HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 065-17 - RestrictDevelopPrelimPlan#R2016-040CUP
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Kellie Mueller applied for a Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #R2016-
040CUP. The Applicant proposes to develop an eight-unit multi-family building. The property is
located at the southwest corner of Tenth Street N.W., and Fourth Avenue N.W.; and,
WHEREAS, the property is described as follows:
Section 35, Township 107, Range 14, Northern Addition. Lot 4, Block 5, North 20
feet of Lot 4, and all of Lot 5, Block 5.
Containing in all, 0.25 acres, more or less; and,
WHEREAS, since the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) 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,
1
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. 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 management
will be evaluated during the development of the Grading and
Stormwater Management Plan.
B. Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the
property. The site has no known sinkholes and there are no hydric
or floodplain soils.
C. Natural Features: The site elevations varies from approximately
th
998 near 4 Avenue NW to 988 near the alley along the western
boundary of the site The project design has been directly
influenced by the existing site topography. The applicant is
proposing to step the building to allow the ‘Two-Level’ structure to
keep the relative scale of the project at two stories on all four sides.
D. Residential Traffic Impact: The project is proposing to take
access from the alley, similar to how all of the residential homes in
the neighborhood take access from the alley. The projects
th
connection to 4 Avenue NW, which is designate a major urban
arterial in the ROCOG 2040 plan, provides for any vehicular traffic
needs generated by this development and the surrounding
neighborhood.
The project is a residential housing development with very limited
truck traffic anticipated.
The use of the site will be residential, similar to the existing use of
2
the site. There is not an anticipated increase in evening or
nighttime traffic associated with this development.
E. Traffic Generation Impact: There is no anticipated impact to
th
the capacity of adjacent streets. 4 Avenue NW is designate a
major urban arterial in the ROCOG 2040 plan and is designed and
panned to handle additional capacity beyond what is being
proposed by this development. The applicant is not proposing
thth
additional access points on to 10 Street NW or 4 Avenue NW.
The applicant was granted a waiver of the need to complete a
traffic impact study by the City of Rochester Public Works
Department.
F. Height Impacts: The proposed height of the project is
measured at 28’-8” the existing zoning of the site would allow for a
maximum height of 35 feet, the project is not anticipated to have an
impact due to the height of the structure.
The proposed height of the building is consistent with the allowable
heights in the LDM and consistent with the neighboring residential
homes, it is not anticipated that this building will substantially block
vistas for adjacent residential dwellings.
G. Setbacks: The proposed building is intentionally sited close the
thth
intersection of 10 Street NW and 4 Avenue NW. The building
setbacks are intended to be consistent with other residential
thth
homes in the neighborhood along 10 Street NW and 4 Avenue
NW. The existing residential homes in this neighborhood are
currently non-conforming with the R-1Zoning ordinance as the
majority of the neighborhood was developed prior to the adoption
of the R-1 Zoning codes that are in place today.
H. Internal Site Design: The internal site design of the site
appears to be designed to take advantage of the topography by
utilizing this as a way to accent the building into multiple parts
insisted of one large unit. The individual entrances with direct
access to the public sidewalks and architectural ques create the
feeling of individual units that are part of a townhouse or rowhouse
not a residential complex.
I. Screening and Buffering: The applicant is proposing an
ornamental fence to screen the proposed parking form the adjacent
3
properties. The fence will provide a visual screen as well as limit
the impact of headlights on the adjacent residential homes. The
trash enclosures is proposed adjacent to the building allowing it to
be a part of the building mass and architecture and not stand out in
the corner of the rear yard. The applicant will need to provide a
detailed landscape plan that incorporates the required bufferyards
and additional plantings to provide both accents and buffering for
the project.
J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development provide one
parking space per unit and the surrounding public streets allow on
street parking which can accommodate spillover parking as needed
by the tenants of the project. The Zoning Analysis and
Comparable Development Table identifies a number of deficiencies
as it relates to the zoning ordinance. The commission will need to
find that the modifications to the ordinances are allowable under
the provisions of the LDM 62.712 Modifications.
