HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 071A-07 {
• RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Jeff Allman applied for a variance from th requirements of R.C.O. Section
63.252 (1) as to the Site Location "A" standards of the R-2 Low Density Residential District for an
office use for property located at 607 East Center Street; and,
WHEREAS, this particular Site Location standard states as follows:
In an Established Zoning District, uses may locate at th intersection of a collector
street and a higher order street (street classifications are based on the
Thoroughfare Plan) or at the intersection of two higher order streets. In the
Developing District, uses may locate at the intersection Df a major local street and
a higher order street or at the intersection of two higher c rder streets; and,
WHEREAS, the appellant seeks to locate his office and ossibly other offices on the main
floor and in the basement of the existing Townhall Estates Building. An office use is an
allowable use in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The proposed use complies
with all requirements for an office use in the R-2 Zoning District except for the requirement that
an office use must be located at the intersection of a collector s reet and higher order street or at
the intersection of two higher order streets. East Center S reet is an Arterial and Seventh
Avenue S.E., is a Residential Local according to the Thoroughfare Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff recommended findings of fact indicating the
Oequested variance to this location requirement does not consti jute an exceptional circumstance,
is not necessary to ensure adequate or reasonable use of the property and would cause a
material detriment to the public welfare and the adjacent proper y owners; and
WHEREAS, Section 60.417 of the Rochester Code of O dinances provides the criteria by
which a variance request is analyzed; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Rochester oning Board of Appeals at its
January 3, 2007, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals made the following findings of fact:
1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There wo Id not appear to be any
exceptional circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's
property that may not apply generally to other pro erties in the same zoning
district. The office use meets all of the requirem nts outlined in the City of
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual for the R-2
(Low Density Residential) Zoning District, howev r, the location restrictions
are in place on certain types of permitted uses t 1 insure their compatibility
with surrounding land uses.
2. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this vanan a does not appear to be
• necessary to allow for reasonable use of the applicant's property. The
• applicant has received zoning approval from th City to covert the building
into 66 single room occupancy units.
3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request does
appear to be materially detrimental to the p blic welfare and adjacent
property owners, and would be detrimental tote 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 varia ce to the Site Location "A"
Standards of the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District for an office
use; and,
WHEREAS, based on the above findings of fact, the Z Wing Board of Appeals denied the
variance request; and,
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to the Comm n Council and came before the
Council at its February 5, 2007, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, at the February 5th public hearing, the Council considered the information
presented to it in its council agenda packet (attached hereto as Exhibit A), adopted the
Appellant's suggested findings of fact which are stated as folio s:
• 1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: This is a very deep but relatively
narrow lot that is atypical of the neighborhood 151' x 541'). The unusual
dimensions don't lend themselves to R-2 uses. The combined presence of
the railroad tracks and the river limit the higher order north south streets to
Civic Center Drive and 11th Avenue.
2. REASONABLE USE: The variance is necessa to permit the reasonable
use of the property involved. The building was onstructed for a use that is
no longer viable as evidenced by the fact that tie owner ceased operation
over five years ago and repeated attempts hav failed to identify any other
economically viable use of the property. The original design contained
large common areas such as a commercial kitchen and dining due to its
use as a senior congregate care facility. The location of these common
areas within the building now makes them m re suitable for compatible
office uses than for residential development.
3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The varian a will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare ... is in harmo y with the general purpose
and intent of this ordinance.
A. The proposed office uses will be entirely within the existing building
and within the parking capacity of the s te. The public will not be
• impacted.
2
• B. My hope is to use some of the commo area for my professional
offices, which would typically operate fr m Monday through Friday
during normal business hours. This u e would generate minimal
customer traffic, utilize parking when resi ential tenants are typically
at work, and provide daily Owner preserice for leasing, operations
oversight and maintenance.
4. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The variance as grante is the minimum necessary
to provide reasonable economic use of the pro erty. The proposed office
uses are necessary to meet lender underw ting requirements for the
adaptive reuse of this property. The City as already evaluated this
requirement and unanimously approved a TIF R development District for it.
