HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 162-10 • - RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Rochester Lodging Group, LLC, ("Appellant") applied for a variance from the
requirement of section 63.112 (2) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances as to the building
setback and a variance from the requirement of R.C.O. §64.143 as to the minimum driveway
access spacing associated with a four-story, 85-room hotel, a 8,320 square foot retail building
and a 2,600 square foot restaurant on property located along the north side of Second Street
S.W., between the east frontage road of TH 52 and 16th Avenue S.W., and located within a B-4
(Restricted Commercial) Zoning District; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §63.112(2) requires a side street side yard to have a depth equal to
one-half of the required front yard in the applicable zoning district; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.321 provides that a minimum setback for a front yard in the B-4
Zoning District shall be 15 feet and one-half of that number is 7.5 feet. Therefore, applying that
formula to this matter, the building setback for the west and south property lines of this project is
7.5 feet; and,
WHEREAS, the Appellant seeks to place the west wall of the pool area two feet from the
property line and the south wall of the hotel 3.71 feet from the lot line. The south and west lot
lines must be treated as side street side yard lot lines; and,
WHEREAS, Appellant seeks a variance from the provisions of R.C.O. §63.112(2) in order
0o place these walls at the desired location; and,
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
and made the following findings of fact:
1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There appear to be exceptional
conditions that apply to this property that do not apply to other properties
within the B-4 district or similar uses. To allow for underground parking
the building must be located as far south as possible to allow for a
reasonable slope to the garage parking. In addition, there is excess right
of way to allow for the placement of the signal control boxes adjacent to
2nd Street. The property is a corner lot and through lot with public right of
way abutting three sides of the parcel.
2. REASONABLE USE: The variance is necessary to provide reasonable
use of the property. The proposed variance allows for an efficient use of
the property available for this development. A safe entry to the
underground parking requires that the building be located close to the 2"d
• Street lot line. The location of the building allows for an efficient design
for the parking lot adjacent to the hotel.
• 3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of the variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other
property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan. The building setback meets or exceeds the
minimum setback for the side street side yard with the exception of the 50'
portion of the west wall. This portion of the site is adjacent to the frontage
road, TH 52, and 2nd Street rights of way.
4. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the minimum
setback requirements along the frontage road and 2"d St., SW as shown
on the site plan. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission at
its March 24, 2010, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the building
setback variance request based upon the Commission's recommended denial of the Incentive
Development Preliminary Plan #R2009-031CUP project involving a four-story, 85-room hotel, a
8,320 square foot retail building and a 2,600 square foot restaurant on this site; and,
• WHEREAS, R.C.O. §64.143 requires a minimum access spacing of 480 feet from the
driveway access to 16th Avenue S.W., and the intersections of 16th Avenue S.W., and Second
Street, and the intersection of 16th Avenue S.W., and First Street (16th Avenue S.W., is a
designated Secondary Urban Arterial); and,
WHEREAS, the Appellant seeks to located the driveway access to 16th Avenue S.W.,
approximately 160 feet north of the intersection of 16 th Avenue S.W., and Second Street, and
116 feet south of the intersection of First Street and 16th Avenue S.W.; and,
WHEREAS, Appellant seeks a variance from the provisions of R.C.O. §64.143 in order to
locate the driveway access at the desired locations; and,
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
and made the following findings of fact:
1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There appear to be exceptional
conditions that apply to this property that do not apply to other properties
within the B-4 district or similar uses. The depth of the entire block along
16th Ave. is less than the minimum separation distance required by the
• ordinance. Access control does not allow for direct access to 2"d St. or
2
• the frontage road on the south and west sides of the site, thus limiting
possible access to 1st St. and 16th Ave.
2. REASONABLE USE: The variance is necessary to provide reasonable
use of the property. The proposed variance allows for an efficient
circulation pattern within the parking lot designed for this development.
The access along 16th Ave is consolidated to one access that can serve
all of the buildings.
3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of the variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other
property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed access on location on 16th Ave. will
allow for a secondary access for the development.
4. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the minimum access
spacing standard for an arterial street of 480 feet. This finding would not
pertain in the case of denial; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission at
0s March 24, 2010, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the driveway
access spacing variance request bused upon the Commission's recommended denial of the
Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #R2009-031CUP project involving a four-story, 85-room
hotel, a 8,320 square foot retail building and a 2,600 square foot restaurant on this site; and,
WHEREAS, Appellant appealed the denied variance requests to the Common Council
and the matters came before the Council at its April 19, 2010, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, at the April 191h public hearing, the Appellant's representative testified in
favor of the Planning and Zoning Department's recommended findings of fact and asked that the
variance requests be granted; and,
WHEREAS, at the April 19th public hearing the Council concluded that the Planning
Department staff's recommended findings of fact were persuasive 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 Rochester Lodging Group, LLC for a variance
from the requirement of R.C.O. §63.112 (2) as to the building setback and a variance from the
.0equirement of R.C.O. §64.143 as to the minimum driveway access spacing associated with a
our-story, 85-room hotel, a 8,320 square foot retail building and a 2,600 square foot restaurant
3
---oon property located along the north side of Second Street S.W., between the east frontage road
of TH 52 and 16th Avenue S.W., and located within a B-4 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning
District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the requested variances are granted to the Appellant
consistent with the Planning and Zoning Department's recommended findings of fact stated
herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED 13Y THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 1 ' '7r1 DAY OF /i� , 2010.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS Z6ZY DAY OF 12010.
•
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone101VarianceRes.0916
•
4