HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 016-08 RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Donald Regan and Premier Bank ("Appellant") applied for a variance from
the requirements of Section 63.456 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances as to the required
Bufferyard "G"; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §63.456 states as follows:
When parking areas for more than six vehicles are developed on a lot adjacent to
a lot zoned R-1, R-1x, R-2 or R-Sa, or used for single family detached, single
family attached, duplex, church, school, or Type I Group Residential Care,
screening equal in magnitude to Bufferyard G as defined in paragraph 65.720 shall
be established along the property line to screen the adjacent use from the parking
area; and,
WHEREAS, Bufferyard "G," as found in section 65.720, requires a minimum of 15 feet
plus landscape material; and,
WHEREAS, Appellant seeks to construct a parking facility on Lots 3, 4 and 12, Block 8
and Lot 9, Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester for property located north and west of-Premier
Bank, east of Second Avenue S.W., and north of Fifth Street S.W. The Appellant proposes to
install an eight-foot tall "screening fence" along the south side of Lot 9. Bufferyard "G", which is
.applicable to the south side of Lot 9, will not permit the installation of a screening fence at this
location and, instead, requires a minimum of 15 feet plus landscape material; and,
WHEREAS, Appellant seeks a variance from the 15-foot minimum required landscaping
for the south side of Lot 9 as required by R.C.O. §63.456; 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 recommended findings of fact indicating the requested variance to this location requirement
does not constitute 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 property owners; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission at
its November 28, 2007, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission made the following findings of fact:
1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are no extraordinary or
exceptional conditions that affect this property for use as a parking lot. The
. applicant can provide a one way drive aisle and one tier of parking spaces
at a 45 degree angle and meet the minimum bufferyard width requirement
• of 15 feet. The applicant has met the required off-street parking standard
for the bank building and is merely supplying excess parking spaces.
2. REASONABLE USE: The variance is not necessary to permit the
reasonable use of the property. The applicant is able to provide a one way
drive aisle and nine parking spaces on this lot.
3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The variance may be detrimental to the
residential unit south of the proposed parking lot. The residential unit is five
feet from its north lot line which provides no buffer to the parking lot impacts
including noise, visual impacts, car lights and light and air; and
WHEREAS, based on the above findings of fact, the Planning and Zoning Commission
denied the variance request; and,
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to the Common Council and came before the
Council at its January 7, 2008, meeting; and,
WHEREAS, at the January 7th public hearing, the Council considered the information
presented to it in its council agenda packet (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and information
presented to it by the Appellant (attached hereto as Exhibit B); and,
WHEREAS, the adjacent property owner testified that the construction of 18 parking stalls
Son this lot without the required bufferyard is excessive and detrimental to his rental property. If
the variance is granted, there would be parking within five feet of the rental property's bedroom;
and,
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence presented, the Council concluded that the
Planning and Zoning Commission's findings of fact were most persuasive especially as to the
risk of a substantial detriment to the adjacent property owner should the variance be granted. As
such, Appellant had failed to satisfy the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417. Therefore, the Appellant was
not entitled to the variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the City deny the request of Donald Regan and Premier Bank for a variance from
the Bufferyard "G" requirement as found in R.C.O. §63.456 as it otherwise applies to the side
yard of Lot 9 abutting the residential property to the south.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the November 28, 2007, decision of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, as recorded in a resolution dated December 17, 2007, is sustained and
that a variance is not granted to the Appellant consistent with the Planning and Zoning
Commission's findings of fact stated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 77H DAY OF -,fflyt7nR-9 , 2008.
•
2
•
PRE (DENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: L" )2-3�4
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF �,TAJUR"&Y , 2008.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone05\VadanceRes.0703
•
•
3
r31� A
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1-7-08
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase I Appeal#R2007-003AP by Donald Regan/Premier Bank. PREPARED'BY:
The applicant is appealing the City Planning and Zoning Commission decision to deny requested John Harford
variance number R2007-030VAR to the bufferyard requirements of a proposed parking lot Senior Planner
adjacent to a residential unit. The property is located along the east side of 2nd Avenue SW and
south of 5`h Street SW and is legally described as Lot 9,Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester.
December 17, 2007
Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On November 28, 2007, the Rochester City Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conditional use
permit to establish a surface parking lot on 4 lots in the 400 block of I" and 2nd Ave's. SW but denied the
variance request of the applicant on the most southerly lot included in the application. The properties are zoned
CDC (Central Development Core)-Fringe zoning district.
The applicant had requested a variance to the Bufferyard requirement applied to the south side of Lot 9,
Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester. The applicant requested that no bufferyard be required for the proposed
parking lot on Lot 9. The City Planning and Zoning Commission denied the variance request based on the
findings in the staff report.
CoutzcilActeon Requested ''
Approve or deny the variance appeal by,the applicant based on the original staff report and attachments
sub r iitt' Ao the 1Csty,1?lanrung'and Zoning Commission at theuNovember $,2007 meeting
Attachments:
1. Copy of Conditional Use and Variance Resolutions.
2. Copy of a Staff Report dated November 15, 2007 and attachments
3. Minutes of the November 28, 2007, City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, January 7,
2008, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 SE 4th Street.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
-- TYPE Ili, PHASE I DEVELOPMENT APPLIGmTION
CITY OF ROCHESTER
The undersigned hereby makes application for a Type III Development as regulated by Section 60.530 of the
City of Rochester Land Development Manual. •
NAME OF APPLICANT: MR. DONALD REGAN/PREMIER BANK
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 421 SW FIRST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55902
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (home) (work) (507) 285-3720
FAX NUMBER ( ) E-MAIL (IF APPLICABLE)
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY IF DIFFERENT THAN APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 500 BLOCK OF SECOND
AVENUE SW (LOT 9, BLOCK 1, ORIGINAL PL T OF ROC ESTER)
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER: 40m-
1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 9, BLOCK 1, GINAL L T OF ROCHESTER
TYPE OF APPLIC
N r
(Please check appropnate box) ' a a
' ❑ <Type Ill phased ConditonalYUse fz r j
gc ��,.� � :T,YTpe rIIf1.P..{haselar�arl}ce, a s 2 � `r''''°e n a 4,� ��E � ,„h�3. � 5 c R' i } `� �'� x +,3�...x � ,� F � 'r c •
'=' � '^• " T 13e'71A Phase A V eal''i' R 'xf fi' $3 I R x ¢a.p' &,3'fi i k^a } 3 ^' ;>"` d Shy S h S Yk ,,, 511 -p�.