This variance is the minimum necessary to allow the project to succeed;
and,
WHEREAS, the Council concluded that the Appellar t satisfied the criteria of Section
60.417 and entitling the Appellant to the variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the ommon Council of the City of
Rochester that the City grant to Jeff Allman a variance from the requirements of R.C.O. Section
63.252 (1) as to the Site Location "A" Standards of the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
•District for an office use.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the January 3, 200 , decision of the Zoning Board of
Appeals is reversed and that a variance is granted to the App llant consistent with the findings of
fact stated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS Cam! DAY OF 2007.
RESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
'CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS &'IH DAY OF , 2007.
. MAYOR OF SAID CITY
3
•(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
ZoneOWarianceRes.0701
•
•
4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 151 "
DATE: 2105/07
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.�
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING DEPARTMENT E—
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Type III,Phase I(#07-01)Appeal of the Type III,Phase I(#06-29)Variance Denial Brent Svenby
January 22,2007
ZoninrBoard ofAppealsActionofAppealsAction:
On January 3, 2007 the Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request of the applicant; Jeff Allman, to
allow a variance to the Site Location "A" Standards of the R-2 (Low Density Residential)Zoning District for an
office use.
The applicant requested a variance to Section 63.252 (1) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual to the Site Location "A" Standards of the R-2 Low Density Residential District. All other
requirements for an office use in the R-2 zoning district could be met except the site location criteria. The staff
report was presented in support of a denial to the request.
The applicant did arrive late to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and missed the pubic hearing regarding his
variance request.
Council Action Requested:
Approve or deny the variance appeal by the applicant based on the original staff report and attachments
submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals at their January 3,2007 meeting.
Attachments:
1. Copy of Minutes of the January 3,2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
2. Copy of Staff Report submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated December 27, 2006.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5,
2007,in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 SE 4m Street.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by-- Second by. to:
i
City of Rochester
Zoning Board of Appeals i
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
held on Wednesday, January 3, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 104, located at
City Hall, 201 4t' Street SE, Rochester, MN 55904.
Members Present: Mr. Rory Lenton; Chairman, Mr. Jerry Atkinson; Vice-Chair, Mr.
Patrick Halsey, Mr. Paul Ohly, and Mr. Pat Ryan
I :
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Mr. Logan Tjossem, Planner; Ms. Jennifer Gayness, Secretary
Other City Staff Present: Ms. Pat Alfredson, Attorney
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Mr. Lenton thanked Jerry Atkinson for his 2 years of service and presented him a
certificate of appreciation.
Mr. Lenton, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. •
Mr. Ohly made a motion to approve the minutes of December 6, 2006,
changing page 15 motion "staff recommended findings" to "the following
findings". The motion was seconded by Mr. Ryan. The motion carried
unanimously.
A motion was made by Mr. Ohly and seconded by Mr. Atkinson to proceed
with the agenda as submitted. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Type III, Phase I Variance request #06-29 by Jeff Allman for the Site Location Standards
of an office use in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The property is
located at 607 East Center Street and is the former Townhall Estates Building.
Mr. Tjossem presented the staff report, dated December 27, 2006, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Lenton asked three times if the applicant was present to speak. No one came forward.
Mr. Lenton asked three times if there was anyone else in the audience that wished to speak for
or against the variance request. No one came forward. •
Page 2
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: January 3, 2007
With no one wishing to be heard, Mr. Lenton closed the public hearing.
Mr. Ryan discussed the similarities of the request before them and that of Diane Maas a few
meetings ago. He stated that their request was denied and indicated that the present request
was not any different than theirs.
Mr Ohl
V I-06TV
t d ebV-7
arL
h-
sbddhd6dA
!M. d t
following ii d-l' nd 1-dw W
A
o".`tea F
WA:
"135rf'RY'
�APR'1711ONAL C. -IRCUMSTANCES!,- does not�p ear to a
xcep tod
-ME,
h A, Ican s;�p -op
...d.rcumpti 'C'e' s"
_p �j "aU.M.,c Y"n pp
_p .Y q.Na.
