HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 309-17 - StencilGroup,LLC.CUP#R2017-017
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Stencil Group, LLC, applied for a Restricted Development Preliminary Plan
#R2017-017CUP. The Applicant proposes to construct a 164-unit multi-family development
consisting of two four-story buildings on 4.93 acres. The property is located on the north side of
Technology Drive N.W., approximately a quarter mile west of Valleyhigh Drive N.W.; and,
WHEREAS, the property is described as follows:
Lots 1, Block 2 COMMERCE PARK, Olmsted County, Minnesota, containing in
all, 4.93 acres, more or less; and,
WHEREAS, since the property is zoned M-2 (Industrial) Zoning District and since
residential uses are not permitted within a M-2 zoning district, 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
1
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: The site is located in a planned
industrial area that is available for development. Existing public
facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development.
B. Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the
property. There are no slopes and the parcel is flat. A wetland
delineation has been approved for the site. The site has no known
sinkholes and there are no hydric or floodplain soils.
C. Natural Features: The site is relatively flat and lacks existing
desirable vegetation. The development proposal will not
substantially alter the existing topography of the site. New
vegetation and landscaping is proposed with the development.
D. Residential Traffic Impact: The site does not share roadways with
other residential developments. Routing of traffic related to the
proposed use will not impact local residential streets. A Traffic
Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared for this project and reviewed
by City and County staff. Implementation of the City’s
recommendations related to the TIS is required as part of the
development plan approval.
The site does not share roadways with other residential
developments, and frequent truck traffic to the site is not
anticipated due to the residential use.
The site does not share roadways with other residential
developments.
E. Traffic Generation Impact: A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has
been prepared for this project and reviewed by City and County
2
staff. Implementation of the City’s recommendations related to the
TIS will be required as part of the development plan approval.
F. Height Impacts: The proposed development consists of four-
story residential buildings. Although a shadow study was not
submitted with the application, the distance from the proposed
development on the site to surrounding development will result in
minimal shadow impact to surrounding development.
There are no adjacent residential dwellings.
G. Setbacks: The underlying M-2 zoning district has unlimited
building height in this location. The proposed development meets
the setback requirements for the M-2 district. For the comparable
R-3 district, where a similar residential project could be proposed,
the proposal would meet building height and setback requirements.
H. Internal Site Design: The proposed residential buildings have
adequate separation from each other. They are separated by a
proposed recreation area. The buildings have different orientations
which heightens the effect of the building separation.
Each building is oriented to the interior parking area on one side
and to an exterior property line on the other side. These adjacent
property lines, the north and the east, are shared with a vacant
property and a property occupied by an industrial use. These
adjacent parcels are both zoned M-2 for industrial uses.
I. Screening and Buffering: Landscaping is proposed within
the site to separate buildings from adjacent parking and driveway
areas. Trees in these areas will provide some visual separation
between these areas. Bufferyards and screening to adjacent
parcels are minimal with three trees and a 6-foot privacy fence to
the east of the southernmost residential building. Proposed
residential buildings appear to have adequate separation from
refuse and utility areas.
J. Ordinance Requirements: Based on the parking requirement for
the comparable R-3 zoning district, the number of proposed
parking spaces would be insufficient to meet Zoning Ordinance
requirements (see table under Analysis section above). The
proposed landscape area is sufficient to meet comparable
3
residential zoning standards.
K. General Compatibility: The City of Rochester Land Use Plan
designates the site and surrounding area as “Industrial.” Industrial
areas are intended primarily for manufacturing, transportation
facilities, communications related facilities, privately owned utilities,
warehousing, and outside storage of materials and equipment, and
uses of similar character. Typically, industrial uses are
characterized by relatively high levels of truck traffic and noise.
Commercial uses of an auxiliary nature to industrial uses would
also be appropriate in this designation. This designation does not
promote the inclusion of residential uses, but instead recommends
uses that are generally incompatible with residential uses. The
closest residential use to the site is more than a quarter mile away
on the west side of West Circle Drive NW.
Additionally, because of the importance of industrial uses to the
economy of the urban area, as well as to the surrounding region,
proving an adequate supply of desirable land for industrial
development is an important aspect of land use planning for the
area.
