HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 243-12 -W a»a.i..a.v.+,rwrrv...n..rm...ww.... .. r ....,. ..a...........v....,..a.....w.......—..........n............,...... ..... .............. ............. w..,.......w«...n.,.ww.-s...it..,.«a..r.....a.«w...r.e......, ..wa.....«........—ar....w..u..a....i....w....,,....r '.i
•
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Troy Wing ("Applicant") applied for an Amendment to Type II, Conditional
Use Permit #R2004-035 for the addition of an outdoor seating area on the existing patio on the
east side of Syler's Tavern (formerly The Break Room) located at 1635 Highway 52 North; and,
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2004, the Applicant received approval of a Type II
Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing building from a restaurant use to a drinking and
entertainment establishment located at 1635 Highway 52 North. This establishment is zoned B-
4 (General Commercial). A drinking and entertainment establishment is a Type II conditional
use in a B-4 zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, in 2004, the Applicant proposed to construct an outdoor seating area on the
east side of the building. The proposal included fencing and shrubs to help screen and buffer
the area; and,
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2010, the City Planning and Zoning Commission denied the
proposed amendment on the basis that: (1) the intensity, location, operation, or height of the
proposed building and structure would be detrimental to other private development in the
neighborhood; and (2) the provision of on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide
adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development;
�nd,
WHEREAS, by this application, Applicant is once again requesting an amendment to the
conditional use permit to allow the existing patio on the east side of the building to be used for
outdoor seating. This amendment is different than the one rejected by the Commission in 2010
as this amendment requests only the use of the existing patio and does not seek to expand the
patio; and,
WHEREAS, there would be approximately 28 seats on the outdoor seating area which
would be open from 8:00 a.m., until 10:00 p.m.; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. § 61.146 provides 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
and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon
• public facilities.
1
• 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 and Zoning Department staff, in a staff report dated April 4,
2012, stated it "has reviewed this request in accordance with the provisions of Section 61.146 of
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and is of the opinion that none
of the above mentioned findings could be made to warrant denial of the application;" and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Department staff recommended the following
conditions should the proposed amendment be approved:
•
2
• 1. The southern portion of the parking lot shall be striped meeting the
minimum standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual and no part of any parking stall shall lie within the
public right-of-way. Said parking lot striping shall occur prior to the
occupancy of the outdoor patio area;
2. The placement of the dining and smoking area must comply with Olmsted
County's Smoke Free Work Place Ordinance (Ordinance #12307);
3. The applicant shall verify with the Rochester Building Safety Department if
there are any issues with the exiting, restroom and accessibility
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code for the outdoor patio;
and,
4. A fence at a minimum height of four feet should be put up around the patio
to control the customer use of the patio; and,
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2012, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on the application for the proposed amendment to the conditional use permit,
reviewed the application according to the requirements of R.C.O. § 61.146, and denied the
application based upon the following findings:
• 1. The intensity, location, operation, or height of the proposed building and
structure would be detrimental to other private development in the
neighborhood; and,
2. The provision of on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide
adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of
the development; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Commission's decision to the Common Council
as permitted by R.C.O. §60.733; and,
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2012, the Common Council held a public hearing on the appeal
of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of the proposed amendment to the conditional
use request and permitted all interested persons to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, at the May 21st public hearing, the Applicant testified as follows:
1. On December 25, 2011, the Breakroom closed its doors and operation;
2. On December 28, 2011, Syler's Tavern opened its doors and operation;
3. There has been a major change in the complexion and intensity of the business
•
3
• operation at this location;
4. Fifty percent of the revenue comes from food sales and 80% of those sales occur
before 10:00 pm;
5. Since Syler's Tavern opened, there have been no complaint calls to the police
department in response to noise, loud music, or behavior complaints. The Tavern
did call the police twice to trespass unruly patrons;
6. The patio is on the east side of the building and will seat no more than 28 people.
There will be no music on the patio. It will resemble Glynner's, Brothers, and
Beetles in its operation; and,
WHEREAS, at the May 21st public hearing, neighbors to the establishment testified as
follows:
1. There will be noise associated with the patio;
2. This is a tavern serving food rather than a restaurant serving liquor;
3. The patio will only be 30 steps away from an apartment unit; and
4. There is nothing that prevents the applicant from reverting to the Breakroom type
• of operation; and,
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Common Council determined that the
Applicant satisfied the conditions of R.C.O. §61.146 by a preponderance of the evidence
submitted at the public hearing if the Applicant satisfied the following conditions:
1. The southern portion of the parking lot shall be striped meeting the minimum
standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and
no part of any parking stall shall lie within the public right-of-way. Said parking lot
striping shall occur prior to December 31, 2012;
2. The placement of the dining and smoking area must comply with Olmsted
County's Smoke Free Work Place Ordinance (Ordinance #12307);
3. The Applicant shall verify with the Rochester Building Safety Department if there
are any issues with the exiting, restroom and accessibility requirements of the
Minnesota State Building Code for the outdoor patio;
4. A fence or buffer at a minimum height of four feet should be put up around the
patio to control the customer use of the patio;
5. All food and beverage service for the patio shall cease no later than 10:00 p.m.;
•
4
6. No amplified music will occur on the patio;
7. The patio must be located east of the building; and
8. This conditional use permit will expire on December 31, 2012. The Applicant may
seek the renewal of this permit at the Council's January 7, 2013, meeting at which
time the Council will review the manner in which the patio operation has occurred
since the time the permit was initially granted. The renewal will not go through the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the proposed amendment to Conditional Use Permit #R2004-035 requested by
Troy Wing is granted subject to the above eight conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council reverse the April 11, 2012, decision of the
Planning and Zoning Commission in this matter (Appeal #R2012-003AP) consistent with the
above eight conditions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS /57- DA OF , 2012.
PR SIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS 27,Ud DAY OF MPY , 2012.
%..
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone10\ConduseAmd.2004-035
i
5