r uu pp "'.a s S s 3.}€' r F,r .+ :. vx .. . z �v«�r '" r
,..¢ ,
Type!Il`Phase i�inal"Fiat
REASON FOR APPLICATION: (Please describe in detail if applicable)APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING &
ZONING COMMISSION OF NOVEMBER 28,1 2007 TO DENY THE VARIANCE RE
ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 9, BLOCK 1, ORIGINAL PLAT OF ROCHESTER AS REQUESTED IN
ARD
THE APPLICATION REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE R2007-03OVAR A PRESENTATION WILL BE MADE AT THE
MEETING.
DATE: DECEMBER 49 2007
Respectfully Submitted,
DONALD B. REGAN/PREMIER BANK 421 SW FIRST AVE. , ROCHESTER, MN 55902 285-3720
(Owner or Corporation) (Address)
(Phone)
Return Application to: Rochester—Olmsted Planning Department RECEIVED
2122 Campus Dr. SE, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904 DEC L 6 2007
DISTRIBUTION: Ph: (507)328-7100 Fx: (507)328-7958
" •Planning Department: (white copy)
City Clerk: (canary copy) Da'te�Reerved " 0 s
Applicant: (pink copy) Recetuedby
Application fee
F ormJk1920-30 Rev.216/04
500 ft. Notification Area of
Lots 3, 4 and 12 Block 8 and
Lot 9 Block 1 , Rochester Original Plat
I i
F !
Conditional Use#R2007-034CUP
and Variance#R2007-030VAR I I I
by Premier Bank/Donald Regan
PIN: 64.02.12.017759, 64.02.12.017758,
64.02.12.017767, 64.02.13.017702
Ward:4 (Pat Carr)
Neighborhood Assoc:
Historic Southwest '
11/14/07Of
j g
-S
UD 77I
V1. lM
I i�Lh i9C�x, z 3 I �Iul�g ��+ i .t� f� S v� 3,h,. ��,t J;.. Q
-
I
LE)LZ
t xi.Mm�' 5 i Mg
y wG 1 A X 4
i I �
i f"31
I
r I
l}
! F2 t 3
�A 1
13
R ex
0} 125 250 50D,Feet � l:
_
t i
N
Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map,please notify
the GIS Division,Rochester-Olmsted County Planning Department,2122 Campus Drive SE,Rochester,MN 55904,(507)328-7100.
- -- --•- LEGEND W. -
� AV S. ti... .ww — -.-. - - -��.EK
a„nu F aa,
L Em,Y WM14! a aV N[ra --UT
1 ST ENUE E—�'�-UMOQgaM 1RDImN[
® C M IAM 0 l —EC YaEIµ[II— �y��� Eb�GGGa11M°61Cn,IL`
q EI Telnxa2 eoa q NM COMq„uRl, = arona>z>ql,
d
:.::L.- _ r.:i: i pJ.,�'�,;•'�'_r• I 7F rw'�"E MToeutt fQ ma oluqu atc,ne
I •• •'Y.jn _ :,-• 'y - '• •• - I �• M1e alQ r• Y .• ••a,Fl 1••Tq'Mi1FMaN1 U,V.- -
11 SIG IA[ulNf pl°RI01 ,MMM FgIR R.°.e.tVW q I
"p� • �. , ' I M°A m"i NO Wl/t'�'°IIK YFM CIM°I WMSIIMKIpM�MRs to R ITKI:N M9 '
,I I .'I':. .l`•'':•;, - � x M coM,ere,w,Rpua rrc Rut T„n unr IMOINRM,u teey¢t Il,o Mt w,oM
•'�"�`�'•• ie+Moa+m�IXtiMmq OIciM,gX/aMg1q wcMuoMa
1�,' I I x nMa,,o +smuclron rHo" Rnnrt qIM M eovREe auc M eo"nueron sMaw,mearu,e Ml.®l• i IaN aNTSRGIbM„fM O1G NeE1C VRUR6 Te OERMM-NGEI I�R NO TM[K TME![Ill[S WY IXgT.- -.�=•`:i'R�:�•. - • .. ■i LWfF1MCE Uq q pUgNO C°ITI,IIC,101"M C°Y,14•GRIM q M°WRD le QCMiR MI
�/� S°IViCE 10 M E°eF°MIMM M NYM Mla tRCmM,EL,M fgNC lML
V J �I �':t - .�:f 2 1 I . M CUN,MK,pI 9FU°M IFCMSRR MUE IIIMIO YA F 'dox MAYO.,Mq PIWIW T 11 3 _ wr.�.::�.� I s[NCouMQ[e W M°WI M Uorq NIoAi9ff TK, 1M,C,P1 r MFl°�G (
r. r
MMaETut.v1. � O I I I
-
(n
Oil
_ �
UN II ( I r 'a--_ _ 9 8 10�
N 1K 6 �: l 10
II I �!:E�(/ I I
jg
i°Rea NFORM"TION
II CURREM=ONaJQ COCJq ��q_`1 I \ .
U gRo6E0 Uee RU,MINO F"Cam RTRE■ 2ND AVENUE S.W. M• _ _ --
—69i.r om0e ze e.l.pROAACRE ea
II 1 WUBU CE O 1�.NU 0.�BE R �
NEa eVR011alF MElll¢Sae1EK imljl
DC-MED
" ZONE CDC-MED ZONE C
u�aF ua PA ". AT, $RR"°E":,a�°F. NME "....,' =: '� "`�.' ""�'°`" °" �'°' SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
w• .f•NIOIE
N• �
ay.1T PERPBlpM.•taAR r•w r w
EaTER�oR etorua ""�` `- " PREMIER BANK PARKING LOTS
ecE wz uw.
