Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 330-09 • RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Family Video/Aaron Cole ("Appellant") applied for a variance from the requirement of section 62.312 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances as to the maximum amount of wall and freestanding signage associated with a movie rental business located at 312 Elton Hills Drive N.W., and located within a B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District; and, WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.312 limits the maximum amount of wall and freestanding signage for uses in the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District to 50 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the Appellant seeks to increase the permitted amount of wall and freestanding signage to 80 square feet and seeks a variance of 30 square feet from the provisions of R.C.O. §62.312 in order to do so; 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 does not appear to be exceptional circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's • property that may not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The purpose and intent of the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District is to accommodate some commercial uses located adjacent to residential areas. Understandably there are certain nuisances associated with these commercial uses but can be mitigated through specific hours of operation and signage regulations. 2. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. The purpose and intent of the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District is to accommodate some commercial uses located adjacent to residential areas. Understandably there are certain nuisances associated with these commercial uses but can be mitigated through specific hours of operation and signage regulations. 3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would be detrimental to the adjacent property owners. There are apartments directly across the facility as part of an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The granting of this variance would be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance. 4. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to • alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the hours of operation associated with a Retail Trade Use within the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) • Zoning District per Section 62.312 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and a variance of 30 square feet to 80 square feet from the allowable 50 square feet associated with wall and freestanding signage per Section 62.312 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual; and WHEREAS, this matter came before the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals at its July 1, 2009, meeting; and, WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request based upon the Planning Department staffs recommended findings of fact; and, WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to the Common Council and came before the Council at its August 3, 2009, meeting; and, WHEREAS, at the August 3rd public hearing, the Council considered the information presented to it in its council agenda packet (attached hereto as Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, at the August 3rd public hearing, the Appellant's representative testified that this was an opportunity to eliminate from this location an abandoned gas station, and any environmental contamination concerns associated with it, and replace it with a new business that did not involve polluting chemicals, substances or petroleum gas. The prior gas station had 113 square feet of signs on the pylon sign. The Appellant seeks 80 square feet of signs. Therefore, �y granting the variance, the City would actually reduce the amount of signs that had previously existed on this location; and, WHEREAS, at the August 3rd public hearing, the Appellant's representative applied the criteria found in R.C.O. §60.417 and suggested the following findings of fact: 1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There is an exceptional circumstance or condition that applies to the applicant's property that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. This is the site of an abandoned gas station that may have environmental contamination concerns. The proposed new business will replace the abandoned property, building and location with a thriving, non-polluting business. This will result in an increase in the City's economy and the elimination of a neighborhood eyesore. 2. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request is necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. The additional sign capacity (from 50 square feet to 80 square feet) will allow for additional advertising space. The revenue from that additional advertising space will make the proposed business viable and more likely to economically succeed. • 2 • 3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would not be detrimental to the adjacent property owners. There prior business had 113 square feet of signs. The requested variance would allow 80 square feet of signs. The reduction in the amount of signs will be beneficial for the adjacent property owners. A petition signed by approximately 62 adjacent property owners support the Appellant's business plan and request for a variance. 4. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance of 30 square feet to 80 square feet from the allowable 50 square feet associated with wall and freestanding signage as provided by Section 62.312 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The increase of 30 square feet of available advertising space is minimally necessary to make this business economically viable; and, WHEREAS, at the August 3`d public hearing, no one from the neighborhood testified in this matter although several council members indicated they had received some phone calls in general opposition to the variance request; and, WHEREAS, based upon the evidence presented, the Council concluded that the Planning Department staffs recommended findings of fact were not persuasive and were not supported by the information presented to the Council. Instead, the Appellant's representative's Slecommended 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 variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the City approve the request of Family Video/Aaron Cole for a variance from the requirement of section 62.312 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances as to the maximum amount of wall and freestanding signage associated with a movie rental business located at 312 Elton Hills Drive N.W., and located within a B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the July 1, 2009, decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is reversed and that the requested variance is granted to the Appellant consistent with the Appellant's representative's recommended findings of fact stated herein. l3 • PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 5P-a D OF fir- , 2009. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTE CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2009. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) ZoneOWa ianceRes.0911 • • 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 8-3-09 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appeal R2009-002AP by Family Video. The applicant is appealing the PREPARED BY: decision of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on Variance#112009-011VAR regarding Brent Svenby the denial of a variance of 30 square feet to 80 square feet from the allowable 50 square Senior Planner feet associated with wall and freestanding signage for the use. The property is located at 312 Elton Hills Drive NW and is located within the B-1 (Restricted Commercial)Zoning District. July 29, 2009 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Action: On July 1, 2009 the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request of the applicant; Family Video, to allow for an increase of 30 square feet to the allowable square footage for wall signage and freestanding signs associated with a retail use. The Board did approve a variance to extend the hours of operation to 11 p.m. The applicant had requested a variance to allow for 80 square feet of wall signage and an 80 square foot freestanding sign. According to Section 62.312, B-1 Site Appearance Standards, Retail Trade Use are limited to a Sign Type B which regulates wall signage and free standing signage to a maximum of 50 square feet each. -� Council Acton Requested s t a Approves or deiiy�thae var+ance °appeal .b��the aPPl�+�ant based..