guidelines. The project focuses the intensive uses along Second Street SW but the traffic from the parking facility will be connected directly to existing residential roadways. The project identifies how the proposed design elements will limit the traffic from entering the residential neighborhood once completed. The future alignment identified in the Official Roadway Map 19 will require the modifications of the proposed remedies. L. Non -Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: The project is located next to a busy public transit route along Second Street SW. The plan indicates public sidewalks and private walkway that will provide direct and covenant access to the building as a resident or a commercial user. The applicant's narrative indicates that one bicycle storage location will be provided for each residential unit. The proposed bicycle storage will be contained within the parking facility. The plans provided do not identify the location of the designated bike parking facilities for the residential tenants. The applicant will need to provide additional detail on the location of bicycle parking facilities that are available to all residential tenants in the building; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department's August 24, 2016, staff report states that, based upon its proposed findings of fact, Planning Department staff would recommend Preliminary Plan approval of the Restricted Development Plan — Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a certificate of survey for the project boundary, included in the final plan submittal. CI 2. The will be required to be re -platted prior to the issuance of the building permits. 3. The Final Plan submittal shall be modified to include the following: A. Label width of north south alley between 14t" and 15t" Avenue SW on C1.1 Civil Site Plan. B. Revise label 15' Alley dedication to 20' Alley dedication on L1.1 Streetscape Plan. C. Remove label proposed service access from Streetscape Plan L1.1. D. Revise Primary Building Unit Mix Table on C1.1 Civil Site Plan - 2 bedroom Unit quantity total should read 109 units, not 105 units. E. Revise proposed parking calculation to document total parking stalls provided. The table currently totals 523 spaces the actual calculation result is 529 units, the narrative documents provided by the applicant identifies 560 parking spaces. F. Modify Cover letter 5) Other information a) Grading and Drainage Plan — Grading and Drainage plan has not be provided with this submission. G. Modify Cover letter 5) Other information e) Incentive Development Bonus Density — provided in separate cover letter dated August 15t" 2016. H. Modify Boulevard Tree calculation ROW length is identified incorrectly on Sheet L1.1 Streetscape Plan actual length is 1193.8 feet as provided on Sheet C1.1 Civil Site Plan. Label location and quantity of Bike Parking inside parking facility. J. Exterior Storage standards are required to be added to the zoning tables provided in the site plan. K. Fire hydrant locations must be shown on the final plan. 4. The Final Plan submittal shall include the following: A. A detailed lighting and photometric plan; B. A detailed landscape plan which includes information on project landscaping and boulevard trees; C. A detailed materials plan for the exterior of the building, streetscape amenities, bike racks, and benches; D. A detailed signage plan for the project shall include the: commercial areas identified along 2nd Street SW, residential entrances, and parking facility. E. A shadow study that documents how the project will affect the surrounding properties. 5. Document how the parking facility will be managed or controlled to support the varied users of the parking facility, Commercial, Office, and Residential Tenants, document how the parking spaces will be split between the uses. 6. The parking facility will not contain any contract parking for users not associated with the uses in the building. 7. Applicant shall provide information to show the proposed traffic `Choker' can be designed to remain in place when the Official Map 19 improvements are completed in the future. 8. Completion of a Traffic Impact Report and implementation of mitigation recommendations is required for this project. Applicant shall submit a final traffic report that is approved by the City Engineer and recommended to the City Council for approval, prior to or concurrent with the final plan. 9. The applicant will need to provide documentation demonstrating proposed building height does not conflict with the helicopter flights associated with the Saint Marys Hospital. 10. All existing water services to the property must be abandoned properly per the requirements of Rochester Public Utilities. 11. The water main that currently exists in 15t" Avenue SW will need to be replaced or relocated as part of the future roadway realignment and redevelopment of the property west of this development. 12. There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Public Roadways, Sanitary Sewer, Water, Parking and Storm Water Management Facilities, existing to accommodate the re- 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 re -development. Alternatively, the developer may request to join with the City in making these inadequate public facilities adequate for this development, and may enter into a development agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal (or final development approval if there is no plat), that outlines the developer's and City's obligations related, but not limited to: access, Right -of -Way dedication, access to abutting properties, stormwater management (including any obligations for on or off -site facilities), transportation improvements (including obligations related to existing perimeter and proposed new roadways and alleys), pedestrian facilities & connections, financial obligations related to development charges and improvements to public infrastructure. 13. There is an existing Maintenance Agreement in place for private on -site storm water management facilities within Lot 6 Block 1 Flathers Addition. The applicant will need to obtain a release of this agreement from the City as part of the final plan submittals. 14. No service vehicle traffic from this project will be allowed within the alley. The applicant will need to demonstrate the turning radius proposed for the alley will facilitate vehicle movements without impacting the abutting private property. Details of the design and use of the alley / pedestrian connection can be addressed in the Development Agreement. 15. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required for any public improvements required for this proposed redevelopment; and, 16. Prior to the final plan the applicant shall have the needed petitions to vacate the public alley and public ROW in a form to initiate the vacation process; and, WHEREAS, on August 24, 2016, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this restricted development preliminary plan and reviewed the application according to the requirements of R.C.O. §62.708. At its August 24t" meeting, the Commission referred the matter to the Common Council without recommendation; and, WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council as a public hearing on September 19, 2016. At the September 19t" public hearing, the Common Council permitted all interested persons to testify and give testimony on the restricted development preliminary plan request. The Council also considered written submissions that were to sent to the Council's a attention; and, WHEREAS, at the September 19t" public hearing, which lasted in excess of two hours, numerous persons appeared and testified. Additionally, the Council considered written submissions sent to the Council's attention. The testimony is summarized as follows: A. Applicant's representatives agreed with the Planning Department's recommended findings of fact as well as its recommended approval of the application. B. Numerous neighbors in the area of the proposed development stated their opposition to the proposed development for the following reasons: (1) Height of the proposed development (13 stories high) is incompatible with the existing one- and two-story residential homes adjacent to the proposed development. The proposed development would cast a shadow upon many of the adjacent residential homes and would eliminate the homeowners' current view; (2) Appearance and design of the proposed development does not reflect the existing appearance and design of the existing neighborhood; (3) The traffic that will be generated by the proposed development will overwhelm the traffic capacity of Second Street and Sixth Street; and (4) Although the proposed development is attractive and beneficial for City housing needs, it is too big and too dense for this location. It belongs in the downtown core. C. Several neighbors in the area of the proposed development stated their support of the proposed development. They indicated that houses along 14t" Avenue have fallen in disrepair. The proposed development will consist of building architecturally unique townhomes that fits with the old St. Mary's architecture, and which are both appealing and serve a need in the area. The townhomes will provided a good transition from the apartment building to the single family homes. Neighbors would prefer an apartment building at this location rather than another hotel that looks like any other hotel. WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence submitted at the September 19t" public hearing, the Common Council determined that the Planning Department's recommended findings of fact are most persuasive and should be adopted. The height of the proposed development is actually lower than the adjacent St. Marys Hospital helipad. It is anticipated that many who will live in the proposed development will not use their vehicles on a daily basis choosing to walk to work. This will reduce the proposed development's traffic impact on Second and Sixth Streets. The applicant has engaged in good faith efforts to consult with many of the adjacent single family neighbors to create a project that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Based upon those findings of fact, the Applicant satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 subject to the Planning Department's recommended 16 10 conditions of approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #R2016-022CUP is in all things approved subject to the 16 conditions as described above. 11 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\RestDevPre.1622 12 Legal Description Summary Tract A and D: 1406 Second Street Associates, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company Address:1406 2nd Street Southwest, Rochester Minnesota 55902 - TR A r-r A o Parcel 1: ■ The North 131 feet of Outlot 1, Hammer & Fannings Addition to the City of Rochester, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) • Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.009043 (Tract A: Parcel 1) o Parcel 2: ■ Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, Flathers Addition to Rochester Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) • Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.007626 (Tract A: Parcel 2 - Lot 6) • Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.007627 (Tract A: Parcel 2 - Lot 7) • Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.007628 (Tract A: Parcel 2 - Lot 8) o Parcel3: ■ Lot One (1), Block One (1), Blondell's First Subdivision, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) • Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.002495 (Tract A: Parcel 3) TR A r-r n o Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 1, Flathers Addition to Rochester Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) ■ Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.007629 (Tract D, Lot 9) ■ Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.007630 (Tract D, Lot 10) ■ Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.007631 (Tract D, Lot 11) ■ Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.007632 (Tract D, Lot 12) Tract B: Susan Poulson Address: 22415`" Avenue Southwest, Rochester Minnesota 55902 - Lot One (1), Block Two (2), Hammer and Fanning's Addition to the City of Rochester, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) o Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.009012 (Tract B) Tract C: Theodore J. Hanson and Lindsey Hanson, husband and wife as joint tenants Address: 21615`" Avenue Southwest, Rochester Minnesota 55902 The North 50 feet of the South 100 feet of Outlot 1, Hammer and Fanning's Addition to the City of Rochester, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) o Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.009042 (Tract C) Tract E: Moira A. Waldron and Gregory L. Waldron, as joint tenants Address: 22015t" Avenue Southwest, Rochester Minnesota 55902 - The South 50 feet of Outlot 1 in Hammer and Fanning's Addition to the City of Rochester, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) o Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.009044 (Tract E) Tract F: Leroy S. Quam and Margaret E. Quam, husband and wife, as joint tenants Address: 30415t" Avenue Southwest, Rochester Minnesota 55902 - Lot Two (2), Block Two (2), Hammer and Fanning's Addition to the City of Rochester, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) o Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.009013 (Tract F) Tract G: Gordon M. Tannahill and Martina B. Tannahill, husband and wife, as joint tenants Address: 30615t" Avenue Southwest, Rochester Minnesota 55902 - Lot 3, Block 2, Hammer and Fanning's Addition to the City of Rochester, according to the recorded plat thereof, Olmsted County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) o Tax Parcel No. 64.03.12.009014 (Tract G)