Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 220-13• RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Rochester Public Utilities ("RPU") is the leaseholder of property on a parcel owned by St Mary's Hospital (Mayo Clinic), located at the northwest corner of 4th Street SW and 10th Avenue SW in Rochester ("Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is located in the R-1 zoning district; and WHEREAS, RPU applied for a variance from the setback requirements for Area Accessory Development in the R-1 zoning district, governed by Rochester Code of Ordinances § 62.934(3), and the maximum height limitation for structures in the R-1 zoning district, governed by R.C.O. § 62.221; and WHEREAS, as part of its application, RPU submitted materials which set forth the history of public utilities usage of the Property and near the location of the Property, including identifying the existing water storage reservoir at the site which has been at that location since 1929; and WHEREAS, RPU proposes replacing the existing reservoir with a new reservoir that is 100 feet in diameter with a sidewall height of 61 feet and a center dome height of 74 feet, the same height as the existing reservoir; aqd WHEREAS, R.C.O. § 62.934(3) establishes the setbacks for storage reservoirs as a distance equal to the height of the proposed structure; in this case, 74 feet; and WHEREAS, RPU proposes a structure that would be located approximately 66 feet from the west property line and 0.5 feet from the east property line; the north and south setbacks comply with the minimum requirement; and WHEREAS, RPU requests a variance of 8 feet from the setback requirement for the west property line and 73.5 feet from the setback requirement for the east property line set by R.C.O. § 62.934(3); and WHEREAS, R.C.O. § 62.221 sets the maximum allowable height for structures in the R-1 district at 35 feet; and WHEREAS, RPU proposes a structure that has the same center dome height as the present storage reservoir on the site, 74 feet; and WHEREAS, RPU requests a variance of 39 feet from the height limitation set by R.C.O. § 62.221; and 1 • WHEREAS, R.C.O. §60.417 provides criteria by which variance requests are to be analyzed, to wit: 1. 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; 2. the extraordinary conditions or circumstances are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; 3. 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; 4. 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; 5. the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance; and 6. the terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; • and WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff applied the criteria found in R.C.O. §60.417 and recommended approval of the requested variances in a report dated February 22, 2013, making the following findings of fact: UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES: There would appear to be unique circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties within the R-1 (Mixed Low Density) Zoning District. The applicant has had a lease agreement for the reservoir on the property since 1929. Further, RPU has completed an extensive search of possible locations for a replacement reservoir and determined that they are limited to the current lease space. The proposed reservoir must be the same height as the existing reservoir in order to maintain the same water service area pressure for the system. NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER: There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The reservoir design is limited by the water pressure necessary to supply the service area and the lease space that has existed since the original agreement in 1929. • REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does appear to be a reasonable use of the property. The lease space limits the location of the reservoir 4 • WHEREAS, R.C.O. §60.417 provides criteria by which variance requests are to be analyzed, to wit: 1. 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; 2. the extraordinary conditions or circumstances are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; 3. 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; 4. 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; 5. the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance; and 6. the terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; • and k WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff applied the criteria found in R.C.O. §60.417 and recommended approval of the requested variances in a report dated February 22, 2013, making the following findings of fact: UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES: There would appear to be unique circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties within the R-1 (Mixed Low Density) Zoning District. The applicant has had a lease agreement for the reservoir on the property since 1929. Further, RPU has completed an extensive search of possible locations for a replacement reservoir and determined that they are limited to the current lease space. The proposed reservoir must be the same height as the existing reservoir in order to maintain the same water service area pressure for the system. NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER: There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The reservoir design is limited by the water pressure necessary to supply the service area and the lease space that has existed since the original agreement in 1929. • REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does appear to be a reasonable use of the property. The lease space limits the location of the reservoir 2 0 WHEREAS, R.C.O. §60.417 provides criteria by which variance requests are to be analyzed, to wit: 1. 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; 2. the extraordinary conditions or circumstances are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; 3. 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; 4. 