�n the original .;staff report and la�,�ttactaments submitted to:�he::RochesterZon�p Boardof Ap�eals�at t�beii�Jul 1��OQ9. m,�.'`� =wx ,. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated June 24, 2009 2. Minutes of the July 1, 2009 Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attomey 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 3, 2009, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 SE 4"' Street. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. second by: to: ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT O�.ROCHESTER.RT�AN�� 2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100 •Rochester,MN 55904-4744 .9 U[ Vim=olmsted.m.-i.us/departments/planning COUNTY OF OIrP'•. •.•'•0' DRA TED.AU GUS't•5•N TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Logan Tjossem,Planner DATE: June 24, 2009 L RE: Variance(Type III,Phase I),R2009-011VAR July 1", 2009, Board of Appeals Meeting Planning Department Review: APPLICANT: Family Video -Aaron Cole 131 W 8t" Street Mankato,MN 56001 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 312 Elton Hills Dr NW Rochester,MN 55901 • ZONING: B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: See attached. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting an increase in the hours of operation for a movie rental business within the B-1 (Restricted — Commercial) Zoning District from 6am to lIam. By definition movie rental businesses are considered a Retail Trade Use and a Retail Trade Use is limited to the hours of 6 am — 10 pm. Other commercial uses within the same zoning district are restricted to the same or similar hours of operation. According to Section 60.323, Subd. 8, B-1 Restricted Commercial District, this district is intended to maintain and provide for areas of low intensity business uses that are located adjacent to residential areas, but along major thoroughfares so as not to encourage customer traffic through the adjacent residential areas. According to Section 62.312, B-1 Site Appearance Standards, Retail Trade Uses are limited to the hours of operation of 6am— 1 Opm. • The applicant is also requesting an increase of thirty(30) square feet to the allowable square footage for wall signs and freestanding signs associated with a Retail Trade Use. BUILDING CODE 507/328-7111 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/328-7100 • HOUSING/HRA 507/328-7150 PLANNING/ZONING 507/328-7100 • WELUSEPTIC 507/328-7111 FAX 507/328-7958 TX .n In•rnic erTir)M rAAPI nYER 2.312 B-1 Site A i According to Section 6 , Appearance Standards, Retail Trade Uses are limited to a Sign Type B which regulates wall signage and free standing signage to a maximum of 50 square feet. The applicant requests the following: • A variance to the hours of operation associated with a Retail Trade Use within the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District per Section 62.312 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. • A variance of thirty (30) square feet to eighty (80) square feet from the allowable fifty,(50) square feet associated with wall and freestanding signage per Section 62.312 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The Planning staff suggested findings are: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There does not appear to be exceptional circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that may not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. The purpose and intent of the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District is to accommodate some commercial uses located adjacent Jo residential areas. Understandably there are certain nuisances • associated with these commercial uses but can be mitigated through specific hours of operation and signage regulations. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. The purpose and intent of the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District is to accommodate some commercial uses located adjacent to residential areas. Understandably there are certain nuisances associated with these commercial uses but can be mitigated through specific hours of operation and signage regulations. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would be detrimental to the adjacent property owners. There are apartments directly across the facility as part of an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The granting of this variance would be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the hours of operation associated with a Retail Trade Use within the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District per Section 62.312 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and a variance of thirty (30) square feet to eighty (80) square feet from the allowable fifty (50) square feet associated with wall and freestanding signage per Section 62.312 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Attachments: 1. Copy of application and submittals. 2. Copy of site location and notification map. 3. Aerial photo of the site. 4. Referrals. 5. Copy of findings for a variance. • • I,I Aaron Cole 131 W. 811` St Mankato, MN 56001 June 12, 2009 Rochester—Olmstead County Planning Department 2122 Campus Dr. SE, Suite 100 Rochester,MN 55904 Dear P & Z Department: Family Video is requesting a series of Variance for our project on 312 Elton Hills Drive. Variance#1: 62.312 B-1 site appearance standards—Retail Trade Hours of operation, 6am— 1 Opm. Family Video would like to request a variance on hours to match the hours of operation for convenience retail which is currently located at this address which is 6am— 1 1pm. Family Video's normal hours of operation are loam—Midnight. Our competitors in town are open from loam— 1 1pm Monday—Thursday and 1 Oam—midnight Friday and Saturday. We feel requiring us to close at 1 Opm-7 days a week would create an unfair competitive advantage in town and would not allow us to bring our business to Rochester. • Variance#2: 62.312 B-1 Sign Regulations (62.133)—Current Sign standards for sign type B—Free standing sign 50 sq ft and Wall sign 50 sq ft. Family video would like to seek a variance on both of these sign types from 50 sq ft to 80 sq ft. Adding 30 sq ft to both of these signs would allow Family Video to use the smallest of all signs that we have made and use at our other 590 locations. Attached is a copy of our building sign profile and Pylon Sign profile. Since y Aaron Cole CEWED Family Video Regional Manager JUN 12 2009 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT _:;:. \ / : I 1 - 500 ft. Notification Area y �_ - 312 Elton Hills DR NW i v"K4N6 Variance#R2009-01 1 VAR N <..,� by Family Video i ' PIN: 74.26.13.023752 ' I Ward: 6-Sandra Means _ Neighborhood Assoc: None --- ►! f/�—�� 6/18/2009 I ✓ ' % f r;r xx 7Ao\ _ V EA MR } k y y ? \ ! e ' W b oDD 'I--E lZ ull I III i t 4 r () 2rJ© rJ00 1,OO�w�ee j _ ._._- ,; �r orrnm mntained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map,please notify Aerial Map of 312 Elton Hills DR NW by Family Video AW d 74.26.13.023752 .''`,�„'—. �, '^ ''. ry��•tF.w,r3�,k7,.� rvT' • • Sandra Neighborhood Assoc: : lxx 'ryr • •• -0 r '� _+4'' � f'�qx: F s.°a , r+' a,� s yy;'4Y+' ir' f C + �,4 ,e s 11• .� �rLz - Y 4Fv45- t'-'`a` t; `',i�f...'o: `r _ rr a r ^rsx.'r 1 .•L e ��.�' �',�"�,� :;`3 - �' � J �i�""�-j _ ,.; --.s+r-�a� ,!r'�•^4 c. I�. � �-� „�~�. '•I Tf 2 .` '7J"`a.�.�,,.'.�"e>. �.,r e� 1,,� yt 7, r t�Ger�,wr,�� `� sYi �� - -.�i �� � %r�•Fd- �-- .� -�.- � a � � � f'� C ..�r � L s '°r ad 'bdffr ,,r.w 3 ^i`s._• �• �[l}':-.. Jy �sS',F7d }'' '�5'IA c A S t�eV� - •hr Y'�C 1,y} '"1' ' JSi"4 L.�. !s'-J� - d 1 x f r r '�^•� �"-Y�r'-F }Pv. 'r" - .tr '"`P.r/ r1 �ar '�,,,,�„_�T �' 4••- 4: 1_-• �� C 6y�AY 2 .t 'i•.!•���'� Je. $ -.L f—•r� _ :.' < � "'�" - 3r s;-�i .ten �� •' 4. s-x+^ '..l }e: r'�4 �y 'tr I.• �'�-J� . f' �.it`' r�� � �. �• � ��s Kv�1. „— c ate.f a g s J z w + f � r . �` Rr f i .'t� € tl � a s- 1 l� >--r � TM 1"- �yJ e'ti� 5'• i� a �c�°''�"-z-"y ley a•�a,.�f��r•� -0vl'{' 2�+`.` ,, y ,t.'�i.�i „�.. t �q•�f ry ry:!. #{,�„ LWA 1 _N���a '. �� >. I e._ ��-.�Jti Y2 .f�........�rj e• r�r,ri x �--rz.,, x '�'` i su ' 'lf�`rS. ,E,�' - ♦` y.,� ••:M n —.+ lr.`a✓..ra' t�✓-j..�''lC- j h a �F� cs•- 1 • ��r`d�»»i-_ '4 31xry�.,r'$�i"sU' .Lrr.,n W' h "�'t� ;, �``Lr�'s A ,s`� �"``'� � _.. ��� r I�� ai : .� '�.y ��.•,.�-�7�v�•u,<. '.'�..�s�'��� .� r 5 1 s cj �I e ♦a r ai � a r `� .u` .��-s 't s, y .ir 'al d .t- *4 `w - ys�r . �*A �"j-E.ic. 9" •�t, r,�-�p - � ��:... �s.s'r .'1�x pp r he t r iTY fix e 1 k �,�A ♦ yt �3 sy " 4r t .,- _ _ '•r %i 4 9'." fl',��n -•s �;r`T s' v..r! �.] �,�.j '`-i.1, z �y § �1r z two.x a5 1a 5 �6 c c* w�..... �� r _ � T°f Y yTx) + � M 9ffri i 1 100 200 400/ rx"zi Z rr Ali i �rE 1Ev ti.' �,y� yR��'✓ sue' A P � 't. p-. a ���' y,'3�, �'��'�v��vy.�. �,' �,5',,"v: `J� ;�� ,�� „�� T•., v� ,ex��`"�� �-��+. �"J� ��� .ram.4'b. W s �r t t,.'a ' � �"��' '"4. y+,-�.