Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 426-17 - MiracleMile,LLC.AmendR2016-001PUD.AllowScreenedCardboardStorageArea RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Miracle Mile, LLC, requested a Type III, Phase II Amendment to the Rochester Shopping Center PUD #R2016-001PUD to allow for a screened cardboard storage area on the th south side of the building. The property is located east of 17 Avenue S.W., north of First Street th S.W., west of 16 Avenue S.W., in the Miracle Mile Shopping Center; and, WHEREAS, the Miracle Mile Shopping Center was first approved in 1972. Amendments to the plan were approved in 1979, 1993 and 2004. In 1979 amendment included a 42,575 square foot mall addition to the north end of the mall which was never built. The 1993 amendment approved the development of the T.G.I. Fridays which is now the Wild Bill’s sports saloon. In 1998, an application was submitted to amend the PUD to allow an Office Depot to be developed at the north end of the mall. The request was withdrawn prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The 2004 amendment approved the development of a 4,800 square foot Krispy Kreme doughnut restaurant which is now a Denny’s Restaurant. The 2016 plan amendment approval included 30,460 square foot grocery store, 6,800 sq. ft. of other commercial space and a 56 story 107 unit multi-family residential housing project; and, WHEREAS, in 1972 under ordinance 1659 Community Shopping Center Plans became Planned Unit Developments (PUD) provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. When the current Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) was adopted in 1992, it eliminated the PUD’s. The LDM provides for amendments to the existing PUD plans. Section 60.326 states that the term Planned Unit Development shall also include Community Shopping Center Plans. According to section 60.326, an amendment to a PUD shall be processed through the Type III, Phase II hearing process, and according to the regulation applicable to the criteria for restricted developments; and, WHEREAS, amendments to an existing PUD are processed according to the regulations applicable to a conditional use permit and restricted development; and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. §61.146 (Standards for Conditional Use Permits) provides in part the relevant criteria for the review of this application and states as follows: 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: Subdivision 1. The zoning administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless it determines one or more of the following findings can be made with respect to the proposed development: Subd. 2. Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets 1 and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. Subd. 3. The site plan fails to provide pedestrian access to any customer/tenant ingress/egress of the building, including from a public right-of- way and off-street parking area that serves the use in a manner which minimizes non-vehicular/vehicular conflicts. Subd. 4. 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. Subd. 5. The provision for on site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. Subd. 6. The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. Subd. 7. 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. Subd. 8. 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. Subd. 9. 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 section. Subd. 10. 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department applied the criteria found at R.C.O. §61.146 to this application and prepared the following finding of fact: 2 No findings for denial can be made for the criteria within section 61.146. As stated in the section the Commission and Council shall approve a development permit unless it determines that one or more of the findings can be made for this proposal. It should be noted that the applicant will be required to submit a grading and erosion control plan for the site that will be reviewed and acted on by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department; and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. § 62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments – Restricted Development) provides in part the relevant criteria for the review of this application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Department applied the criteria found at R.C.O. §62.708 to this application and prepared the following findings of fact: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: Public sewer and water and other utilities are available to serve the site. A sewer capacity study was completed by the applicant with the conclusion that the downstream sewer system is adequate for the proposed phase of development. The project will include the construction of storm sewer that will improve the existing surface storm water flow in the area. b) Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the property. There are no steep slopes. The site has no known sinkholes and there are no hydric or floodplain soils. th c) Natural Features: The site slopes from 16 Avenue SW down to the existing buildings, with elevations on the site varying from approximately 1008-1016. The proposed building finish floor will be compatible with the existing buildings to the north. The existing Miracle Mile Shopping Center does not possess substantial natural features. The applicant has provided a landscape plan identifying the proposed landscaped areas of the project. d) Residential