Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 602-08 ti4 C7 • RESOLUTION WHEREAS, William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center ("Appellant") applied for a variance from the requirement of section 62.1008(2)(a) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances as to the maximum amount of impervious surface in a Shoreland District; and, r WHEREAS, R.C.O. §62.1008(2)(a) states as follows: Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area; and, WHEREAS, the Appellant seeks to increase the amount of impervious surface in the Shoreland District from 25% to 75% for property located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The Appellant seeks to apply asphalt upon a gravel parking lot; 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 lot has an irregular shape that make it difficult for traffic flow and the storage of vehicles and other equipment associated with the operation of the commercial use on the property. 2. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request may be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. The existing conditions and condition of the site over the years has varied in impervious surface coverage. By maintaining consistency on the site and controlling the stormwater runoff by treating the runoff as approved through a grading plan with the City of Rochester Public Works Department, it would bring stability to the site thus making it more manageable. 3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would not appear to be detrimental to the adjacent property owners and the neighborhood because of the ongoing .development of the area. However, the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. 4. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to • alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance of the fifty percent (50%) to the maximum allowable percentage of impervious surface coverage on a lot within the Shoreland District, from the permitted twenty-five percent • (25%) coverage to seventy-five percent (75%); and WHEREAS, this matter came before the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals at its November 5, 2008, meeting; and, WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request without making any findings of fact; and, WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to the Common Council and came before the Council at its December 15, 2008, meeting; and, WHEREAS, at the December 15th public hearing, the Council considered the information presented to it in its council agenda packet (attached hereto as Exhibit A); and, WHEREAS, at the December 15th public hearing, the attorney for the Appellant testified that there was only one issue before the Council at this time. That issue was the request for a variance from the maximum amount of impervious surface permitted on land located within the Shoreland District. He stated there were other issues involving the Appellant and an adjacent property owner, but those issues were not before the Council at-this time; and, WHEREAS, at the December 15th public hearing, the attorney for the Appellant testified that the Appellant was in agreement with the Planning Department staffs recommended findings fact except for the second sentence of the finding of fact as to "ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT;" On d, WHEREAS, at the December 15th public hearing, several representatives of the adjacent property owner testified that the variance matter was one of several issues of contention between the Appellant and the adjacent property owner. They stated the Council could not determine one of the issues without resolving all of the issues at the same time. They asked the Council to take no action on the variance request and, instead, delay consideration of the matter until the Appellant's amended site development plan came before the Council at a future date; and, WHEREAS, one of the representatives of the adjacent property owner testified that the variance should be denied because the fill that was placed on Appellant's property that will become the foundation for the asphalt parking lot was illegally placed; and, WHEREAS, none of the representatives of the adjacent property owner offered or proposed any findings of fact for the Council's consideration that would justify or support their request that the Council deny the requested variance; and, WHEREAS, based upon the evidence presented, the Council concluded that the Planning Department staffs recommended findings of fact were persuasive and were supported by the information presented to the Council except for the second sentence in the third finding of t. As such, Appellant had satisfied the criteria of R.C.O. §60.417 and was, therefore, entitled 2 to the variance. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the Common Council of the City of Y tY Rochester that the City approve the request of William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center for a variance from the requirement of section 62.1008(2)(a) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances as to the maximum amount of impervious surface in a Shoreland District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the December 11, 2008, decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals is reversed and that the requested variance is granted to the Appellant consistent with the Planning Department staffs findings of fact stated herein except for the second sentence of the third finding of fact. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS /,,5nfrY OF V6!61)1g2; 2008. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTES • ITY CLERK • APPROVED THIS loft DAY OF 2008. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Zone0 \VadanceRes.0804 • 3 LXHI13(l A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/15/08 • AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED PLANNING DEPARTMENT r_ q ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III,Phase I(#R2008-004AP)Appeal of the Type III,Phase I PREPARED BY: (#R2008-024VAR)Variance Denial. Logan Tjossem Planner December 11,2008 Zoning Board ofAyneals Action: • On November 5, 2008, the City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request from the applicant; William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center, regarding a variance to increase the amount of impervious surface in the Shoreland District from the allowable maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) to seventy-five percent (75%)per Section 62.1008 (2) (a). The applicant requested a variance to Section 62.1008 (2) (a) of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to increase the amount of impervious surface in the Shoreland District. The first motion was moved for approval but was split 3/3 based on staff findings; because that didn't pass a second motion was made to deny (without findings) and passed 4/2. The staff report was presented in support of an approval to the 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 November 5,2008, meeting. Attachments. 1. Copy ofthe November 5,2008,Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes. 2. Copy of the Staff Report/packet submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals,dated October 22,2008. 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, December 15, 2008, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 SE 41h Street. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: DRAFT minutes from the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on 11/5/2008 • Type III, Phase I, Variance Request R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister, to allow for the increase of an impervious surface within the Shoreland District. The property is in the B-4 (General Commercial) Zoning District. The property address is 31 Rockport LN SE, Rochester, MN. Mr. Logan Tjossem presented the staff report, dated October 22, 2008, to the Board. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ohly questioned if the grading plan was intended to�alleviate additional surface water flow. Mr. Tjossem stated that there was a storm water plan that the city:engineers were in charge of enforcing. When the Highway 63a,nd 52 Project carne through, there was an adjustment to that storm water plan on city ponds and drainage ways put in along the right-of-way to the highway. He stated that he talked with Matt Crawford''before he prepared the staff report and Mr. Crawford stated that before they did thestorm water management plan they took the existing„impervious surface into account. Mr. Crawford stated that he didn't have any issues;at that=point but that the outcome of the variance would affect the grading plan • Mr. Ohly confirmed thatthe facilities were already`in place-for handling this. Mr. Ryan asked if the applicantiii=eded to paya fee for storm water runoff. Mr. Tjossem='explained he would need'to discuss:this with Rochester Public Works. Mr. Lenton.asked if the facility on the,site was existing or something he was requesting a permit for.' Mr. Tjossem replied that the facility and the impervious surface were existing. Mr. Lenton asked if it was permitted initially. Mr. Ohly stated that it looked like it was part blacktop and part gravel. Mr. Tjossem stated that Public Works considers gravel impervious surface but it was not in the ordinance. Mr. Lenton asked for confirmation that they were looking at a variance for an existing lot. Mr. Tjossem responded yes. • • Mr. Lenton questioned what would need to be done to meet Code. He asked if the applicant would have to take out 50% and replace it with grass. Mr. Tjossem confirmed that it would need to be replaced with landscaping. Mr. Ryan asked what the business' purpose was. Mr. Tjossem stated that from what he understood, they worked on semis, large vehicles, campers, and buses. He suggested that perhaps the applicant could better explain his business. if. Mr. Lenton questioned if he understood that,when the applicant initially applied he received a permit to put this surface down, but now`it doesn'tfineet Code. Mr. Tjossem replied that there was a site development