REQUIRE O.Of.Jaf0eL.16pxi1 tl. ems♦ 1�1
RROMER; 13Ea1.
ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA
RECEIVED
DEL r L ZU3l/
ROCHESTER-CUMSTED
PI.ANNiNG DECARTVEN-r
f
•
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
City of Rochester, Minnesota
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
DENIAL
Variance Request #R2007-030VAR (Premier Bank/Donald Regan)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed on behalf of the owners of the premises known as:
Lots 3, 4 and 12, Block 8 and Lot 9, Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester,,Olmsted
• County
asking the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester to grant a variance to the
provisions of Paragraph 60.417 of the Rochester Land Development Manual to permit a variance to
the Bufferyard "G" standard for a parking facility.
WHEREAS, the matter of such variance has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator who
has submitted a report to the Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission in the Council/Board
Chambers, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN, at 7:00 p.m. on November 28, 2007, at which hearing
all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission as
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS:
The property is located in the CDC-Fringe.
Mr. Haeussinger moved to deny Variance R2007-030VAR by Premier Bank/Donald Regan with
the staff-recommended findings. Mr. Barry seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2, with
Mr. Pestka and Mr. McGuine voting nay.
JNDINGS:
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions that
affect this property for use as a parking lot. The applicant can provide -a one way drive aisle
and one tier of parking spaces at a 45 degree angle and meet the'minimum bufferyard width
requirement of 15 feet. The applicant has met the required off-street parking standard for the
bank building and is merely supplying excess parking spaces.
REASONABLE USE: The variance is not necessary to permit the reasonable use of the
property. The applicant is able to provide a one way drive aisle and nine parking spaces on
this lot.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The variance may be detrimental to the residential unit south of
the proposed parking lot. The residential unit is 5 feet from its north lot line which provides no
buffer to the parking lot impacts including noise, visual impacts, car lights and light and air.
CONCLUSION:
The provisions of the Rochester Land Development Manual are hereby not varied as to the
aforesaid premises to the extent necessary to permit a variance to the Bufferyard "G" standard for a
parking facility, according to the plans therefore dated "Received October 31, 2007',
Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department".
Denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this
28th day of November, 2007.
This resolution was signed this �_ day ofDee�'L , 2007.
j - •
Chair of said Planning & Zoning Commission
The above is a true and correct copy of the resolution of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.
lol-
Attest:
Zoning Administrator
,Subscribed and sworn to before me by Zoning Administrator this 1'7 day of
2007.
ER
` GA RaN E SS
vPuis
JENNIFER �f
uarubsnyNotary P
ub otQ
iy Commission ExpiresJnm
7`P
STRIBUTION:
,City Clerk (Original) (Certified Copy)
City Attorney (Certified Copy)
Zoning Administrator (Certified Copy)
Applicant (Certified Copy) •
DENIAL — DO NOT RECORD
•
CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, an application, Conditional Use #R2007-034CUP, has been filed on behalf of
Premier Bank/Donald Regan, the owner(s) of the premises described as:
Lots 3, 4 and 12, Block 8 and Lot 9, Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester
WHEREAS, the applicant is asking the City Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
ochester, Minnesota, to grant a conditional use permit per Section 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning
ode to construct a parking facility on Lots 3, 4 and 12, Block 8 and Lot 9, Block 1, Original Plat of
Rochester, Olmsted County,
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed conditional use permit was duly noticed and held
by the City Planning and Zoning Commission in the Council/Board Chambers, 151 4th Street SE,
Rochester, MN, at 7:00 p.m. on November 28, 2007,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Rochester as follows:
CONDITIONS:
Mr. McGuine moved approve Type III, Phase I Conditional Use Permit R2007-034CUP by
Premier Bank/Donald Regan with the staff-recommended findings and conditions. Ms. Moe
seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0.
CONDITIONS:
1. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required, and payment of a Storm Water-
Management Area Charge is applicable for any increase in impervious surface.
_. The applicant's plan must meet the requirements of 63.457 General Design
Requirements at the time a zoning certificate is submitted.
3. If the variance is denied the applicant must redesign the parking lot to meet the
Bufferyard "G" standard.
4. The parking lot located on Lot 9 must be redesigned to meet the minimum parking •
space standards.
5. The condition of existing curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the frontages of the
proposed parking lots will be reviewed by Public Works staff, and any needed panel
replacement and/or repair work shall be completed concurrent with construction of the
parking lots.
CONCLUSION:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission has hereby granted a conditional use permit per
Section 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Code to construct a parking facility on Lots 3, 4 and 12,
Block 8 and Lot 9, Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester, according to the plans therefore dated
"Received October 31, 2007, Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department."
Passed and adopted by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester,
Minnesota, this 28th day of November, 2007. s
This resolution was signed this day of , 2007.
Chairperson,) City Planning and Zoning Commission
The above is a true and correct copy of the resolution of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.
Attest:
oning Administrator
Subscribed and sworn to before me by Zoning Administrator this day of
2007.
JENNIFER GARNESS
Notary Public
Minnesota
Not blic / �j
a
V' My Commission Expires January 31,2010
DISTRIBUTION:
,City Clerk (Original) (Certified Copy) •
ICity Attorney (Certified Copy)
Zoning Administrator (Certified Copy)
,Applicant (Certified Copy)
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
• Hearing Date: November 28,2007
�a
Mr. Harford stated that a public hearing was scheduled for this meeting. He stated that the
Commission could listen to public testimony tonight but then continue the item to January. He
expressed the importance of the Commission fully understanding the scope of the amendment.
The Commis n agreed to listen to public testimony, continue the item to January, a then
listen to Mr. Ha d's presentation tonight under"Other Business" so that individua present for
other public hearin * ems would not have to stay at the meeting so late.
Mr. Bill Ryan (from Dunl and Seeger), representing Magic Media, addres the Commission.
He stated that Magic Medi my found out about the amendment recently hey haven't had
enough time to fully read thro h the amendment and form their recom endation. He asked for
the opportunity to review the a ndment more thoroughly and then r pond to the Commission
at a later date.