Traffic Impact: The project has multiple points of ingress/egress locations to the existing roadway network. The project will have minimum daily truck traffic for the grocery store. There will be occasional moving van traffic associated with the residential tenants. It is anticipated that truck traffic will use the thstth access point along 16 Avenue SW, 1 Street SW or 17 Avenue SW. The project is not anticipated to create additional traffic 3 during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets. th The ROCOG 2040 plan identifies 16 Avenue SW as a Secondary th Urban Arterial and 17 Avenue SW is identified as a Primary Urban Collector. e) Traffic Generation Impact: A Traffic Impact Report (TIR) has been submitted on the project to evaluate the traffic impacts anticipated to be generated by the proposed development. Based on the TIR it appears that all of the intersections evaluated in the report will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). The information in the TIR indicate that the expected traffic volumes on adjacent streets will not exceed the design capacity. f) Height Impacts: The proposed building height is 65 feet. The PUD documentation did not identify a specific height allowed. The maximum height identified in the B-4 General Commercial District is 40 feet. The project is bounded by public streets on three sides and the existing commercial shopping center to the north. It does not appear that the proposed building will block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties for any significant time period during the year. The ground floor elevation of the proposed building is at th a lower elevation than that of the residential property east of 16 Avenue SW. The properties to the north and south of the project site are existing commercial development. The property west of the project site is TH 52. g) Setbacks: The setbacks to the structure exceed the minimum setback requirements of the B-4 General Commercial District which has been the evaluation measure used for the Miracle Mile PUD. The residential component of the project allows for additional evaluation of the setback requirements. LDM 62.286 Yard Setbacks for Multifamily Residential Uses over Three Stories provides a specific calculation for setbacks. The 65 foot tall tower calculates to a rear yard setback of 37.53 feet, this is the setback th for 16 Avenue SW. The applicant is proposing a 25.70 foot setback in that location to the residential tower. h) Internal Site Design: The site layout appears to provide adequate building separation and orientation to the existing residential and commercial uses located in the area. The mixed- use building functions as a single structure with four floors of residential above a grocery/commercial main floor. The building 4 has multiple entrance/exit points. The residential courtyard located above the commercial uses is a U-Shaped opening that faces west. i) Screening and Buffering: Landscape space is proposed around the entire property and the narrative states that they are providing 10% of the site as green space. The applicant has provided underground parking for the residential units, the majority of the surface parking is located west of the proposed structure. The proposed development proposes to screen the parking from th the residential neighborhood east of 16 Avenue SW. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan which identifies plant material throughout the project site, along parking lots and public right-of-way. The applicant proposed to provide trash and recycling storage facilities located within the building. The area dedicated to loading and unloading of service delivery vehicles is proposed to be inside the building and screened from public view. The applicant is proposing the storage of Cardboard Bales along the south side of the building behind a 6-foot-tall screen wall with st gate screen to block views from 1 Street SW and the Miracle Market parking lot. The applicant has identified materials to be used in the project as high quality and durable. Materials include masonry veneer (Brick CMU), Concrete fiber board (paneled lap siding) metal panel and vinyl windows. j) Ordinance Requirements: The project has identified underground parking for the residential tenants, 107 units and 111 parking spaces. The balance of the parking needs will be provided by the surface parking areas contained within the amendment boundaries and associated existing parking provided within the Miracle Mile Shopping Center. It is anticipated that cross parking agreements are in place for the existing parking configuration at the Shopping Center, the applicant will need to provide documentation that this site is included in those agreements. The amendment area is dependent on the existing Miracle Mile Parking to meet the parking requirements. k) General Compatibility: The property has been a shopping center for approximately 50 years. The Shopping Center has gone through multiple changes and modifications over that time. The project proposes a mixed use redevelopment with a commercial and residential component. The project is located adjacent to arterial and collector streets with commercial properties on three 5 sides and single family residential homes located east of the th property across 16 Avenue SW. The primary orientation of the retail component of the project is to the west and north side of the development. The east side of the building provides a sidewalk, benches, bike rack, access to the residential units and a proposed patio