review process. The applicant went beyond what was originally approved for,the storage of their vehicles on the site for the site development plan review. To correct,that, they had applied for this variance to the impervious surface. Mr. Lenton confirmed that they put h`more than they were approved to do on the permit and now they are looking to have thetoard approve the additional area. • Mr. Ryan asked if the highway,project took any of the land from there or changed it. - a - Mr. Tjossem stated that a letterprovided bythe applicant suggested that the Highway 63 Project resulted in thb-taking of approximately 1.878 acres of this parcel. He was unable to fmd any,inform'a' on based'bn the Planning Department's official map to confirm whether this was done or not: Thereforeit was not included in the report. Mr. Ryan,asked, if the applicant had.lost 1.5 acres, could they have a larger impervious area. Mr. Tjossem stated that this was the case because the applicant would have a larger lot. Mr. Lenton asked what the applicant's reason was for exceeding the permitted amount. Mr. Tjossem stated that the applicant felt that the business growth had a lot to do with it. Mr. Lenton questioned if it was done after the initial permit and therefore without a permit. Mr. Ryan stated that it was the gravel that was the issue. Mr. Lenton asked if the blacktop itself was within the confines of the permit. • • Mr. Tjossem replied that there was a site development review that they applied for. That was how it was determined that a variance was needed. On the site development review, the area that they wanted to use to display vehicles was incidental to the auto repair business that they have and exceeded that 25%. Before the permit could be issued for the site development review, a variance needed to be followed through with. Mr. Ohly stated that it looked like it all goes down into the storm retention pond anyway. Mr. Thornton concurred. Mr. Lenton opened the public hearing. , The applicant's representative, Michael Gowinof McGhie'Betts (1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester, MN), addressed the Board. He stated that their firm-rep resented Mr. Lesmeister in preparation of the application, tl '6 support documentation, and the variance report in the packet. He stated that,;the applicant was also;present and was accompanied by his attorney, Mr. Ken Moen ` He stated that they agreed with the staff findings and were there to answer,any questions; Mr. Lenton asked for clarification okwhehl Mr. Lesmeister got the initial permit to put in the impervious surface and if it met the code at ,the time Mr. Gowin stated that it • Mr. Tjossem responded that the area designated as impervious surface in the original site development review'did meet that requirement. However, over the years, due to expansion.and business growth, they needed extra or additional space. Because of that, they had to apply for a site'development review again. Through that process, it was determined that the:impervious surface:that was needed for the business exceeded what wasallowed. Mr. Gowin stated that Mr. Lesmeister did have 2.18 acres to begin with, but, after the Highway 63 Project, he was left,with about 1/3 of the lot area that he had previously. He had to relocate his business; plus trucks and etc. into a much smaller area. After he moved in, he found outpretty much right away that he was cramped for space. Mr. Dan Berens, (1811 Gre' enview Place SW, Suite 103, Rochester, MN) representing Main Street Development of Rochester and also Calli R. LLC and KK&G Properties addressed the Board. He stated that his clients were adjacent property owners and adamantly objected to approval of the variance. Discussion was held regarding a site plan and pictures that Mr. Berens provided. In summary, he stated that Mr. Lesmeister had filled in his property as much as 4 to 5 feet in depth. They felt that this alteration to the grading had caused an alteration to the flow of water to the detriment of the neighbors. They felt that the variance was not necessary for the reasonable use of the property. Mr. Berens explained that, when Mr. Lesmeister put in his additional fill and there were torrential downpours, the velocity of the water movement was changed. This caused monetary costs to his clients. The alteration to the flow of the water was a detriment to the neighbors and to the City. He stated that the variance was a request to allow Mr. Lesmeister to blacktop what he filled in -which was approximately 300% more than the 25% maximum allowable under the regulations. At no point has this property had the 10% required green space. The size and shape of his lot=.has not changed from 2002. He stated that any irregularities or changes have been,,performed himself. The variance is not necessary to permit reasonable use of the property: He applied for an auto service center but was running a truck service center Theparking ratios per bay of service may have fit cars but did not fit semis He has hadithe benefit of the use of the property for six years, but only