Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinding of Fact - FOF ZBA Appeal Uhaul BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA ___________________________________ In Re: Americo Real Estate Co. FINDINGS OF FACT, Appeal 2019-001 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER. ___________________________________ On July 8, 2019, the City of Rochester Common Council conducted a public hearing, following an appeal to the Council by Americo Real Estate Co. from the Rochester zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). On June 5, 2019 the ZBA denied a request by Americo Real Estate Co for a variance to exceed Sign Standard B. At the hearing, Americo Real Estate Co was represented by WSB and Associates. The Council sitting in a quasi-judicial matter reviews the matter pursuant to R.C.O. § 60.417, Subd. 1 (A-F). After considering all of the testimony and evidence submitted to the Council in this matter, the Council adopts the staff’s following Findings of Fact: FINDINGS OF FACT Section 60.417, Subd 1. (A-F) Findings for Variances: Criterion A. There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district. Staff Findings: There do not appear to be extraordinary conditions on this site that do not apply to other nearby lots. The site is over five acres in size and recently received Site Development Plan approval to build a new self-service storage facility building with sign standard B. 1 Criterion B. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Staff Findings: There do not appear to be extraordinary conditions on this site. The developer was aware of the sign standard during the development review process in 2018. Any circumstances unique to the property that would require additional signage was created by the developer and the choice to develop a self-service storage facility in this location. Criterion C. The variance is necessary to overcome practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance so that the property can be used in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Staff Findings: A sign variance is not necessary to allow the owner to use the property in a reasonable manner. A Site Development Plan to allow the proposed self-service storage facility use on the site was approved through a Type I staff level review in 2018. Criterion D. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, and will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff Findings: The proposed wall signage is detrimental to the public welfare. The site abuts a residential neighborhood to the north. The residential property owners may be able to view the signage proposed on the north and west elevations (approximately 304 of wall signage). Planning staff has consistently recommended denial of additional signage when proposed signage would face a residential use. The proposed freestanding signage is not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed freestanding sign will have visibility to Highway 63 and is similar in size with adjacent freestanding signage along the Commercial Drive corridor (Pepsi). The proposed UHAUL building will buffer the freestanding signage from the residential properties to the north. Criterion E. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance. Staff Findings: The variance request is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the sign ordinance. The intent of the sign ordinance is to balance the need for signage against the impacts of such signage (63.221). The proposed signage does not preserve the aesthetics of the City or promote the planned character of the B-4 zoning district. The signage proposed with this variance greatly exceeds what is permitted for a self-service storage facility in the B-4 zoning district and proposes 304 square feet of wall signage that will be viewed from the residential developments to the north. Criterion F. The terms of the variance are generally consistent with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findings: The current Comprehensive Plan does not address signage in the B-4 zoning district. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. R.C.O. § 60.417, Subd. 1 (A-F) sets forth the criteria for finding a variance. 2 2. The Council agrees with staff and concludes Americo Real Estate Co. has not met the criteria in R.C.O. § 60.417, Subd. 1 (A-F). ORDER The Common Council of the City of Rochester does hereby deny the appeal of Americo Real Estate Co and affirm the decision of staff and the ZBA. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this _____ day of _____________, 2019 ________________________________ Randy Staver President of the Rochester City Council Approved at Rochester, Minnesota this _____ day of _________________ 2019. ______________________________ Kim Norton Mayor of the City of Rochester 3