Ms. Rivas asked if he would be presen o listen to Mr. Harfor ' presentation at the end of the
meeting tonight.
Mr. Ryan responded yes. He indicated that h ould j not be ready to make a formal
comment with regard to the amendment.
Mr. Harford stated that he will try to explain the b' ge impacts of the amendment.
• Mr. Tom Hexum, representing Maine Street evelopment, dressed the Commission. He
stated that he wasn't aware of the amend nt until today. stated that he would like to have
the opportunity to work with staff on the endment due the im ct it would have on the
community.
Mr. Harford explained that last wi er the Commission discussed the tire sign section of the
Ordinance. However, tonight's endment only has to do with dynami igns and does not
deal with other sign comp one S.
Mr. Hexum stated that he ould listen to the presentation at the end of the m ting.
Mr. John Wade, Pre ' ent of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commi ion. On
behalf of the mem rs, he requested the opportunity to work with the Commission d staff on
the amendment. a stated that he only learned of the proposal today. He explaine he need
to protect the siness community and non-profit organizations. He questioned how t
amendment ould impact banks. He reiterated that he needed additional time to revie e
proposal d have discussions with Planning staff.
[AMr lace moved to cp, eText Amendment#06 03 to January 9, 2007 Mr ';r. x. ,.d....� ,k .� � b. .. is Ad �..,,., ' qn�d
asinger,secon sded the.motion ,The.rriotion,carned 9-0
Type III, Phase I Conditional Use Permit R2007-034CUP and Variance R2007-030VAR by
Premier Bank/Donald Regan The applicant is proposing to construct a parking facility
• on Lots 3, 4 and 12, Block 8 and Lot 9, Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester. The applicant
is also requesting a variance to Section 63.456 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual regarding bufferyard standards for the parking facility. The
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 28,2007
property north and west of Premier Bank, east of 2nd Avenue SW and north of 5th Street •
SW. The property is located in the CDC/Fringe Zoning District.
Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated November 15, 2007, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department.
Discussion ensued regarding the bufferyard requirements.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Bill Tointon, of McGhie and Betts (1648 Third Avenue SE,
Rochester MN 55904), addressed the Commission. He stated that he has been working with
Premier Bank on the conditional use permit and variance for some time. Also, they have been
meeting with the City of Rochester regarding rollover parking and staging area for the Bio
Science facility. He explained that parking on the bank lot would be displaced during the time of
construction of the facility. This creates the need to move to the south for employee parking for
the bank.
Mr. Tointon stated the two buildings that were taken out (Eagles Club and Bumper.to Bumper
Auto Parts Store) would be the spot chosen for the use of the staging area and parking of the
construction vehicles. He stated that he did not know how many construction vehicles would be
parked there at this time. However, there could be up to 150 workers on site. He stated that
they are not allowed to use or block off 1 st Avenue in front of the building, other than the
westerly drive lanes.
Mr. Tointon stated that the purpose of parking on the south lot is to accommodate some of the
employee parking for the bank. •
Mr. Tointon explained that Premier had to purchase the lot when they purchased the Maxwell
House as it was a package.
Mr. Tointon explained what the existing lot conditions were. He stated that Lot 10 has blacktop
and parking immediately adjacent to the property line with no bufferyard. He stated that the
applicant is asking for no different than what the conditions exist on the south of the property at
present.
Mr. Tointon stated that the applicant's hardship is not being able to use the lot for any other
purpose than residential. He explained that the lot came with the purchase of the Maxwell
House. He described the lot as being very narrow. He further stated that there is no present
detriment approving the variance request. They are willing to put in wooden fence along the
south side of the property. He showed the parking layout on the overhead projector to the
Commission and audience.
Mr. Tointon explained that the applicant is in agreement with the staff-recommended conditions
of the conditional use permit, with the exception of denying the variance.
Condition 1: They are in the process of submitting the grading and drainage plan to
Rochester Public Works.
Condition 2: He stated that 63.457 talks about the design requirements and parking lot •
and they do meet these requirements, provided the variance request is
approved.
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
• Hearing Date: November 28,2007
Condition 3: This condition depends on the approval of the variance request.
Condition 4: They either have to make it short term or make it a regular parking lot.
Condition 5: The applicant has no concerns with this condition.
Ms. Moe asked if Lot 9 would be used for employee parking and not public parking.
Mr. Tointon responded yes.
Mr. Haeussinger questioned why Lot 10 wasn't acquired when Lot 9 was purchased.
Mr. Tointon responded that the owner of the Maxwell House only owned Lot 9. He explained
that Lot 10 is owned by a different individual.
Ms. Rivas asked if the existing fence along Lots 6, 7, and 8 would be affected.
Mr. Tointon stated that the fence would remain.
Mr. Cory Heimer, president of Premier Bank, addressed the Commission. He explained that the
fence line would be cleaned up and may be replaced between their lot and the Executive Inn.
• Ms. Rivas asked if the applicant had the square footage numbers that showed how much area
would be designated for the Bio Science Center, what specific number of parked vehicles would
be displaced, how many employees would be parking in a designated area at what time of the
day, etc, to show that there is an absolute need for the variance.
Mr. Tointon stated that it is a temporary use. They do not have any concrete numbers at this
time.
Mr. Heimer stated that there is not excess parking downtown. They want enough parking for
their customers and employees. He believes that Mr. Regan will develop it at some time
considering his investment.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Rivas closed the public hearing.
Mr. Harford stated that the Commission makes the decision on the requests and that the items
do not go before the City Council.
Mr. Haeussinger stated that mere economic convenience is not an exceptional circumstance.
The Commission needs to judge the variance based on the criteria. He suggested that the
applicant purchase Lot 10. He stated that the applicant still has use of the property.