as it has been expanded by hismisrepresentations. He stated that his clients felt that this was an unequal enforcement of the laws and the regulations if a variance was granted. t Mr. Ohly asked where Mr. Berens'-clients were located on''the plan. Mr. Berens responded that they were`to the East of the property and across the street. Mr. Ohly asked how his clients were affected by the,requestbefore the Board. Mr. Berens replied they were affected pnrnanly by the water flow. The proposed site plan shows the use of propertyth'at was owned"by his client Main Street Development. t Mr. Ohly stated that the Board was addressing the size of the impervious surface. He asked where his clients' properties were and how'they were affected by the water flowage or drainage fro' this property to the water retention pond. F Mr. Berens atated that they'would be'affected in the general sense if there were torrential downpours again !Waffects`the entire flow. There was tremendous damage to the rip-rap. The velocity of tlie'water changed when Mr. Lesmeister put in 4 to 5 feet of fill. There was scouring on thesides of the waterway. The rip-rap needed to be replaced in ponds. There were monetary costs which is a detriment. He explained that it was a matter of public safety. The conduct of parking all the semis was not adequate for the use that he represented to the city when he got approval. Mr. Ohly responded that the Board was not looking at the use of the property as much as they were the surface that he had there. He asked if this was causing water to back up onto his clients' property. He stated that he was trying to understand what the complaint was. • Mr. Berens replied that he could relate to the damage to the ditch. It cost the clients • money and it potentially damages them if water backs up to the property. The ponds were put in at a cost to his clients. Mr. Ohly questioned if his clients had experienced water backing up. Mr. Berens turned and asked Mr. Hexum and suggested that he address the Board. Mr. Tom Hexum of Main Street Development (1000 Rocky Creek Drive NE, Rochester, MN) addressed the Board. He stated that he was the creator of the ponds. Barr Engineering was hired a hydrologist to create a water management plan for this 500 acre water shed. u � e f i t Discussion ensued regarding the ponds, ditches, and water flowage in that water shed j area. Using site plans, he pointed out how the water flowed He expressed concern about damage to the rip-rap, scouring in the ditches, the pond capacity, and more. He stated that he felt that, if the amount of impervious surface was allowed to continue to expand, it could have adverse impacts on all ofAhem. Mr. Ohly asked at what point they hand over the ponds to the City. Mr. Hexum stated that the City was,'under'contract with*Ah'em at that time and was making installment payments to them`on the $2 7,>million invested in this storm water management plan He stated;that he thought there was a contract of record for a million dollar reimbursement Mr. Ohly asked if the City would eventually'~take`it over. I Mr. HexumTeplied`yes, upon payment Mr. Ohl' asked if once they pay Mr', exum if it is their problem. 3 Mr. Hexum replied that it is their problem now. Mr. Ohly asked A 40aintaid.001 the pond. Mr. Hexum replied that they tliid. He stated that he contacted MN DOT regarding the legislation of it and jurisdiction falls to Public Works. Mr. Ryan asked if this lot was purchased from Mr. Hexum's corporation. Mr. Hexum replied that Mr. Lesmeister has owned the property for approximately 30 years. The highway on ramp bisected it. (He pointed to the site maps/drawings and explained information regarding the lot lines before and after the highway project.) Mr. Hexum continued by stating that he felt that Mr. Lesmeister ran a great business but has outgrown the site. Mr. Ohly stated that Mr. Hexum indicated that Mr. Lesmeister filled in more than he was allowed to. The Board was looking at the amount of impervious surface. He questioned if the Board denied the variance what affect that would have on the fill he had already put in. Mr. Hexum stated that Mr. Lesmeister had filled out to the property line. Mr. Ohly responded by stating that the Board was not addressing the issue of fill but was addressing the impervious surface on top of that fill. :: Mr. Hexum stated that the variance was for the grading'plan to allow the fill. Mr. Ryan asked if he removed the fill if it would rrlake the water return to the pond. Mr. Hexum explained that, at a certain point, the water flow leaving.the site was no greater than when there was a corn field there. The water did flow;,into his ponds in a time released manner so that there would be no.more scouring. Mr. Ryan asked if larger sewer pipes;(or equivalent) wete put underneath if it would do the same thing. _ {, Mr. Hexum replied no because it was!