;-:@pjpg!I, pstr
7 Flih
..-.general(Y-.=io, oth" d" .-meeW4 1--m-f-115'
P't
9.. �2'
P
the 04;bf.'113odhest 2 -M Land:�06.0610.1in.6h,
.requirenjents.outilhed 16:- erzonipa:0, dffi-an 61
LMahual:16f",t,h9-,P. `,4_ C i4-be�sjt F, e" sd 6nftffiAl)l h,
.D.1 tstr...ict-�
b owe ve-r
v ';(Wa 10Mc
restrictions'are n:pjaze onpe anPesip p rnjtt0 ,,t$eS,Ad F *jbi.l .
-with surr
ounding..land uses.. ...........
..-note
-.REASONAf3LE--'USE-:-�The":;:'g'*If,g'nti'iid:.'6*.f..tiA!§.c,,�.ii!6i.ic6..t..e7q-66-ii-�d-7 "' g,bL-`dyesppuar-i 6*
n
theapplicant's
or' the-t-i"necessary oa ow f reasona6id.use j f e - K-9f
•
dbelve
eToo
1- IN- 7,' 6.,bbnVerVA,*1 -bUi1d10#jfrt&,66-, __�.Tm
approval,from the hi
el
KttUIEN
IN 04 11M
Et
. .........
54 MRR 4 sammmi
.4
o q A,
ABSENCE idtith RIMEN.M.2,., -janUng , . P p dr..1,
gr ... ..IMP- 5
I
UA;1-
.M i Vi,
c we ners-ad , " -1-��iU
V�
matertail h -t. he pupil 1far_A'j_d4 Oft; W_7�
i : ' 4'S' P bp
Ual-WOT;
detrimental 16 theme 7intent ant! purpose o. .bb,cfty- Rochester2oning0-d--hiW
-W
:MINIMUM VARIANCE.. The minimum variance that would.-b- r to, j19V4f61h
alleged�hardsh>p _d
would -d
15614i ar_so f.1
a:
5�
Al l)6nsitYResidential - onihg�':Dlstrlbt.f6f,_4h..-off�ice�use.,,*.-.,',�.'-,;,,',... l.'�.'-',�,':--.'��-- ,.
Mr. Ohly left the meeting due to a family emergency.
TvNe III, Phase I Variance request #06-30 by Joe Weis -Weis Development Corp.
to ex d the maximum density requirements allowed and the required minimum
bufferya`r multi-family in the Central Development Core - Frinqz,&yL0ffljt_QC-
Fri ge) Zoning-51196do-t. The Property is located between 3r9am4M Ave SE and
between 5th and 6th S .
Mr. T-jossern presented the staff report, er 28, 2006, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olm ing Department.
Mr. Lenton asked issues arose a permit had been iss Mr. Weis.
Mr. 7jossem explaine t the information was not evident at the time o GDP. Therefore,
the GDP had a c ion of approval to go through a Type I Site Developmen review.
` Page 7
V City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: January 3, 2007
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. As may be brought up by members.
Mr. Jeff Allman addressed the Board. He apologized for being late and asked that the
Board reopen the pubic hearing for Variance Request#2006-29 so that he could be
heard.
Ms. Alfredson explained that a motion had been taken on the request earlier in the
meeting and that the public hearing had been closed.
Mr. Allman stated that he was 10 minutes late and that he paid his application fee and
the denial of the request could have a multi-million impact on him.
Discussion ensued regarding the reconsideration process and that Mr. Ohly, who made
the original motion, was not present due to a family emergency and had to leave after
the first public hearing item.
Mr. Lenton explained that Mr. Allman had the right to appeal the Board's decision to the
City Council within 10 days of the decision.
Mr. Allman requested that the Board make a special request and reopen the public
hearing.