Surrounding zoning is generally M-1 and M-2, which generally
permit industrial and commercial uses that are compatible to
industrial uses. One adjacent parcel to the northeast has R-1
zoning, but the use on that property is a light manufacturing use
that is more consistent with the uses of the M-1 or M-2 zoning
districts.
L. Non-Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: Pedestrian-
oriented space is defined by the Zoning Ordinance in section
63.275. The landscape/recreation area along the east property line
meets most of the qualifications for a pedestrian-oriented space. It
provides paved pedestrian access from the street frontage and
pedestrian-oriented lighting. Seating in the form of a bench, ledge,
etc. does not appear to be proposed as part of this space. Planning
staff recommends a condition of approval to add one seat per 60
square feet of space adjacent to the area identified as “open green
play area” to qualify as pedestrian oriented space.
Direct pedestrian access is provided to building entrances from the
public street frontage, and from the parking area within the site.
The closest public transit service to this site is the Route 9 and 18
4
stop on Valleyhigh Dr NW and Instrument Dr NW, about 1900 feet
to the east, through the Benchmark Electronics parking lot; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department’s May 24, 2017, staff report states that, based upon
its proposed finding of fact for criteria #K, Planning Department staff would recommend denial of
the preliminary plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department’s May 24, 2017, staff report suggests that, should the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the application, the following conditions of approval
be imposed:
1. Prior to approval of building permits, the development plans shall be revised
to include the following:
A. The addition of one seat per 60 square feet of space adjacent to
the area identified as “open green play area.”
B. The addition of one hydrant near the entrance is required, which
will result in a total of four on the site.
C. The realignment of a portion of the water main to maintain the
proper separation distance from the sewers as required by RPU.
2. Prior to approval of building permits, grading & Drainage Plan approval is
required, as well as, payment of any applicable Storm Water Management
Area Charge for any increase in impervious surface. Execution of a
Maintenance Agreement is required for the proposed on-site facilities
prior to Grading Plan approval.
3. Prior to approval of building permits, execution of a City Prepared Noise
Easement is required for this project.
4. Execution of a City-Owner Contract is required for the public
improvements that will be constructed for this Project.
5. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) has been prepared for this project and
reviewed by City and County staff. Implementation of the City’s
recommendations related to the TIS is required as part of the
development plan approval.
6. Development is subject to a Plant Investment Fee (PIF) that is calculated
and collected as part of the Building Permit approval process; and,
5
WHEREAS, the Planning Department’s May 24, 2017, staff report states that R.C.O. §§
62.706, 62.708, subd. 3 set forth the standards upon which a Restricted Development Final
Plan is to be evaluated. The Council shall grant final approval to a Type III Restricted
Development if it finds (a) the development satisfies the Preliminary Development Plan
Standards for Approval listed in section 62.706; (b) the development satisfies the applicable
criteria listed in section 62.708, subd 3, or a modification for any unmet criteria has been
granted as provided in section 62.712; and (c) there is an executed development agreement
which identifies, and commits the developer to complete, those aspects of the site plan
specified by the Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department’s May 24, 2017, staff report indicates the following
findings of fact for the approval of a Final Type III Development Plan:
A. Public Facility Design: Rochester departments and utilities have
reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions.
Conditions of approval will address any necessary design elements
of private and public utility facilities.
B. Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the
site.
C. Access Effect: Vehicular access to the site is provided through
one access point with sufficient distance to existing street
intersections and adjacent driveways.
There are no adjacent residential neighborhoods.
D. Pedestrian Circulation: Direct pedestrian access is provided to
building entrances from the public street frontage, and from the
parking area within the site. Construction of sidewalk along the
Technology Drive NW frontage is required with development of the
site. There is existing sidewalk on the south side of Technology
Drive NW that would provide a pedestrian connection to the west.
E. Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan is included in
the final plan submittal. The plan shows compliance with bufferyard
and boulevard tree requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Additionally, landscape materials are provided throughout the site
as building foundation plantings between the buildings and the
interior parking area.