Mr,Haeussmger moved to deny'Vanance R2007 03OVARby Premier Ba"Ad Donald Regan
with; hie staff recommended findings Mr Bai"ry seconded=the motion The motion
h
• carried 7 2,with Mr Pestka and Mr. McGume voting nay
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Nearing Date: November 28,2007
"EXCEPTIONAL'CIRCUMSTANCES There are no extraordinary or exceptional contlition�s
•
that affect this proper#y for'use as a parking lot. The applicant can provide a one way
drive aisle and one tier of parking spaces at a 45 degree,angle and`meet the minimum
-Y.-pryar ' width requirement of 15 feet. The applicant has met the required off street
parking standard for the bank burldmgsantl �s merely supplying excess parking spaces
z * 3r ,
REASONABLE USE The variance is not necessary to permit the reasonable use of theme
propertyThe applicant�s able to provide a onegway drive aisle and nine parking spaces
4 F 9 2
on this lof. j _g
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT The va
nance may be detrimental to the res�dentlal unit south
of the proposed parking lot, The xresidenba1 unit�s 5 feet,from its north lot Ime which Y
provides no buffer to the parking' of impacts including noise;visual impTacts,`car lights
in ht,and.air � �` x
Mr McGwne7riovedapprove Type III, Phase 1 Conditional U se,oPermit R2007 034CUP by
Premier Bank/Donaltl Regan with'ahe staff recommended findings and conditions' Ms
�E
Moe seconded the motion The motion'
t"
CONDITIONS
Y ('
ud
1 Grading and Drainage Plan approval js required;and payment of a Storm Water
Management Area Charge �s applicable for any increase m impervious surface r
2 The applicant's planfmustmeetthe requirements of 63 457 GeneralDes� n'E ,
Regtprements at the time a zoning certificate�s submitted
r vEg ' n , r .
�Y
IRP
3 If the variance is denied the applicant must redesjgn th`eF parking lot to meefthe
Bufferyardt"G"standard t; R
s'
24 y The pa , tt °"-,s* tk r'rs ik a ca T.. o ' thrin locaedon }m - _t pkdm gEs4 E
t an a-
e u
�
5 The condition of existing curb and gutter, and'sidewalk along the frontages'ofjhe
proposed 5parkmg to#s 5will be reviewed by Public Works staff, and any!needed panel
replacement andlor repair workshall bd,cZo' pleted concurrent with construction of
:thee a�kmg dots ��,
Type III Phase II Conditional Use Permit#05-OUbv Rochester Sand and Gravel a Division
of Mathy Construction. The applicantis reauettina renewal for a minimum of five year of
the conditional use permit#05-06 too rate 1hot mix asphalt plant on property located
east of TH 63 and south of 60th St.withiN thifformer Quarve quarry pit.
Mr. John HarFord presented the staff report, ted November 20, 2007, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmst lanning Department.
The applicant's representative, Pat Peter n wh manages the day to day operations (4105 •
East River Rd NE, Rochester MN 55904 addres ed the Commission. He stated that the
following individuals were present to an er quest ns:
• Dr. Laura Green, Ph.D, Board rtified Toxi logist - Cambridge Environmental and MIT
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT �•o�.RocxesTER•/y�N�.c
2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100•Rochester, MN 55904-4744 ;sow
• -
vw ur :�
vw.co.Olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning
COUNTY OF
Off•O�9rED•AUGUST:S•P'•�4
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: John Harford, Senior Planner
DATE: November 15, 2007
RE: Type III, Phase I Conditional Use Permit R2007-034CUP and Variance
R2007-030VAR by Premier Bank/Donald Regan. The applicant is
proposing to construct a parking facility on Lots 3, 4 and 12, Block 8
and Lot 9, Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester. The applicant is also
requesting a variance to Section 63.456 of the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual regarding bufferyard
standards for the parking facility. The property north and west of
Premier Bank, east'of 2"d Avenue SW and north of 51h Street SW. The
property is located in the CDC/Fringe Zoning District.
• Planning Department artment Review
Applicant: Mr. Donald Regan/Premier Bank
421 1 st Ave., SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Property Location and Size: The four lots to be used as surface parking lots are
located on the former Maxwell House property on 2"d
Ave., SW (Lot 12, Block 8),two lots on 1 s Ave., SW
north of the Premier Bank property(Lots 3, 4, Block 8),
and a lot in the 500 block of 2"d Ave., SW Lot 9, Block 1)
all in the Original Plat of Rochester. Lots 3 and 4
combined are a total of 17,136 s.f., Lot 12 is 6,621 s.f.,
and Lot 9 is 6,625 s.f. in size, based on Olmsted County
Property Records data.
Zoning: The properties are zoned CDC-Fringe and the properties
along 2"d Ave., SW are also in the overlay East Medical
Transition District under the Mayo Medical Institutional
Campus Special District. The Special District provisions
do not apply as this is not a Mayo Clinic project.
• Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The northerly 2 lots are bounded by Premier Bank to the
south and China Star restaurant to the north. Lot 12 is
BUILDING CODE 507/328-7111 GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/328-7100 • HOUSING/IRA 507/328-7150
�- PLANNING/ZONING 507/328-7100 • wELUSEPTIC 507/328-7111
FAX 507/328-7958
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
11/19/07
Page 2
north by an existing surface parking lot. Lot 9 further •
south on 2"d Ave. is adjacent to an existing surface
parking lot serving a hotel and to the south by a
residential dwelling.
To the eastand west of all of the lots is either alley or
street right of way. All of the surrounding area is zoned
CDC-Fringe. These properties are a part of the Urban
Village District of the Downtown Development Plan.
Summaryof Proposal:p The applicant has demolished the Maxwell House
building and buildings on the other lots considered under
this application. The applicant plans to construct new
surface parking lots on each property.
Utilities: No buildings and therefore utilities are proposed for
these parcels under this proposal.
Referral Agency Comments: 1. See attached
Attachments: Application Materials
Referral Comments
EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The applicant is proposing to construct a surface parking facility on the properties noted above. Lots •
3 and 4 will be temporarily used as a staging area for the construction of the Biosciences building
being constructed by the city. Once complete the applicant will replace the staging area with a surface
parking lot to serve the bank.