Ms. Garness explained that it is not a process of reopening a public hearing but
reconsidering a motion that had been made and passed.
Mr. Lenton declined opening the public hearing as action had been taken on the
request. He encouraged Mr. Allman to address the City Council for further action.
Mr. Allman stated that he did not want to pay another fee to appeal the Board's decision
as he didn't agree that he should have had to apply for the variance in the first place.
Mr. Lenton explained that the issue is that the individual who made the motion had to
leave and he wasn't sure of the recourse at this time.
Mr. Allman stated that he understood and had no excuse.
Mr. Tjossem explained that the Board is required to follow the procedures set forth in
the Roberts Rules of Order.
Discussion ensued regarding Roberts Rule of Order and the possibility that it could
possibly be reconsidered at the next meeting if there was new information provided at
the discretion of the Board.
Page 8
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: January 3, 2007
Mr. Atkinson asked for the legal advice of Ms. Alfredson.
Ms. Alfredson explained that not all of the Board members that considered the request
were present at this time as Mr. Ohly had to leave the meeting due to a medical
emergency. Therefore, the request should not be revisited tonight. However, it is
discretionary of the Board. She indicated that she did not have the Roberts Rule of
Order book with her at the meeting to confirm.
Mr. Atkinson questioned why the issue could not be resolved at this meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding reconsidering a decision and which parties involved
needed to be present. It was stated that the Board of Appeals and Planning and
Zoning Commission make a motion to follow Roberts Rule of Order each year at their
Annual Meeting.
Mr. Atkinson asked what the applicant's options were at this point.
Mr. Tjossem responded that he has 10 days to appeal the decision to the City Council.
• He stated that he thought that new evidence needed to be provided to reconsider the
action taken by the Board and that staff would need to look into the procedure. If there
is new information, the applicant should formally provide it to staff and staff can review
it and put a memo in the packet for the next meeting.
Mr. Allman stated "I think that is an unreasonable burden put on me I paid $880 to get
heard at this meeting, I was 10 minutes late, no excuses, but the fact that a member
had to leave..."
Ms. Alfredson reiterated that it was due to a family medical emergency.
Mr. Atkinson stated that it was the only reason Mr. Ohly left.
Mr. Allman stated that he just wants to be heard and that this had a multi-million dollar
impact on him. He requested that he at least be invited to be on the Board's agenda
and not apply for an appeal.
Mr. Atkinson agreed that he should be put on the agenda.
Mr. Tjossem stated that they would be checking the procedures.
Mr. Allman stated that he should be given the opportunity to be heard at the Board's
next meeting.
Mr. Tjossem explained that the Board is required to follow the procedures set forth in
the Roberts Rules of Order.
Page 9
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: January 3, 2007
i
Mr. Allman asked that his request be tabled until the next meeting.
Mr. Tjossem explained that they cannot procedurally table the request as it had already
been acted on. At this point, staff will need to review what rules and procedures they
can act under and will get back to Mr. Allman. He indicated that if he wanted to take
immediate action, he could file an application to appeal the Board's decision.
Mr. Allman asked that it be on record that it is an unreasonable burden.
ADJOURN:
Mr. Ryan made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Atkinson. With no other
business, Mr. Lenton, Chair, adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:05
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP Mr. Rory Lenton, Chair
Rochester-Olmsted Planning Dept. •
jlg
EST
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT o�.gocx•,, .E R
2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100 a Rochester, MN 55904-4744 U��'�:: •;��>
CC U N T T Of www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
OR . . 1
O�pORA TED:AUGU5.�.5•I'O
TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Brent Svenby, Senior Planner
DATE: December 27, 2006
RE: Variance (Type III,Phase 1),#06-29
January 3, 2007,Board of Appeals Meeting
Planning Department Review:
APPLICANT: Jeff Allman
323 South Broadway
Rochester,MN 55904
• LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 607 East Center Street, the former Townhall
Estates Building.
ZONING: R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
District.
