HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 253-13a
•
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Holy Cross Lutheran Church applied for several variances as part of its effort
to replace a nonconforming, freestanding sign located on the southeast corner and adjacent to
the intersection of Ninth Avenue N.W., and Elton Hills Drive N.W; and,
WHEREAS, the current sign advertising Holy Cross Lutheran Church is considered a
nonconforming sign because it is advertising a use on a different lot and, as such, is considered
to be an advertising sign rather than a church sign; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed replacement sign will not meet the sign standards for a church
within the R-1 zoning district for the following reasons:
1. The proposed sign seeks to enlarge or alter a nonconforming sign in contravention
of R.C.O. §65.410 which states that a nonconforming structure cannot be enlarged
or altered in any way so as to increase its nonconformity;
2. The proposed sign does not comply with the advertising sign regulations found at
R.C.O. §63.224, subd. 5;
3. The proposed sign plan seeks to allow four signs in contravention of R.C.O.
§63.224, subd. 1 which states that, in residential districts, any permitted
• nonresidential use shall be permitted one free standing sign and one other primary
sign;
4. The proposed sign's maximum area is 54 square feet in contravention of R.C.O.
§63.226, subd. 6(A) which states that church signs shall have a maximum area of
24 square feet;
5. The proposed sign's maximum height is seven feet in contravention of R.C.O.
§63.226, subd. 6(B) which states that a church sign's maximum height is six feet;
6. The proposed sign is setback from a side lot line by 17 feet in contravention of
R.C.O. §63.226, subd. 6(E) which states that a church sign must be setback 40
feet from a side lot line;
and,
0
7. The proposed sign has flashing lights in contravention of R.C.O. §63.226, subd.
6(G) which prohibits flashing lights on church signs;
8. The proposed sign flashes, moves, or is intermittently lit in contravention of R.C.O.
§63.226, subd. 2(L); and,
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks variances to the above -described ordinance provisions;
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §60.417 provides the criteria by which a variance request is
*analyzed; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff applied the criteria found in R.C.O. §60.417 to
the requested variance for the free standing sign and made the following findings of fact:
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: There would not appear to be
unique circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property
that do not apply generally to other churches within the R-1 (Mixed Single
Family) Residential Zoning District. The church currently has three free
standing signs and the existing non -conforming sign can be altered as long
as it does not increase the nonconformity, which is viewed as square
footage increases and lighting changes;
2. THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE
TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY NOT CREATED BY
THE LANDOWNER: There are not extraordinary conditions or
• circumstances that are due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner. The increase in square footage, lighting
change, and height change of the proposed free standing sign are
proposed and 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: The granting of this variance
request does not appear to be a reasonable use since there are already
three signs associated with this property and increasing the size, lighting, -
and height appears excessive;
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: The granting of this variance request
would be substantially detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and
the adjacent property owners as well as a safety concern of westbound
traffic at the intersection of Ninth Avenue N.W., and Elton Hills Drive N.W.,
because of the flashing and intermittently lit lighting associated with a
message center and the nuisances associated with flashing, changing, and
• scrolling letters on the residences across Ninth Avenue N.W., and Elton
Hills Drive N.W.;
• 5. THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE: The granting of this variance would be
detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning
Ordinance because the intent of the Ordinance is compromised if the strict
regulations of the advertising signs and construction criteria for signs are
not followed;
6. THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential
Zoning District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Planning and Zoning Commission at its April 3,
2013, meeting at which time the Commission recommended the denial of the requested
variances based upon the Planning Department staff's recommended findings of fact; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council at its May 6, 2013, meeting
and the Council continued the matter to its May 20, 2013, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council at its May 20, 2013, meeting;
and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant suggested the following findings of fact in response to the
•criteria found at R.C.O. §60.417:
1. UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES: There are unique circumstances namely the
fact that the church is not easily visible from Elton Hills Drive due to lot
layout and topography. The main entrance is 533 feet from Elton Hills Drive
and partially obscured by trees.
2. REASONABLE USE: Due to the topography and existence of the park and
green space the entrance needs to be a long distance from Elton Hills
Drive. This contributes to the need for an informational sign providing
direction and information. Granting this variance does seem to be a
reasonable use since the entrance cannot be seen and the building not
easily seen from Elton Hills Drive making an informative sign a necessity.
3. ESSENTIAL CHARACTER: Granting this variance would not be
detrimental to the character of the neighborhood due to the location and
orientation of the neighboring residences.
4. 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 extenuating circumstances on this
• property.
3
• 5. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The R-1 (Mixed Single
Family) Residential Zoning District consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
and,
WHEREAS, at the May 20th public hearing, the Planning Department submitted two
additional facts for consideration as follows:
1. Holy Cross Lutheran Church is a member of the Rochester Central School
Association, which is joint owners with Grace Lutheran, Trinity Lutheran,
and Christ Lutheran Church of the property where the sign is proposed; and
2. The Functional Designation Map of the ROCOG 2040 Transportation Plan
show Elton Hills Drive N.W., as a Major Urban Arterial (four lane roadway)
and Ninth Avenue N.W., as a Primary Urban Collector; and,
WHEREAS, at the May 20th public meeting, the Council concluded that the Applicant's
recommended findings of fact were persuasive as were the two additional items presented by
the Planning Department, and were supported by the information presented to the Council. As
such, the Appellant had satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417 and was, therefore, entitled to
the variances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
• Rochester that the City approve the request of Holy Cross Lutheran Church for several
variances as part of its effort to replace a nonconforming, freestanding sign located on the
southeast corner and adjacent to the intersection of Ninth Avenue N.W., and Elton Hills Drive
N.W.
•
4
s
• PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS ?QN DAY OF /I? al , 2013.
44 0�'
PRESIDENT AID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
CIV CLERK
APPROVED THIS ,Zh�r DAY OF /MY , 2013.
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
one l WarianceRes.1302
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
5