�`'f�-- t„,.� 'v��� ,a ��✓n�,PyF `r +Ss die��"a '' ��,c^+.. �f r x � tl F '47 �,. .aax \r `3,rz• E''" z"# 3F". wi "�'`�'rZ sxb v Y �� Q fi ° a ad t � r a"ek � r� t ., 4 K6 ,� Y• s �, 2 �^n 20 4 Y r a z' � is .�«r..w �. �, ,� S� '�i + + "4rc -„v r ti„ '•+..� r� �'" r.� a Eh.� � �� .�`�� �"��as'ty •� � ����� 'nw ��c���fi�, `*�.g k�.. � �''r .��� ���? � �' q i c ro � z, y E,.,.Y fp FAMILY VIDEO s s4 a_ as F = 312 Elton Hills Drive NW i `` • , Rochester,MN Conceptual Site Plan __ ' " FINAL PREFABRICATED WOOD TRUSS CONFIGURATION AND TRUSS IJ.YOUT SHALL BE BY THE PREFABRICATED z TA.TOWER•� 12T'-B v1' WOOD TRUSS MANUFACTURER.FIELD VERIFY PRIOR TO 0_ FABRICATION.(TYP.) GYP.80.ON 12 BOTTOM OF Q. 3 TRUSS 12 ® En r Z EVE HEIGHT.113'd O �TRUSS BRG.•117-T �— _—_—_—_—_— Q BOT.OF FASCIA aj I0'-0- DISPLAY AREA �y b / b 68 >; 9 ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE ON APPROVED SUSPENDED METAL GRID SYSTEM(TYP.) A GRADE•1LA-0' it L__---J TYPICAL SECTION Az01 SCALE: 118"=1-D• STITCHED DOWN PREFNISHED METAL ROOF 1W SNOW JACKS(ABOVE ALL WALKS AND HVAC EQUIP)-TYPICAL M ^'SIRRIED BY OWNER— � CZ RIDGE•121'S 12 TOWERPROVIDED BY OWNER C — — — ---_—_--- —_— 3 t � � } EVE HEIGHT•/7J-0' ^ � -MUSS BRG,•177-T 0. Q BOT.OF FASCIA•11D'D' ��� • V' \ HER GRADE•IW-V wN. m ---------u---- CJ --u-- ------------- ----------------=— :T TO EAST.STORM B'INTEGRALLY COLORED SINGLE SCORE CONNECT TO EAST.STORM SPLIT FACED CONCRETE MASONRY BLOCK -TYPICAL —ACCENT BLOCK TO BE DC5134I WI WESTERN W12 MOTAR OR EQUAL IN SGS COLORS-TYPICAL s WEST ELEVATION A201 SCALE: 1/8•=V-D- PREUMINARY REVIEW 06.12.09 ISSUED FOR DATE: NOTE: •�+wrmm 11 RJSIII CLEAR LOW-P GLASS IN CONCRETE BLOCK TO BE'SGS' ��••-- ANODIZEDALUMFRAMEMBREAKMETAL STITCHED DOWNABOV ALLW PRE-RMSHED METALKSA ROOF TY DARK RED 11&ALL DEEP RED 'C BREAK METAL WI SNOW JACKS(ABOVEALL WALKS AND TYPE'H'MORTARALL-TYPICAL Rs WRAPPED HEADER ABOVE SEE WALL HVAC EQUIP)-TYPICAL SINGLE SCORE SPLIT FACED SECTIONS FOR DETAILS •••SUPPLIED BY OWNER— BLOCK Winkelman n ACCENT BANDS TO BE DCS1341 - ------ WVVESTERNW12MOTAROR EQUAL IN SGS COLORS12 -TYPICAL Tel MIT rt1�>Dl 12 SINGLE SCORE SPLIT FACED Fu:Inq 6»V2 B BLOCK � � SNOW JACKS >`••+.. •��••r�...�+r.r.e .-- 16dCQ fdllltir'16d@Q CEWED I J JUN 17 y�� F,. ------- ---- u - _____ u ___ a 5 Ci[-0LfiSiSTED• ------- ------------- -----�---- --- ------------ ------------ CONNECT TO EASING +A� I ryry'�I�PP�� &"INTEGRALLY COLORED SINGLESCDRE STORM SPLIT FACED CONCRETE MASONRYBLOCK PROVIDE REQUIRED Ih mby wnily lhel Bra PI."ped&=Rory xrepM wes -TYPICAL SEALANTATWINDOW preper•d l,y me.urd•r my d d wpwisbnmdCull•m ROJEGT NUMBER XX%XKXX —ACCENT BLOCK TO BE DCS1341 VA FRAJAES.(TYPICA.) a ddy Liceroe°PnIe irol EMp—vder&w I.—.r the WESTERN W12 MOTAR DR EQUAL IN SGS State of Mtr _t+•COLORS-TYPICAL ELEVATIONS S DETAILS �"'°i,dmme David T.sobDta SOUTH ELEVATION A201 SCALE: 1/8'=1•-0• (Si'—) A2 01 D•le 1c 1:04.03.08 Uoerse r. 19007 • City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Section 60.417: Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request,the approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines: Subdivision 1. The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: 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 variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; 3. 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 4. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition,the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated • with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd.2. The Board may grant a variance to the literal provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: 1. There has been substantial and detrimental reliance in good faith by an applicant who has received a permit or certificate issued in error by the administrative official charged with enforcement of this ordinance,and 2. the mistaken issuance of the certificate or permit is not the result of an action on the part of the applicant,the property owner,or any other person or party who has had control of the property,to provide misleading or incorrect information,or to knowingly withhold information necessary for the administrative official to accurately review the permit or certificate request. Subd.3. The Board shall under no circumstances grant a variance that will allow a use otherwise not permitted