Access to the parking lots on Lots 3, 4, and 12 will be by way of the alley or the existing parking lot
access to 2"d Ave., SW. Access to the parking lot on Lot 9 will be by way of 2"d Ave., SW and the
adjacent alley to the east. Both First and Second Ave's. are Local commercial streets.
The stall sizes meet or exceed the minimum sizes for standard and small car short and long term
parking as specified in section 63.453, with one exception. The stall sizes on Lot 9 meet only the
Small Car size due to the length. (The actual length of the spaces is 15 feet, and possibly up to 16
feet if measured based on the minimum space width of 7.5 feet.) The drive aisle for Lot 9 is in
compliance with the standard for one way aisles serving parking stalls at a 45 degree angle. Two
options exist for redesigned this lot 1) 45 degree parking, drive aisle and parallel parking opposite the
45 degree parking spaces, or 2) sign the lot for Small Car Parking Only. Staff recommends the first of
these options
The landscape area minimum requirement is 5% of the site in the CDC-Fringe district. The applicant
has provided more than the minimum required for each site (Lots 3-4: 2,353 s.f.; Lot 12: 732 s.f.; Lot
9: 866 s.f.) for a total of 3,951 s.f.. The minimum requirement as a total is 1,525 s.f.. The applicant
proposes to install hedges in the front and side street side yards of Lots 3-4 and 12. An 8'tall
"screening fence" is proposed by the applicant along the south side of Lot 9. The zoning ordinance
requires a Bufferyard "G"for this side of Lot 9 adjacent to the existing residential dwelling on Lot 10.
Bufferyard"G" requires a minimum of 15 feet plus landscape material. Section 63.503 states that a
traffic visibility zone is not required in the CDC districts.
•
11/19/0"7
Page 3
•
The review of this application is permitted as a Type III, Phase I application. The Commission shall ;
hold a public hearing and is the deciding body. This application would only proceed to the City Council
if the decision of the Commission is appealed.
STAFF ANAL YS/S:
In reviewing a Conditional Use Permit request the zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall
approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless or more of the following findings
with respect to the proposed development is made (Section 61.146):
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) The provisions for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to
neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by
the development.
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) In cases where 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 paragraph.
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses
within the underlying 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 a part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not
been secured by the applicant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is of the opinion that in order to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 61.146, the conditions
or modifications are needed:
1. Grading and Drainage Plan approval is required,and payment of a Storm Water-
Management Area Charge is applicable for any increase in impervious surface.
2. The applicant's plan must meet the requirements of 63.457 General Design
• Requirements at the time a zoning certificate is submitted.
3. If the variance is denied the applicant must redesign the parking lot to meet the
Bufferyard"G"standard.
11/19%07
Page 4
4. The parking lot located on Lot 9 must be redesigned to meet the minimum parking
space standards.
5. The condition of existing curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the frontages of the
proposed parking lots will be reviewed by Public Works staff, and any needed panel
replacement and/or repair work shall be completed concurrent with construction of the
parking lots.
NOTE. A zoning certificate is required for each of the parking lots prior to construction. The
applicant must obtain a driveway permit from the City of Rochester prior to issuance of the
zoning certificate.
VARIANCE.
A variance is required between the proposed parking lot on Lot 9,the southerly lot, and the adjacent
residential unit to the south. A Bufferyard"G" is required in the side yard of Lot 9 abutting the
residential property to the south. The applicant proposes to construct an 8'tall screening fence along
the south side of the lot. The adjacent lot consists of a turf grass side yard adjacent to the dwelling
and backyard parking area. The dwelling is about 5 feet from its north lot line.
There are four criteria for a variance, in this case to the bufferyard requirement of Section 63.264.
Staff has provided suggested findings as follows:
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;
There are no extraordinary or exceptional conditions that affect this property for use as a parking
lot. The applicant can provide a one way drive aisle and one tier of parking spaces at a 45 degree
angle and meet the minimum bufferyard width requirement of 15 feet. The applicant has met the
required off-street parking standard for the bank building and is merely supplying excess parking
spaces.
2. the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the involved;
property
= The variance is not necessary to permit the reasonable use of the properly. The applicant is able to
provide a one way drive aisle and nine parking spaces on this lot.
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 •
11/19/07
Page 5
•
The variance may be detrimental to the residential unit south of the proposed parking lot. The =;
residential unit is 5 feet from its north lot line which provides no buffer to the parking lot impacts
including noise,visual impacts,car lights and light and air.
4. the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property.
If approved the minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a
variance to the Bufferyard "G"standard as required by Section 62.422 and 63.264.
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.
'IIt-' n. t,;,%
e4�:
Aerial Map of `, k
Lots 3, 4 and 12 Block 8 and
Lot 9 Block 1 Rochester Original Plat ¢" .: '•
Conditional Use#R2007-034CUP x� {
and Variance#R2007-030VAR
by Premier Bank/Donald Regan
PIN:64.02.12.017759, 64.02.12.017758, gv
11
pf. � r' 64.02.12.017767, 64.02.13.017702 w
Ward:4 (Pat Carr) µ
Neighborhood Assoc: a_ � a•r�
Historic Southwest
}
E: 11/14/07
h
a of a 5
AE
.. }3•t`P. sh s Q h�a't' x "'4 i} e. y bye s .tr"" a}`..^`j.�^.Y*tY+ 'E q '� Q a ° +m"yz,�..y,
y� ff
lz� �v�: ¢ �� �ri',.."�'• � z�,"x+a°'�"yr'v`vS„"'�„ •ai ,��.,'s.�r"§,tl5�x Y ������,' � ^� ei � n - '��
i - 6
f r ,
3I�
Y
� i€x Lt*`���,�„i �, � '�?: ,� t�X�� rllf� .'r'S��,x"�."*"...�u� a� ��`# rv.• ,.� �,�. r�,.