REFERRAL AGENCY CON OYIENTS: Rochester Building&Safety
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing to locate his office and possibly other offices on the main floor
and in the basement of the existing vacant Townhall Estates building. In the R-2 zoning
district, office uses are permitted as long as all of the zoning district standards/appearance
standards are met (floor area ratio, landscape area, bufferyards, site location requirement,
etc...). In this case the site location requirement is not being met. An office use, in the R-
2 zoning district,has a site location requirement of"A".
Section 63.252 (1) — Site Location "A" Standards, of the City of Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Develoyment Manual states that, "In an Established Zoning District,
uses may locate at the intersection of a collector street and a higher order street (street
. classifications are based on the Thoroughfare Plan) or at the intersection of two higher
order streets. In the Developing District, uses may locate at the intersection of a major
local street and a higher order street or at the intersection of two higher order streets."
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8345 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-B232 • HOUSINGMRA 507/2B5-B224
.�.e.... PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC S07/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
V
The former use of the building was a 75-bed registered senior board and care and assisted
living facility. In 2002, the applicant received approval through the Restricted
Development process to covert the building into 34 apartment units. This conversion
never occurred. In 2005, the applicant petitioned to amend the approved plan changing
the building into 66 single room occupancy units. The Council approved the proposed
amendment.
As stated above an office use should be located at the intersection of a collector street and
higher order street or at the intersection of two higher order streets. East Center Street is
an Arterial and 7`b Ave SE is a Residential Local according to the Thoroughfare Plan.
The applicant requests the following-
9 � g
9 A variance to the Site Location "A" Standards of the R-2 (Low Density
Residential) Zoning District for an office use.
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 apply
generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The office use meets all of the
requirements outlined in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development •
Manual for the R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District, however, the location
restrictions are in place on certain types of permitted uses to insure their compatibility
with surrounding land uses.
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 applicant has
received zoning approval from the City to covert the building into 66 single room
occupancy units.
ABSENCE OF DETRDyIENT: The granting of this variance request does appear to be
materially detrimental to the public welfare and adjacent property owners, and would be
detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance.
MlNUvfLJM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate
the alleged hardship would be a variance to the Site Location "A" Standards of the R-2
(Low Density Residential)Zoning District for an office use.
Attachments:
1. Copy of Application
2. Copy of Applicant's Letter
3. Copy of Site Location Map
4. Copy of Findings for a Variance i
Type III Phase I Variance
Residences of Old Town Hall, LLC
607 East Center Street
Rochester MN 55904
Zoning Ordinance 60.417 Requires the following four tests be met to approve a variance.
1. Extraordinary conditions or circumstances....which are peculiar to the
property...
a. This is a very deep but relatively narrow lot that is atypical of the
neighborhood(151' x 541'). The unusual dimensions don't lend
themselves to R-2 uses. The combined presence of the railroad tracks and
the river limit the higher order north south streets to Civic Center Drive
and 11'h Avenue.
b. This site has one higher level street at the front (Center St.) and a lower
level street at the rear(7 b Ave SE), and should be grandfathered in to meet
the "two higher level street"criterion.
2. The variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property
involved.
a. The building was constructed for a use that is no longer viable as
• evidenced by the fact that the owner ceased operation over 5 years ago,
and repeated attempts have failed to identify any other economically
viable use of the property. The original design contained large common
areas such as a commercial kitchen and dining due to its use as a senior
congregate care facility. The location of these common areas within the
building now makes them more suitable for compatible office uses than
for residential development.
b. . The ordinance allows up to 0.08 of the 85,813 SF site(6,865 SF)to be
used for other uses. The proposed plan utilizes less than 6,000 SF for such
other uses.
3. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare...is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance.
a. The proposed ancillary uses will be entirely within the existing building,
and within the parking capacity of the site. The public will not be
impacted.
b. My hope is to use some of the common area for my professional offices,
which would typically operate from Monday through Friday during
normal business hours. This use would generate minimal customer traffic,
utilize parking when residential tenants are typically at work, and provide
daily Owner presence for leasing, operations oversight, and maintenance.