within the zoning district or any variance of the elevation or levels for flood protection Subd. 4. In granting a variance,the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish,to the extent possible under the circumstances,the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties,the character of the neighborhood,and the health, safety,or general welfare of the community. A variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the variance was granted are urchaser,heir,or assign of the property, and any violation binding upon the applicant and any subsequent p • of a variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as such. N O �L27L:.38i� 11 8 a a ! .nnwoara�i«o emu „m Wair eou0 I i e TYPICAL CONTROL JOINT ` s TYPICAL SECTION O Ax01 eCALE,m•,•r A201 sc�ue ve•.r•a• ppOM"wow•�unu i�`.o eww.an uww•"�uwuuuor Z rare.•,eauoe.ovu+ �. ................. ............ r2L me,r,oweo.raxxe, N N k .OJYUY"PQ.0 as � o k hnriyYdeo J'$ 1' �r� fa�NJYdeo k se_ 1 44 n ewwcr,o e"...ara.., ea.runr..o..ra wwer,eemr..ra,. --�_�-- eawxn,o wn.vow C0.EAST ELEVATION s WEST ELEVATION Ax0, BCE,Ir.1w Ax0, SCAIE Ilr•1'-0' e<,e RSP ' MOB.WOK wi w.W.wC Wl�nrkelmaz.nn. ---------___._ �aog4_rl'-.-------'— r.c YdCO /Ie11yYdM 'r) ,ry,�n rrililillill �14L111"K�L�.i._ 1\iil_.L'1 V1"'iD JUN1yF' �� _ _ _ ROCHESTER-OLMSTED --- ----- ----- x NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION Axo, ecuE„r.,•o Axn, . ..,.-0 ..� A201 w.e W 0]0B ­10001 Page 4 DRO"'AFT City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals . Meeting Date: July 1, 2009 y t I ototh wrmntal a plan s tIc t ubmtb itted d�stance2to eighbor bet�iveenzdviyellrgs w I be approximately twenty three feet #his van ould'be detr�mental,to tie �n#ant and purpose cf the�C�ty chest n�ng Ordinance " MINIMUM , IANCE �n�mu anc -,That would be necessary to ailevia#ewe allege` rdshipgwould bye ance ofi e7erQn feet s�x7�nches tta�rteexnctaes �3's"3from the 'ecl #went fire flee#{2 r k m�nirnu ryard':setbacknfvrsSmgle Family 17etac� well�ngs pei Section �� 62:2 . , the C� ofi Roches#er Zortmg flrd�nance and 1_anvelopment Manual a' Type III, Phase 1, Variance Request#R2009-01 WAR by Family Video to allow for signage that doesn't meet the allowable maximum square footage and an extension in the hours of operation within the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District The property is located at 312 Elton Hills Dr NW. Mr. Logan Tjossem presented the staff report, dated June 24, 2009, to the Board. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. • Mr. Ryan asked if there were any other businesses that stay open to 11 p.m. in the neighborhood. Mr. Tjossem responded that the store is being located where the BP Gas Station was previously and that the gas station itself was allowed to be open that late. He explained what the standards were in the Land Development Manual for different uses. Mr. Ohly asked if the large white tower by the front door would be viewed as signage. Mr. Tjossem responded that staff discussed this and found that it is not a sign as it does not have language on it and that it was an architectural structure. Mr. Applequist asked how many signs were being requested. Mr. Tjossem responded three. Discussion ensued regarding amount of signs allowed at Business Centers. Mr. Tjossem explained that BP Gas Station requested a variance to signage in the past and was denied. Mr. Ryan opened the public hearing. • Page 5 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals UKAF I Meeting Date: July 1, 2009 ' representative, Dave Nall 644 Paradise Lane Libertyville IL 60048 • The applicant's represent ( ) addressed the Board. He stated that Aaron Cole (131 W 8t' Street, Mankato MN 56001) was present to answer questions as well. Mr. Nall stated that the property has three pylon signs at present. He stated that the exceptional circumstance would be the type of business being operated on site (video store). He explained that the video store is more similar to a gas station than the surrounding businesses there (accounting, attorney, insurance agent, chiropractor, etc.). He stated that the majority of video industry operates from 10 a.m. to midnight throughout the state (594 stores). Mr. Applequist asked if the store is allowed in this type of zoning district in other states. Mr. Nall responded that the stores have been located in all different kinds of zoning districts (neighborhood business and residential areas). He reiterated that the industry standard for operating the business is from 10 a.m. to midnight. He explained that when he signed the purchase agreement for the site he was unaware that there was a limitation on the hours of operation as he had not run across this in other states. He explained that to have a viable business they must be open to 11 p.m. The use would not be open at 6 a.m. but at 10 a.m. which would be a benefit to the neighborhood. He indicated the types of jobs that do not get off of work until after 10 p.m. He explained that the store would operate 1,000 hours less than a convenience store. He indicated S that between the hours of 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. they average $40,000 a year. The business itself only grosses $500,000 a year. Mr. Nall stated that the business would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. It is an attractive alternative to a gas station/convenience store. He indicated that there are 30 year old mature trees along apartment buildings adjacent to them and across the street. There is also a 6 to 8 foot screening wall as well. Therefore, automobile lights would be restricted. Discussion ensued regarding entrances to site. Mr. Ryan asked if they proposed to use the 3 pylon signs currently there. Mr. Nall responded that they plan to I'use one of them. Mr. Ryan asked staff if the 3 pylon signs could remain if a gas station were still located there. He also asked if the business could operate until 11 p.m. Mr. Tjossem responded yes. He stalted that the other 2 pylon signs must have been located on site prior to BP Gas Station locating there. Mr. Applequist asked if the tanks would be taken out. • Page 6 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals AFT Meeting Date: July 1, 2009 Mr. Nall stated that it is BP's responsibility but that they will be working with them. Mr. Nall reiterated that it is a family run business and not like big box retail businesses. Discussion ensued regarding types of items for sale in the store. Mr. Tjossem clarified how the video store business was classified differently in the CLly of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual than a convenience store. Ms. Ann Rentz-(residing 2210 Viking Drive NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed the Board. She asked that the variances be denied to be consistent with the other businesses in the area. She stated that Dunn Brothers closes at 9 p.m. Mr. Applequist asked if the lighting was a concern when the gas station was located there. Ms. Rentz responded that she doesn't believe that the lighting should be more than what the gas station had. • Mr. Applequist asked if the gas station lighting was tolerable. Mr. Ohly asked where her residence was located in proximity of the proposed site. Ms. Rentz responded north side of Elton Hills Drive by Valhalla Dental. Ms. Janet Olson (residing at 1911 Viking Drive NW, Rochester MN 55901) addressed the Board. She stated that she lives up the hill from the site on Viking Drive. She stated that she did not have any concerns with lighting from the gas station. However, it would have been nice if the gas station closed earlier due to noise. She indicated that she opposed the variance request. She expressed confusion whether there would be additional signage. Mr. Tjossem explained that the current signage located on site must have been grandfathered in when BP Gas Station was located there. Ms. Olson stated that signage for the BP Gas Station was too large. She expressed concern about increasing the hours of operation as she does not want to listen to cars going in and out when she is trying to sleep. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Ryan closed the public hearing. Mr. Dallmann stated that a number of years ago there was an A&W store located nearby. He questioned what their hours of operation were. I i Page 7 mRAFT City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Date: July 1, 2009 • Ms. Alfredson explained what types of uses were allowed within the regulations. She explained that hour of operation is determined by the type of business. Mr. Ohly compared the hours of operation variance by Snap Fitness that the City Council approved. Mr. Tjossem explained that the City Council did not approve the variance but initiated a text amendment defining a fitness