°'still taking'an area of width and condensing it into • a narrow area or taking afire hose and putting it into agarde-6 hose. Evolving from that was erosion and scouring of the,side banks of thb*ditch`and it was ending up down in the pond. The desgridid not account for that Mr. Ohly stated that, looking at the variance request, the applicant was asking for a variance from the maximum allowable percentage of impervious surface. Therefore, even ifthe;Board denied;.this particular variaance, it would not eliminate the fill. Mr. Hexum replied that you couldn't have one without the other. Mr. Ohly confirmed that Mr. Hexum was stating that he couldn't have the fill without putting crushed rockon top Mr. Hexum stated that`,When Mr. Lesmeister applied for his permit in 2002, he didn't get a substantial land alteration' permit that allowed him to do the additional in excess of in this area. Mr. Ohly stated that it sounded like an issue that was not before the Board. Mr. Berens stated that, if it is within the power of this body, they would ask for that. Mr. Ohly stated that the Board does not have the power to direct him to remove the fill. • Mr. Lenton questioned whether what they were saying was that Mr. Lesmeister wanted to have a variance to have impervious surface on an area he filled that he didn't have a permit for. Mr. Hexum affirmed that that was correct. He also stated that the site does not have the 10% required green area. Mr. Lenton confirmed that he was stating that the site was not currently up to the initial permitted code. Mr. Ken Moen, of Moen Law Firm, addressed the Board.on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he wanted to bring everyone back to the focus of the meeting, which is simply the impervious area. There was a new site plbri that staff reviewed that addressed the fill issue. The only need for a variance and before the Board is described in the staff report. The Board did not have the issue of whether the fill should or shouldn't be there. This is being addressed by the City. The only;identified need for the variance was impervious surface. The sife was cut more than in half and was a unique shape. Mr. Lesmeister was asked to pay every fee imaginable. He stated that Mr. Hexum has a problem with the City..and not Mr Lesmeister. Mr. Moen stated that the application.,, as submitted'to MN DOT, Public Works, etc. and they had no concerns. He stated that he knew,when he looked at mapping and remapping for flood control and didn't quite understand why there wasn't more of a gain. • j They did the new flood control,mapping based on what,was there. The issue before the Board was simply the impervious surface ,'By MN DOT taking some of the property it substantially altered the.,shape and size of the`.property. The waterflow management of this property has already been addressed and.was based on what was there. He asked that the Board go with th'e findings proposed by the staff, rely upon MN DOT and the City Public.lNorks-#o:.fght their own battlesand simply address the variance as it is. They have gravel on the property,that was already there that was not before the Board. WhetherA stays there or not was the subject of the revised plan. Mr. Lenton asked what Mr. Lesmeister.'s plans were if the variance were denied. Mr. Moen stated that he didn't know. Mr. Lloyd Johnson, member of Main Street Development (4325 Garden Court SE, Rochester, MN) addressed the Board. He stated that they had been hearing lots of misinformation that evening. Nothing had been taken away from Mr. Lesmeister since he applied for his permit in 2002. When he applied for his permit for the site for an automotive service center, it was exactly the same site that it was today. The only exception is that he had raised the elevation illegally. MN DOT taking part of his property took place prior to his application in 2002. The shape of the site did not change. He applied for a permit in 2002 and lived within the constraints that the permit gave him in 2002. He then violated those constraints on his own. He filled in the site with gravel— impervious or otherwise. Now he wants the Board to bless it by allowing I • • him to put black top on top of that- allowing a 300% increase in what the regulations currently call for. 25% impervious surface in a shoreland district, next to a waterway, is there for a reason. Suddenly increasing that to 75%, a 300% increase, should not be taken lightly. It was not just the waterway for this particular project. It was the waterway for the system. The public was affected because the waterway was a public system. It as a public detriment to allow someone on the waterway system to deviate substantially from what was approved. Mr. Ohly stated that deviation was in the fill. Mr. Johnson stated that he was asking the Board to blacktop the fill. Mr. Ohly asked if he would agree that the issue before fhe Board was limited to the increase in the impervious surface Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Ohly reiterated that who did what in the past.and what..he did with the fill was not what the Board was reviewing. ` Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative: He,,went on to say that the 300% increase in the impervious surface was on a site that?was on a critical''link-.of