associated with one of the commercial units. The exterior elevations of the building identify multiple faces and materials to break up the building façade into smaller components. The residential tower is stepped back from the first floor exterior wall to provide additional setback from the16th Avenue SW. th The residential homes along the east side of 16 Avenue SW range from 1 – 3 stories in height with pitched roof lines. The first floor of the proposed development is at a lower elevation than the th existing residential homes along the east side of 16 Avenue SW. The proposed project is identified as 5 floors. The applicant has proposed a percentage of the residential units will be dedicated to target income levels through a self- administered affordable housing program. l) Non-Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: There is an thst existing bus stop located at the corner of 16 Avenue SW and 1 Street SW. Rochester Public Transit identifies the site as being nd served directly by three bus routes and is within 1400 feet of 2 Street SW which is a heavily served public transportation route. The site plan for the development shows a network of sidewalks and identified walkways within the property that connect to public sidewalks located along the public roadways that bound the property. The site plan identifies two locations for bike racks with 14 bike parking spaces. The residential units have a designate bike storage location within the underground parking facility. 2) Final Development Plan Criteria: a) Public Facility Design: Public sewer and water and other utilities are available to serve the site. A sewer capacity study was completed by the applicant with the conclusion that the downstream sewer system is adequate for the proposed phase of development. The plan satisfies requirements for public utilities and infrastructure. The development is required provide a complete pedestrian facilities system onsite and adjacent to the site within 6 the public ROW. RPU has comments in their referral and the applicant must comply prior to issuance of building permits. b) Geologic Hazard: There are no known geologic hazards on the property. There are no steep slopes. The site has no known sinkholes and there are no hydric or floodplain soils. c) Access Effect: Access locations have been relocated to align the existing internal vehicular network with the public and private roadway connections along the perimeter of the project. The th driveway access to 16 Avenue SW is aligned with West Center Street with an off set of 15 degrees. The project has completed a Traffic Impact Report which has been reviewed by the City of Rochester Traffic Engineer. The City Engineer has accepted the st driveway entrance from 1 Street SW in excess of 32 feet in width to accommodate semi-truck delivery traffic. d) Pedestrian Circulation: The site plan proposes to construct the public sidewalks along 16th Avenue SW and 1st Street SW, with the existing sidewalk along 17th Avenue SW the project is bounded with public sidewalk. The site plan identifies pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk in multiple locations on each public ROW frontage. The site plan for the development shows a network of sidewalks and identified walkways within the property that connect to the public sidewalks. The Pedestrian and Site design standards within the LDM classify the proposed development as a Medium Scale Development which provides design guidelines for pedestrian facilities. The Site Plan provides elements to meet the criterial of 63.273 Pedestrian and Site Design standards for a medium scale development with one exception, the sidewalk adjacent to the north side of the building is 8 feet in width which is less than the 10 feet identified in the criteria. e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan has been provided with the submittal which meets the requirements of the LDM 63.151, requirements of a landscape plan. The applicant provides the appropriate parking lot landscaping and screening as required by the Land Development Manual. The applicant has provided the appropriate boulevard trees for the project in accordance with the LDM 63.265. The applicant has provide a landscaping plan which identifies landscaping throughout the project site and along the public right-of-way. 7 f) Site Status: The site is phase I of a multi-phased project under the same ownership and development group. The project is currently the site of the existing Miracle Mile Shopping Center. Prior to development of the project, a section of the exiting building will be demolished. The applicant has indicated that at a future date a subdivision of property may be completed for the area, this will require additional submittals and review by the Commission and/or City Council. g) Screening and Bufferyards: The landscaping plan identifies boulevard trees along the public ROW. Landscape space is proposed around the entire property and the narrative states that they are providing 10% of the site as green space. The applicant has provided underground parking for the residential units, the majority of the surface parking is located west of the proposed structure. The development proposes to screen the parking from th the residential neighborhood east of 16 Avenue SW. The applicant has provide a landscaping plan which identifies landscaping throughout the project site and along the public right- of-way. The applicant proposed to provide trash and recycling storage facilities located within the building. The area