6
F. Site Status: The building and site will have one owner, who will be
required to maintain common elements within the building and the
site.
G. Screening and Bufferyards: The applicant proposes to have
the final restricted development review waived as part of the
preliminary development plan review. Landscaping is proposed
within the site to separate buildings from adjacent parking and
driveway areas. Trees in these areas will provide some visual
separation between these areas. Bufferyards and screening to
adjacent parcels are minimal with three trees and a 6-foot privacy
fence to the east of the southernmost residential building.
Proposed residential buildings appear to have adequate separation
from refuse and utility areas.
H. Final Building Design: The applicant proposes to have the final
restricted development review waived as part of the preliminary
development plan review.
I. Internal Circulation Areas: The dimensions of parking
spaces and circulation aisles comply with Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development complies
with the appearance standards of the R-3 zoning district, which are
more restrictive than those of the M-2 district. Specific signage is
not proposed within the application. A sign location is identified on
the site plan. Any signage for the site will follow sign standard R,
as proposed by the application.
K. Non-vehicular and Alternate Travel Modes: Pedestrian-oriented
space is defined by the Zoning Ordinance in section 63.275. The
landscape/recreation area along the east property line meets most
of the qualifications for a pedestrian-oriented space. It provides
paved pedestrian access from the street frontage and pedestrian-
oriented lighting. Seating in the form of a bench, ledge, etc. does
not appear to be proposed as part of this space. Planning staff
recommends a condition of approval to add one seat per 60 square
feet of space adjacent to the area identified as “open green play
area” to qualify as pedestrian oriented space; and,
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2017, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a
7
public hearing on this restricted development preliminary plan and reviewed the application
th
according to the requirements of R.C.O. §62.708. At its May 24 meeting, the Commission
recommended denial based upon Planning Department staff’s recommended findings of fact; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council as a public hearing on July 5,
th
2017. At the July 5 public hearing, the Common Council permitted all interested persons to
testify and give testimony on the restricted development preliminary plan request; and,
th
WHEREAS, at the July 5 public hearing, the applicant’s representative offered the
following proposed finding of fact in support of the application:
K. General Compatibility. The surrounding characteristics of the
development adjoining the project site align very closely with the use
designation of the Land Use Plan for the Urban Service Area. That
definition notes the following, “Light Industrial/Business Park area are
intended to provide attractive, high quality industrial/business park
development with lower traffic generation characteristics than typical
industrial or commercial areas because of the destination orientation
of the uses in the development:
(1) “Designed to promote walkability for tenants, employees,
visitors, and neighbors, and consisting of a mixture of uses that
do not generate objectionable noise, odors or require large
areas of outdoor storage.
(2) Light industrial/business park areas are intended to provide a
harmonious transition to adjacent lower intensity land uses by
… conducting most business activities and storage within
buildings …
(3) Typical uses would be light manufacturing assembly or
maintenance and repair activities, research and development,
small offices or office/showrooms, clean trade shops and
limited or accessory warehousing.
(4) These areas may contain a limited amount of supporting retail
and service uses developed at a scale and design that support
the daily needs of the businesses and the employees in the
immediate area and the nearby residential populations;” and,
th
WHEREAS, at the July 5 public hearing, the applicant’s representative requested
condition of approval #1(A) be amended to read as follows:
8
A. Ten benches to be located equally throughout the site adjoining recreation
amenities and circulation routes; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
th
submitted at the July 5 public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning
Department’s recommended preliminary plan findings of fact as they pertain to criteria A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, J, and L; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
th
submitted at the July 5 public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Applicant’s
recommended preliminary plan finding of fact as it pertains to criteria K; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
th
submitted at the July 5 public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own amended condition
of approval #1(A) as well as the remaining conditions of approval recommended by the Planning
Department; and,
WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence
th
submitted at the July 5 public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant
satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §62.708 subject to the six conditions of approval as recommended
by the Planning Department and as amended above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester
that the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #R2017-017CUP is in all things approved
subject to the six conditions as described and amended above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council waive the Final Plan review phase of this
application.
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.
9
________________________________
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone15\\RestDevPre.1717
10