3. a, 'jr•
a �
,"q.. - €c t -#,• t '�t fxo��"''�1. '.y€ yr F:;! �i } v�w n `b 3>..w j p,
-t'�'r�.�♦ '+ a> � ( ys.�„r'�3 �" � ,<*.r`. fit`7'�t R i.,t a,� ��w+ is „� _
al-a.,�..,o-LiM+T�^x *` � said,+� ,�,,;,�YxK���.Ys e 4 t•Pu+� +1 f n_. x I
.r '!►f
?� ��� �. 8�3"DR s �,:3W�° 'naa�✓,w ^�t �f..7 � �Rd�t,,�'�". sn5«^'�'A"'��Idr '%SY4 � �,>4�' �z a 'y,�p.
r „ ` :'r d.�:=•€izw{ -dv .o.�. k d,A; .yf' �'rR d r '�44
xso
-tom -�+� '� � av.�� s •�• � ,€ '�yi��'yI€3"r�t���>t"��"�"x.E ='s • ..,e� �,�Y ..a } -
0 t30 60 120 Fret " t
s ,..t,, ate 3r ! ;+
i�"' ny
a
N
Olmsted County is not responsible for ommissions or errors contained herein. If discrepancies are found within this map,please notify
the GIs Division,Rochester-Olmsted County Planning Department,2122 Campus Drive SE,Rochester,MN 55904,(507)328-7100.
ZONE CQQ-FR
LEGEND
1ST AVENUE S.W. �°"°.D`— —
r �s 0- aror*�•+,a[ . �w�N[,rta0 —�`C.ta- ur�cCf�wra.�u mvrra¢
rc•rw.•r ® - • Na.w... • n[E•,.c NtrtA ____.■__-_ uxxAwcum nattxc
_ _ �.. FIs'—rye ® sitar E.a. s m MC,..w—w.
s Tnvrax[Nn ■ NA cora.on "�v nwN aP.o.
F — — — — — — — _ E -w= _ • d nnuwc N.w[ 1 PNx w•u
.a _
• :'•� :.� • E - M .r"E x •.r 1 a"""° �--oK.va nacmc
... -' a +-/ ... r ... a■a sns a ad
w::,"rr I •., Ii sin.•aortwrw cuR[•artrta attr.ut nMN[xr am
OR Dn[a wrwo- xn e,MN rueic R D r.M,■ I
z �`- ' \, i`• I I n�mx,oxTM�n�N_u ar anru cawwixic,n"rc,mngr.0 ruo,a.[Aniwxo.o
� �aRx[R nr..I[R f[MC[11M3 Rx[M9NR
> .5`:#,. - .. -`^.. a w.ro ,rox.w Cylrcu""nrt.aN,x[ra"rc.axE-rxUUM cwr.•ttw wDun caD"wurt I u yE l] ' I I .x¢p N Ea,GnoN wN"OC R3IER N%C Mli[,,D Gn[Yn[q NO Y[[MS[IMS WI Qq,.€ ,�''' ! s'• r 1. a.lxE S[RMCE lNC I![NCDYpxI[A[D nMnq[axsfINCRW4 M CDI+,MCigl n. "ED ro[ AU M
Ly ..,# x"xc[ro M cw"Dn•aw M r.Vx.rr.mcwwEtt M eDxx u¢
y � • M LMrA.L,a.LWIa AabrS,[[II fV■JC U,NM!.rA ADC " PUR!.D"Mf/Mf f11WTdl
y/ ` � 'R� .�{. -1 �..t I� I � •[x[oun["[n f0 W Gw oONUUrt PC van"Na bNs1 PcwArwr[w i rR0[L°3�+--� l Wl •I
6 r ter . 5 4 3
� oaH � e� � pip i `#�1 i-. �'�\'. �•d. ....0"" o � I I I I
VAN
Execum All"cow
Fy. .
�(-- I �•Tom J —_— w- —. �— as11F �.� w~ ��—T� ———w. rrt
`.
EKEcLrm
*01
A N III I O k� �,vlt �
Fl. w roar F� ...M^•.+•e„r.. I �. 4� zi E. �..{ ' I� I I 1b ; � � � e•`w w�ia.w
N
nil
io
50—�
s
7
`I I DINIRENT:E[ONR1Q DOCfp
P—=EDUEt:P.ar[NOPACXM MPE a 2ND AVENUE S.W.
va
_ wE) w — — —-
p - • _ —� —
T so.AR _ — —
iRoxT: [.r 1
aa zeer.p.e.ro.tR[�
s ricE cTi.x,u+U:
'a II x[teunDAart anEA.auaaP tRxEi'rNxrPga•
N`..�m.. ProDR.R["R.m iTw�",WDt
ZONE CDC-MED ZONE CDC-MED
[as'Nls �M EM STANDARD!N PUCE AT TW a■D11PEgIP
..P.a.r.O•AxnE APP[IL.114 `�--r-'""" "0Q1p"""�°`" �'°' SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Y•P.e.,i PERPE,MIMM ,-,�r•r� ��
l pscA Ac � ,EN
PROVIDED:]1a,.xl Sf.
PREMIER BANK PARKING LOTS
DUµP��bE�mPwswa•IN'fAl lP. aM uv—
NONE PEOU D rw w N. *011 ara ROCHESTER. 1AINNESOTA
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
Rochester, MN 55904 201 4'h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
FROM: Mark E. Baker 507-328 2400
FAX—507-328-2401
DATE: 11/17/07
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for CUP#R2007-034 &
VAR#R2007-030 for the proposed Premier bank Parking Lots (3 separate locations
between 15` & 2nd Ave & 4`h & 61h St SW). The following are Public Works comments on
this proposal:
1. Grading &Drainage Plan approval is required, as well as, payment of any
applicable Storm Water Management Area charge for any net increase in
impervious surface.
nd •
2. The southerly most lot proposed with alley access and exiting onto 2 Ave
SW, does not meet the design standards of LDM63.453 & 65.454.
3. The condition of existing curb & gutter, and sidewalk alongthe frontages of
b
the proposed parking lots will be reviewed by Public Works staff, and any
needed panel replacement and/or repair work shall be completed concurrent
with construction of the parking lots.