dedicated to loading and unloading of service delivery vehicles is proposed to be inside the building and screened from public view. The applicant is proposing the storage of Cardboard Bales along the south side of the building behind a 6-foot-tall screen wall with gate st screen to block views from 1 Street SW and the Miracle Market parking lot. h) Final Building Design: As submitted. i) Internal Circulation Areas: The network of sidewalks and walkways provide pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks. City of Rochester Public Works Director must approve the two-way access circulation along the west side of the proposed building to address vehicular conflicts with the driveway ingress/egress on 1st Street SW. The applicant proposes to reconfigure the existing one-way parking lot between 17th Avenue SW and the existing Miracle Mile Shopping Center to be signed for two-way circulation. j) Ordinance Requirements: The planning staff has identified a number of areas where the project does not comply with the 8 submittal requirements of the LDM for a complete review of the project. The Planned Unit Development amendment is a unique development style within our community and continue to be governed by a unique set of development plan documents approved by a Resolution of the Common Council. k) Non-Vehicular and Alternate Modes of Travel: There is an thst existing bus stop located at the corner of 16 Avenue SW and 1 Street SW. Rochester Public Transit identifies the site as being nd served directly by three bus routes and is within 1400 feet of 2 street which is a heavily served public transportation route. The site plan for the development shows a network of sidewalks and identified walkways within the property that connect to sidewalks located along the public roadways that bound the property. The applicant site plan identifies two locations for bike racks, with 14 bike parking spaces provided. The residential units have a designate bike storage location within the underground parking facility; and, WHEREAS, on September 28, 2016, and October 12, 2016, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held public hearings on this restricted development conditional use permit, reviewed the application according to the requirements of sections 61.146 and 62.708, adopted the Planning Department’s recommended findings of fact and recommended approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall provide details on fence and gate construction, including materials and a range of color proposed. 2. The cardboard bales must be stored in the designated area and must not be stored in manner which allows them to be taller than the height of the proposed fence or visible from the public roadways or the Miracle Market Parking Lot. 3. The changes or modifications shown on the proposed south elevation will be considered the approved condition for the project. 4. All proposed fencing shall meet the required clearance outlined in 2015 RPU Electric Rules and Regulations, Exhibit 7. 5. The owner dedicated 7 ft of public ROW along 16th Ave SW to facilitate space for public sidewalk at the time 16th Ave SW is widened. The labeling on the prior PUD plan appeared to identify the new sidewalk location as being near the edge of the new 7 ft of 9 ROW. The current PUD plan shows that the sidewalk location on the plan is in fact within the prior ROW and not within the newly dedicated 7 ft. When constructed, the sidewalk should be constructed within the 7 ft of newly dedicated ROW and may require a minor revision to the Grading Plan. 6. There is a future obligation of the Property for a proportional share of the cost for 16th Ave SW widening improvements, typically, 25% of the total project costs for roadway and all costs for any pedestrian facility reconstruction. These terms were not addressed in the Development Assistance Agreement, and should be memorialized through execution of an Assessment Agreement. 7. Development charges for SAC and WAC are applicable to this Project. 8. All conditions of approval outlined in the November 2016 Resolution 530-16 Amendment to the Rochester Shopping Center PUD#2016-001PUD are still in effect for the project; and, WHEREAS, the Common Council held a public hearing on September 18, 2017, on the proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development, and permitted all interested persons to be heard; and, th WHEREAS, at the September 18 public hearing, the Council considered the evidence and testimony submitted, as well as the material contained in the meeting agenda; and, th WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the September 18 public hearing, the Common Council adopts as its own the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommended findings of fact and conditions of approval; and, WHEREAS, based upon a preponderance and substantial weight of the evidence th submitted at the September 18 public hearing, the Common Council determines that the Applicant has satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §§61.146, 62.708 if the above eight conditions are completed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the Type III, Phase II Amendment to the Rochester Shopping Center PUD #R2016-001PUD, requested by Miracle Mile, LLC, is in all things approved subject to the above eight conditions. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS __________ DAY OF _______________, 2017. 10 _____________________________________ 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\\PUD.AmendMiracleMile02 11