K. General Compatibility: The proposed development is providing
a residential housing style that is proposes to be compatible with
the surrounding residential homes. The use of materials,
architectural styles and facades that identify individual entrances
are reflective of the neighborhood. The project promotes the
pedestrian friendly nature of the existing residential neighborhood
with stoops and porches and sidewalk connections to each unit’s
entry. The location of the project provides the future tenants with
convenient access to public parks & trails, schools, daycare
facilities and retail options within a short walking distance.
L. Non-Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: The project
proposed to incorporate pedestrian oriented spaces, individual
pedestrian access to the building entrances. The project is situated
to allow tenants to walk to the nearby bus transit stops or use the
existing trail and sidewalk system to connect to their destination by
non-vehicular modes of travel. The applicant notes bike racks in
the narrative, the final plan will need to provide additional
information on the design and location of bike racks proposed for
the project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department’s January 11, 2017, 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:
4
1. The applicant shall provide a certificate of survey for the project boundary
and location of the residential home south of the project site, included in
the final plan submittal.
2. The Final Plan submittal shall include the following:
A. On Sheet C1.0 provide width \\dimension of the alley.
th
B. On Sheet C1.0 along the ROW of 10 Street NW label a dimension
from the closest point between the ROW and the Building
(estimated at 6.2 feet).
th
C. On Sheet C1.0 along 4 Ave. NW label dimensions from the
th
nearest patio and stairway to the ROW of 4 Avenue NW.
D. The Legal Description shown on Sheet C1.0 is not correct, update
to be consistent with accurate description of the proposed property
as provided in other submitted materials.
E. Exterior Storage standards are required to be added to the zoning
tables provided in the site plan.
F. Exterior Lighting standards are required to be added to the zoning
tables provided in the site plan.
G. A detailed lighting and photometric plan.
H. A detail landscape plan which includes information on project
landscaping and boulevard trees.
I. Identify bufferyards on the site plan.
J. Provide a graphic documenting the locations, sizes and square foot
calculation of the recreation areas proposed by the project.
K. A detail materials plan for the exterior of the building, bike racks,
and benches if proposed in the project.
L. A shadow study that documents how the project will affect the
surrounding properties.
3. The plan shall be modified to show a building setback along the south
5
boundary to be a minimum of 6 feet.
4. The plan shall be modified to label the least distance between the
proposed building and the existing building to the south of the project
boundary.
5. On the Final Plan all existing water services to the property must be
identified and labeled as abandoned per the requirements of Rochester
Public Utilities.
6. On the Final Plan all future water services proposed for the property shall
be located and labeled per the requirements of Rochester Public Utilities.
7. Execution of a City-Owner Contract will be required for any public
improvements required for this proposed redevelopment.
8. The applicant is responsible for reconstruction the alley along the
frontage of the property, the owner may request and execute a
Contribution Agreement to memorialize its financial obligation for future
reconstruction.
9. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required, as well as, payment of
any applicable Storm Water Management Area Charge for any increase
in impervious surfaces prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
project.
10. Approval of a revocable permit is required for any private features
proposed within the public ROW or other public easements.
11. Execution of a Maintenance Agreement is necessary, prior to Grading
Plan approval, for any required on-site public Storm Water Facilities; and,
12. Charges/fees applicable to the development of the property include the
following:
Sewer Availability Charges (SAC)
Water Availability Charges (WAC)
Storm Water Management Area Charge (SWMAC)
Plant Investment Fee (PIF); and,
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2017, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on this restricted development preliminary plan and reviewed the application
6
th
according to the requirements of R.C.O. §62.708. At its January 11 meeting, the Commission
recommended approval of the application based upon Planning Department staff’s recommended
findings of fact subject to the staff’s 12 recommended conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council as a public hearing on February
th
6, 2017. At the February 6 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 sent to the Council’s attention; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
th
submitted at the February 6 public hearing, the Common Council determined that the Applicant
satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 subject to the Planning Commission’s recommended 12
conditions of approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester
that the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #R2016-040CUP is in all things approved
subject to the 12 conditions as described above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS __________ DAY OF _______________, 2017.
_____________________________________
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: __________________________
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________________, 2017.
________________________________
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone15\\RestDevPre.1640
7