C:\Documents and Settings\plasfost\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK1C\CUP07-34 Premier Bank 3 Parking
Lots.doc
• Supporting Data for Variance to Section 63.456
for
Regan/Premier Bank
Lot 9,Block 1, Original Plat of Rochester
A request to vary the requirement for the screening portion of 63.456 to eliminate the four-foot
horizontal separation from the property line to the edge of the planned parking lot is attached. A
screened fence will be provided. This request is being made based on the following information
and response to the findings for a variance of Section 60.417:
Background:
The parking lot for Lot 9 is planned for employees of Premier Bank that are displaced for the
duration of the construction staging area on a portion of the existing parking lot for the Bio-
Business Center and firture parking.
Lot 9 currently is vacant and zoned CDC-FA and has a parking lot located along the north side of
the lot. There exists a screening fence along the north property line but no separation.
• To the south is a residential rental unit that is "sandwiched"between a commercial office
building to the south and the proposed parking lot. The commercial lot to the south has a
parking lot adjacent to the residential lot.
The following are resuonses to the findings for variances:
1. There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity,narrowness, or
shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographic 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.
The lot is long and narrow making it difficult to design and operate a parking lot to the
design standards of the City of Rochester.
2. The variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved.
The parking lot layout and design meet the minimum standards of the City of Rochester
without a four foot separation from the property line. The proposed parking lot will be
contiguous with a parking lot to the north which does not provide the minimum
standards.
n
0 C T 3 1 n0
ROCHESTER-CLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
McGhie Betts, Inc.
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 inte4
of this ordinance.
This request for a variance is consistent with the existing site conditions to the south of
the residential lot and to the north side of Lot 9. The residential rental property is zoned
CDC-FA.
4. The variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of
the property.
The variance request is the minimum necessary to construct the parking lot. A screening
fence per code will be installed on the south property line.
•
DECEIVED
OCT 3 1 7C37
ROCHESTER-CLMSTED I�
PLANNING DEPARTMENT I
•
McGhie ; ' Betts, Inc.
• APPEAL OF PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION DECISION TO
COMMON COUNCIL
ON
R2007-030VAR
BY
PREMIER BANK/DONALD REAGAN
JANUARY 7, 2008
REASONS TO SUPPORT VARIANCE
(1) LOT 9 IS LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT IS ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL USE
• BETWEEN FOURTH STREET SW AND SIXTH STREET SW BETWEEN FIRST
STREET AND SECOND AVENUE.
(2) THE FUTURE VALUE OF LOT 10,WHICH CONTAINS THE RENTAL HOME, IS
NOT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. THE FUTURE RE-USE IS CLEARLY FOR A
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
IN FACT,THE MINNESOTA ENERGY BUILDING THAT HAS OR IS BEING
PURCHASED BY THE CITY IS AN ALLEY WIDTH AWAY FROM THIS LOT 10.
(3) THE MOST VIABLE INTERIM USE OF THIS PROPERTY UNTIL A RE-
DEVELOPMENT PLAN CAN BE FORMULATED IS FOR PARKING FOR THE
EMPLOYEES OF PREMIER BANK-
(4) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES CURRENTLY ADJOIN LOT 9 ALONG THE NORTH
. AND LOT 10 ALONG THE SOUTH. THERE IS A WOODEN FENCE ALONG THE
NORTH PROPERTY LINE BUT NO HORIZONTAL SEPARATION AND THERE IS
• NO FENCE OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AND PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH OF LOT 10. THE BITUMINOUS
PARKING LOT IS PAVED TO THE PROPERTY LINE. NO GREEEN SPACE AND
NO BUFFERYARD FENCE EXISTS ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.
(5) THE NARROW WIDTH AND LONG DEPTH OF THE LOT CREATE A HARDSHIP
TO PROVIDE A REASON UTILIZATION FOR PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF AN
ISLE.
THIS IS A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH HOUSING ALONG A STREET. IT IS MORE
EFFICIENT TO HAVE HOUSING ON BOTH SIDES OF A STREET TO SUPPORT THE
INFRASTRUCTURE.
•
•
EXHIBIT `A'
RESPONSE TO CRITERIA OF SECTION 60.417
OF
LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL TO ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR
CITY OF ROCHESTER
JANUARY 7, 2008
1. THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS
IRREGULARITY,NARROWNESS, OR SHALLOWNESS OF THE LOT OR
EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC OR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE
• PECULIAR TO TIC PROPERTY AND DO NOT APPLY TO OTHER LANDS
WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE SAME CLASS OF ZONING DISTRICT.
THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS OR HARDSHIP IS THE NARROW SHAPE OF
THE LOT. THE LONG NARROW LOT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE A
FUNCTIONABLE LAYOUT FOR PARKING USING THE STANDARDS FOR PARKING
LOTS ADOPTED BY THE CITY. IT ALSO MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE A
REASONABLE RE-USE OF THE PROPERTY INA NEARLY EXCLUSIVE NON-
RESIDENTLAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 47 FEET WIDE.
2. THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE REASONABLE USE OF THE
PROPERTY INVOLVED.
THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE REASONABLE RE-USE USE OF THE
PROPERTY WITHPARKING ON TWO SIDES OF THE DRIVE ISLE. THE SHAPE OF
• THE LOT LIMITS AND RESTRICTS THE POTENTIAL RE-USE OF THE PROPERTY
IN PREDOMINATLEYNON-RESIDENTLAL AREA.
. r
•
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 GENREAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE AMTERIALLYDETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTYAS THE REQUEST IS SIAHLAR
TO EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOT 10 AS THE
NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TRANSITIONED FROMA RESIDENTIAL TO NON-
RESIDENTIAL CILQRACTER THE FUTURE VALUE OF LOT 10 WILL BE FOR NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES. THE RECENT SALE OF LOT 9 IS EVIDENCE THAT THE
VALUE OF THE LOT WAS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
4. THE VARIANCE AS GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO PROVIDE
REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE
ECONOMIC RE-USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF A
DRIVE ISLE. IT WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST EFFICIENT USES OF THE
PROPERTY. AN EIGHT-FOOT HIGH WOODEN FENCE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED
ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE TO SCREEN THE PARKING AND ELIMINATE
HEADLIGHT GLARE.
•
E)CMIT `B'