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; 5. the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance; and 6. the terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; • and WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff applied the criteria found in R.C.O. §60.417 and recommended approval of the requested variances in a report dated February 22, 2013, making the following findings of fact: UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES: There would appear to be unique circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties within the R-1 (Mixed Low Density) Zoning District. The applicant has had a lease agreement for the reservoir on the property since 1929. Further, RPU has completed an extensive search of possible locations for a replacement reservoir and determined that they are limited to the current lease space. The proposed reservoir must be the same height as the existing reservoir in order to maintain the same water service area pressure for the system. NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER: There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The reservoir design is limited by the water pressure necessary to supply the service area and the lease space that has existed since the original agreement in 1929. • REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does appear to be a reasonable use of the property. The lease space limits the location of the reservoir 4 • within the larger Mayo Clinic parcel which in itself is a narrow parcel of approximately 165 feet. ESSENTIAL CHARACTER: The granting of this variance request would not be substantially detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and the adjacent property owners as an existing reservoir currently exists on the lease space. The site is located west of a city park and on an otherwise undeveloped parcel uphill and to the east of the St. Mary's Hospital campus. The reservoir will not cause the closing of views or create light and air impacts on adjacent residential properties. INTENT AND PURPOSE: The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance because there are unique and extraordinary conditions that are unique to this property and proposed use. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance provisions to allow for necessary utilities for all areas of the city and is consistent with the policies of the Urban Services Area Land Use Plan; and • WHEREAS, this matter came before the City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") on March 6, 2013; and n LJ WHEREAS, Planning staff presented its report dated February 22, 2013 to the ZBA and responded to ZBA members' questions; and WHEREAS, ZBA convened a public hearing during which representatives of. the applicant, RPU, and its consultant, as well as several members of the public addressed the ZBA; and WHEREAS, following discussion of the matter, ZBA tabled the application; and WHEREAS, this matter again came before the ZBA on April 3, 2013 and the ZBA reopened the public hearing; and WHEREAS, representatives of RPU addressed the ZBA and responded to questions and members of the public addressed the ZBA; and WHEREAS, ZBA closed the public hearing and discussed the matter; and WHEREAS, ZBA Member Majerus moved to deny the application for variances based on proposed findings and received a second, but the motion to deny failed; and 3 WHEREAS, ZBA Member Ohly moved to approve the application for variances based on staff findings, received a second, and the motion carried; and WHEREAS, the ZBA's April 3, 2013 decision to grant the application for variances is the subject of an appeal to the Common Council by Laura Gilliland, "in partnership with other concerned neighbors and community members," dated April 11, 2013; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council at its meeting on May 6, 2013 and a public hearing was convened; and WHEREAS, several members of the public appeared and spoke regarding this matter, as did representatives of RPU, the applicant. The statements and presentations by members of the public in opposition to the variance request can be fairly summarized as follows: 1. The proposed reservoir is too large for the site and would be a visual blight on a historic neighborhood. 2. St. Mary's Hospital (Mayo Clinic) should cooperate with RPU and the City to relocate the reservoir farther from residential property rather than in the existing lease space. 3. RPU should endeavor to locate the reservoir in a less visible location or construct smaller reservoirs in multiple locations, preferably underground, and • rely on pumping rather than gravity to maintain water service levels if necessary. 4. RPU held public sessions pbout the project at inconvenient times and failed 'tp engage the neighborhood in conversation about alternative solutions. 11 The statements and presentations from RPU's representatives can be fairly summarized as follows: 1. RPU engaged the public in its decision -making process. 2. RPU fully explored all options to meet the growing water needs of the City's residents, businesses, and services; 3. The proposed site for the reservoir, a long-term historical site for water storage, is the best site among all alternatives, given existing infrastructure and other factors; 4. RPU intends to install landscaping and plant trees and utilize a color scheme for the reservoir designed to improve its appearance; and WHEREAS, at the May 6, 2013 public meeting, the Common Council concluded that the application for variances met the criteria in R.C.O. §60.417 for the reasons set forth in the Staff Report dated February 22, 2013, referenced by the ZBA, and reproduced herein; and 2 z • WHEREAS, at the May 6, 2013 public meeting, the Common Council concluded that the application for variances was properly granted by the ZBA and that the appeal should be denied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the City denies the appeal and upholds the ZBA decision to approve variances requested by RPU as follows: (1) 8 feet from the setback requirement for the west property line and 73.5 feet from the setback requirement for the east property line set by R.C.O. § 62.934(3); and (2) 39 feet from the height limitation set by R.C.O. § 62.221; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing variances are granted to RPU consistent with the findings of staff as reproduced and restated herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS LQ DAY OF ffLCi, 2013. ACTING PRESQJ&T OF COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: 7V/)// ocFuvVCITY CLERK L/ ) ( I APPROVED THIS 10) DAY OF 61,61 b , 2013. (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) MAYOR OF CITY OF ROCHESTER 5