4. The variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property.
• a. The proposed ancillary uses are necessary to meet lender underwriting
requirements for the adaptive reuse of this property. The City has already
evaluated this requirement and unanimously approved a TIF
FIRECElVED
DEC 1 5 2006
W
Redevelopment District for it. This variance is the minimum necessary to •
allow the project to succeed.
spectfully submitted, _
effrey G.Allman
Chief Manager
Residences of Old Town Hall, LLC
RECEIVED
DEC 15 2006
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
Pk,',NNING DEPARTMENT
SITE LOCATI90. 4 MAP
Variance #2006-29
by Jeff Allman '
607 East Center Street
J
,I
I
1
� .E
MAYO FI W
LLLI
o
�!
c, )U Page 1 of 2
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:
A. 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;
B. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the
property involved;
C. the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or materially injurious to other property in the arcs,
is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this
ordinance;and;
D. 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
- A. 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
B. 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
60 Page ~ M 2
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 binding
upon the applicant and any subsequent purchaser,heir,or assign of
the property,and any violation of a variance or its conditions and
safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as
such.
•
� Page 1 of 2
A
Foster Stephanie
From: Johnson, Randy [RJohnson@ci.rochester.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:29 PM
To: Planning Referrals
Cc: Fnseth, Brad; Dutton, Gary
Subject: RE: request for comments on Type III, Phase I Variance request#06-29 by Jeff Allman
The proposed variance request appears to indicate a change of use for the existing Town Hall Estate
building. No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a
different occupancy classification, unless such building is made to comply with the current code
requirements for the new use. A building permit would be required for the"change of use' and any
construction. The applicant would need to submit for review and approval a building permit application and
construction plans indicating the proposed change of use and the required construction.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks
Randy
Randy S. Johnson, P.E.
Manager of Plan Review & Permit Services
Rochester Building Safety Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
(507) 281-6133
(507) 281-6146 Direct
(507) 287-2240 Fax
email: rjohnson@ci.rochester.mn.us
website: www.rochestermn.gov
From: Boose, Ron
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 11:03 AM
To: Johnson, Randy; Dutton, Gary
Subject: FW: request for comments on Type III, Phase I Variance request#06-29 by Jeff Allman
From: Gamess Jennifer [mailto:gamess.jennifer@CO.OLMSTED.MN.US]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 10:47 AM
To: boberie@chartercom.com; corey.hanson@dnr.state.mn.us; Goslee, Dave; Knott, Doug; drichardson@rpu.org;
Stotz, Denny; gkellen@peoplesrec.com; Greg Rowley; Growden Randy; Harford John; jjmosser@charter.net,
jschlet@gwest.com;justin.watkins@pca.state.mn.us; Khan Muhammad; Leslie Rivas; Baker, Mark;
mengie@rpu.org; Mndot, Nigbur, Mike; NRClausen@wpsr.com; nstonel@email.usps.gov; Peter Rich; Boose, Ron;
Reiter Charlie; Freese, Richard; RNRC; rdlenton@wpsr.com; rwellik@peoplesrec.com; Spaeth,Terry;Swisher,
Vance; Whetstone Bruce; Whitaker Floyd
Subject: request for comments on Type III, Phase I Variance request#06-29 by Jeff Allman
. _ 1'a- . ..:•mac--. . ""=Y+'•S�.s ' �'f �,,,. . _ - .•kr^•.fi,�,
Appeal R2007-DDlAP
607 East Center Street
(former Towne Hall Estates Building) . . ......
mtz
_ s
" -73
1 1 _
Err
ME-
}-
,.,
.a
vm
MOW
Zaw
'TOW 711
y -
_
{ it c.
��.RRR � ilk - � �� : - .a� �•"' .. � a..'
UK-
�i-S'.. Styr A. - Y .s,! J' •y_
... .. 111. —