Title
Memorializing a City Council decision to grant the appeals of Snelling-Midway Redevelopment, LLC from a Planning Commission decision regarding the development of property at 1566 University Avenue West.
Body
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2024, Snelling-Midway Redevelopment, LLC (“Applicant”), under Zoning File No. 24-013-570, for the purpose of developing a hotel and structured parking garage on property between Snelling Avenue and Pascal Street and commonly known as 1566 University Avenue W, [PIN No. 34.29.23.32.0027] and legally described as Lot 1, Block 2; United Village Development which is located in a T4M zoning district, applied to the Planning Commission (“Commission”) for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) for increased height [75 feet permitted/90 feet proposed. Leg. Code § 66.331(h)] and the following eight area and design variances:
(1) Building height step-back. Leg. Code § 66.331(h): Structures shall be stepped back 1 ft. from all set-back lines for every 2½ ft. of height over 75’.
(2) Front yard setback. Leg. Code § 66.331: Variance to permit building to be stepped back 1 ft. on the Asbury side; 6 ft. required, and 1 ft. proposed for a variance of 5 ft.
(3) Entrance drive. Leg. Code § 66.342(a)(2): Entrance drives may occupy no more than 60 ft. of total lot frontage. Variance to permit an entrance drive of 322 ft. for a variance of 262 ft.
(4) Building Anchoring Corner. Leg. Code § 66.343(b)(6): Variance to permit building to be setback and not anchor the corners at University & Asbury and University & Simpson.
(5) Above grade window and door openings - West Facade. Leg. Code § 63.110(b): Above grade window and door openings shall comprise at least 15% of the total area of exterior walls facing a public street or sidewalk. Variance to permit 8% window and door openings on the west façade of the building for a variance of 7%: 1,036 sq. ft proposed, 1,934 sq. ft. required for a variance of 848 sq. ft.
(6) Design variance - West Facade. CC RES 23-1442: Window and door openings at ground floor shall comprise at least 50% of the length and at least 30% of the area of the ground floor. Variance to permit ground floor window and door openings to comprise 6% of length (50% required) and 9% of the area (30% required) on the west façade of the building: 10 linear ft. proposed, 88 linear ft. required for a variance of 78 linear ft. of the length requirement and 100 sq. ft. proposed, 338 sq. ft. required for a variance of 238 sq. ft. of the area requirement.
(7) Design variance - East Facade. CC RES 23-1442: Window and door openings at ground floor shall comprise at least 50% of the length and at least 30% of the area of the ground floor. Variance to permit window and door openings to comprise 31% of length (50% required) and 16% of the area (30% required) on the east façade of the building: 54 linear feet proposed, 88 linear required for a variance of 34 linear feet of the length requirement and 433 sq. ft. proposed, 792 sq. ft. required for a variance of 359 sq. ft. of the area requirement.
(8) Building façade articulation - East Facade. Leg. Code § 66.323(b)(9). Requires the bottom twenty-five (25) ft. of buildings to include doors and windows, texture, projections, awnings and canopies, and ornamentation, in order to relate to the human scale. Variance to allow the east façade of the building to be constructed as proposed without additional building façade or articulation elements.
AND, WHEREAS, the said application was duly noticed for a public hearing before the Commission’s Zoning Committee (“Committee”) on March 7, 2024; AND
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2024, the Committee conducted the public hearing where all persons interested in the said application were afforded the opportunity to present testimony either in-person at the hearing or by the prior submission of written testimony for the record; AND
WHEREAS, upon the conclusion of the hearing and based upon all the records and testimony presented including a staff report dated March 1, 2024 which recommending approval of the application with various conditions and is also incorporated and adopted herein by reference, the Committee, for the reasons set forth in the PED staff report dated, duly moved to recommend to the Commission that the Applicant’s CUP and variance applications be approved as follows:
1. Approve the CUP for additional height with conditions for the reasons forth in the staff report.
2. Approve variance requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 with conditions for the reasons stated in the staff report.
3. Approve variance request 5 with conditions for the reasons stated in the staff report and an additional condition that “additional openings” shall be added to the west façade of the hotel building on floors 3 through 7.
4. Approve variance request 6 with conditions for the reasons stated in the staff report and an additional condition that a connection shall be provided between the ground level retail space in the parking garage and the green space to the west in order to “activate” that green space and that the adequacy of this connection was to be determined by the Zoning Administrator during review of the site plan.
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2025, the Commission took up the recommendations of the Committee and, following deliberations regarding each application and its accompanying recommendations, the Commission took the following actions, as set forth in Commission Resolution No. 24-3 which is also incorporated herein by reference as follows:
1. Conditional Use Permit: Approved with the conditions recommended in the staff report.
2. Variance requests No.’s 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8: Approved with the conditions recommended in the staff report.
3. Variance requests 3 and 5 approved with the conditions recommended in the staff report together with the additional conditions added by the Committee.
4. Variance 3: Denied. The Commission denied this variance for the following reason as set forth in its meeting record. Findings A, B, and C for this variance were not met: the project site allows for access on all sides, therefore, the finding of practical difficulty for access was not demonstrated by the Applicant. The decision to site the driveway parallel to University Avenue was a choice made by the Applicant and does not constitute a practical difficulty. Further, the Commission found that the proposed driveway design was focused on vehicular circulation and did not provide safe and efficient circulation of all modes of transportation, including transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The Commission therefore found that this variance request was not consistent with comprehensive plan transportation policy T3 or the comprehensive plan’s land use policies under LU9, LU28, LU14, and LU30. Finally, the requested variance is not consistent with policy LU1.3 from the Union Park Community Plan.
AND, WHEREAS, on March 25, 2024, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), the Applicant, under Zoning File No. 24-022-766, duly filed an appeal from the Commission’s March 15, 2024, decisions regarding the following Commission actions: (1) denial of variance 3; (2) adding condition 5 to variance 5; and, (3) adding condition 6 to variance 6 and requested a public hearing before the City Council (“Council”): and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the said appeal was noticed under Council file No. APC 24-1 and set on for hearing before the City Council for April 10, 2024 which was duly published on March 29, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2024, the Council conducted a public hearing on the Applicant’s appeal where all persons interested were afforded the opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing and based upon all the records and testimony presented, the Council, at the close of the public hearing, duly considered the matter and determined:
1. That the addition of condition 5 to variance 5 was in error. The Council found the condition to be vague, unclear, and not supported by the public record.
2. That the addition of condition 6 to variance 6 was in error. The City Council found the condition unnecessary as desire to “activate the green space” was already adequately met based upon the record findings contained in the March 1, 2024, staff report.
3. That the denial of variance 3 was in error. The Council finds that the Commission erred in applying what are comprehensive plan street policies to a driveway and that the findings and conditions recommended in the March 1, 2024, staff report adequately supported granting variance 3 and are adopted herein for that purpose and in support of this decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based upon the all files, reports, and testimony in the matter, the Council hereby finds the errors noted above in the Commission’s facts and findings with respect to the Commission’s decision to deny variance #3 as well as the Commission’s decision to add conditions 5 and 6 to variances 5 and 6, the Council accordingly hereby grants each of the Appellant’s appeals in this matter, and, in support of these decisions, the Council hereby adopts as its own the findings and recommendations to approve the Applicant’s CUP and variance applications, with all the stated conditions, as initially recommended in the staff report dated March 1, 2024. AND,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk provide a copy of this memorialization resolution to Appellant, Snelling-Midway Redevelopment, LLC, the Planning Commission, and to planning administrator Robinson and zoning administrator Diatta.