center. Mr. Ohly expressed concern that the I�lighting could be detrimental to neighborhood. He indicated that he could not justify approving the variance due to regulations set forth by the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. He questioned whether the City Council would review that type of use and reclassify it. Mr. Ryan stated that a video store use seems less intrusive and commercial than a gas station. Mr. Ohly agreed that it is a better use of the property; however, they need to consider the neighborhood concerns expressed and the regulations set forth in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Mr. Tjossem explained that the business is allowed at the site. The variances are for , the hours of operation to be extended by 1 hour to 11 p.m. and an increase of 30 square feet to the allowable square footage for wall signs and freestanding signs associated with a Retail Trade Use. Mr. Ryan expressed concern with the proposed signage but approved of extending the business hours to 11 p.m. Discussion ensued regarding findings. ,a q : rs of operation to p m fior Mr Applequist moved to apprdve extending#fie hots Type lll, Phase a, i/ar�anceaRequest#R2009 017�/AR by FaMi y /.1 eo with the t below ndings,,Mr DalLmann seconded the t ot�on The motion carried 9,�ni�th "`"e t n x r r �1 ''+ti a w e �X F a�'2 "t s. S t JNr '� lyY ot��g Ja d ink 3 4 ti �'�7 �5 R e 21' k 5 ,�INDINCyS ' 4 � EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES Due to the na#ure of the business, there Pdoes appear to be exeept�onal§circumstances or concl�t�ons #hat.,al., to the �p l�+cant's Iiroperty3 that may pot generally PPIy to othar properties=m, same zoning district REASONABLE USE �fhe granting of,#his variance request does appear#o be • necessa; Ito allow for this t�tp of business, z g; �p ENRAFT Page 8 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals • Meeting Date: July 1, 2009 ABSENCE QF'DETRIMENT: 'lie granting of th1s v riance request would not be d-A-- --W to the ar jacent pr pe I ov�►ners a[s at �s less in#rusrye than a gas Station ?:b " t o fin' ✓ t r a s _ '� x '£s MINIMUl11 V�RIAI�ICE The mitmumyviriance that°would be necessary to ` k$`E. �'f b'S• b 5; '. K cif' I the alleged ardsh�p would#3e Fvarjance to the hours of operVI ation} k ¢assoc}ated with a Retail Trade-Use wathtn the B 'l {Restr�ct+edommerc�al}�on�rig I3astr�ct per Sectio i 6 3�12 of the C�ijr iifi Rochester Zon�r Or+d�nance and t.anrl � Development Manuals :<Hd„ ' LBO. .i. •� Ohly moved to deny increasiing the square feet to�ailowable square foo#age fornrall signs,an d`frees#andift ;,gns,ssociated�with a Retail Trade Use#ortType III;,Phase 1, Uar�ance t2equest #R2�09 01'IUAR'by Fam1ly 1%ideo with the below r findings. Mr NRyan seconded the mo#w on' Th e motion carried 3 �, with Mr Applequistvot�ng�nay i s s � � Ji 1 A 8 ; f # J EXCEPTIIQNAL CIRCUMSTANCES There does not appear to be excepfional circums#antes otonditions that appto#tie applica'nt's property`that maynot generally applypto other properties rn #hie same zoning cl�str�ct The purposeand Intent of the B , tft Wicted Commercial)Zoning District�s#o accommodate Borne corr�mercial uses lr�ca#ed ad�aceri#.to residential areas'AJnderstandably ' i sibs' ' there are certain nuisances�associad�rnth these commercyal usesiut can bye . mitigated throughignage regulat11ons s . EASONA8I=E USES Tlie n gra tang}of this variance requestdoes riot ap pear to be necessary to alloanr for the -easoriablese of tlae appGcarit's,property The > ,� < purpose and inten# ofi the 8 �'�Resiricted Commercial) Zoning District is to accommodate some commercial uses"lioc ated,adlacent to residential areas tJnders#a�ndabl there are certain nulisances associated with these commercial Y uses but can,,be mitigated through sagnage rcgulat�ons Nk E d q 4 5 s �,ABSENCE:OF.DETRIMENT The granting of#his variance regdes#would be de"tramental to the adjacent property=owners There are apartments directly{across the facility as partof an approved Planned Una# Development (PUDk The granting n.. ofxithis variance would be detrimental to the intent and purpose`of the City of Roches#er,Zonin rdiraance ,..... :, .. ,. ... a.. .. . : Mr. Tjossem summarized the variance that was approved and the variance that was denied. He further explained the right for the applicant and/or public to request an . appeal within 10 days of written decision.