the waterway. He wanted it to be blacktopped. Mr. Lenton questioned that from he conversations he heard so far, he understands that the City considers gravel to be f pervious Mr. Tjossem?responded that he.wanted to make:a clarification that yes they do but the purpose for`:the Variance was because there was;an amended site development review that wa's showing the current gravel area as paved. That becomes a zoning ordinance he imperviousissue for urface Mr. Lenton asked if he would;have the right to pave that if the variance was approved. Mr. Tjossem responded yes By definition, this was in the shoreland district because it was on the landward side of1he flood plain. In the landward side of the shoreland area you could only pave 25%'of that area. (He referred to a document in the packet.) This area is only a portion of fhe site, not the whole site. That 25% was 25% of the shoreland. With every development a grading plan is required. The city engineer looks at that. With the submittal of the grading plan, they look at storm water runoff. There has to be a storm water runoff plan for every development. He asked the Board not to be confused with the shore land rule that states you can only pave 25% of the shore land area and the requirement for a grading plan or landscape plan as part of a development. These are separate issues. Mr. Ohly confirmed that what the Board was looking at was the simple question of the size of the impervious surface. Someone else will look at the issue of the fill and whether it constricted the flow of the water. Therefore, even if the Board approved the variance tonight, he would have to address the issue of whether it adversely affected the flow of water through the system. Mr. Tjossem stated that he was correct. The variance was only to the impervious surface. It didn't mean that he could walk away from this without getting an approved grading plan from the City of Rochester Public Works Department. Mr. Ryan asked if he may need to pull it up anyway. Mr. Tjossem replied that he may if that was what the City engineer decides. That will be done through their office. There was a grading plan'that is.being reviewed by the City of Rochester Public Works Department and that was their responsibility. Mr. Lenton asked if it would have been beiterto wait for the grading,plan to be approved. Mr. Tjossem stated that he questioned that and was told, by Matt Crawford, that they couldn't do their review until they knew for sure what the..decision was of this Board. Mr. Lenton questioned whether this Board had the right to do this. If it is shoreland, would the DNR or some other state agency be mvolued in this1f it was to go to litigation. Mr. Tjossem replied that he felt this was a question for an attorney. However, staff does send out referral comments and the commentkin the packets were the comments received. H,e stated that his conceal was enforcing the ordinance. The engineers determine what the effect will be. Their comments were "no comment". Mr. Lenton:asked if he had:seen the..original permit and if Mr. Lesmeister had filled in area not allowed in his original permit x Mr. Tjossem responded that he;;was only looking at impervious surface. He didn't know what fill was brought;in. That will be determined by the city engineer. is Mr. Lenton asked if it was in-the river land area or waterway system. Mr. Tjossem stated that there was a designated flood plain. Mr. Ohly asked that, if the Board didn't grant the variance, then would anyone be looking at the grading plan. He stated that the only way to move forward and to perhaps address the issue of the existing fill (whether it was appropriate or inappropriate)was for the Board to grant this variance or not grant it and kick it up to the City Council Mr. Pestka asked if Mr. Ohly could repeat his comments in a different format. He questioned whether he felt that Mr. Ohly was suggesting the Board should grant the variance so that it could move forward and be reviewed by the City Engineers. Mr. Ohly stated that the Board needed to address the real issue. He stated that it seemed to be that the real complaints was that fill was put in contrary to the grading plan, but they won't even address that until the Board grants this variance. If he went and removed the impervious surface (rock)there is still the issue of fill. So if anybody was going to address this appropriately, the Board would have to grant the variance or they wouldn't look at it and it will stay the way it was. It was causing some sort of large problem in the neighborhood and it was not going to get addressed. Mr. Gowin addressed the Board. He suggested to keep h:nind that they were talking about 3/10 of an acre and they are increasing it;-about 1/10 ofan acre. This was the 300%talked of previously. He also mentioned that he was draiZng 500 acres from his site so to assume that their 3/10 of an acrewas going to cause detrimental effect in comparison to that entire site was a stretch'.4 the imagination. Mr. Ohly replied that that particular issue was notbefore the Board. There,,seemed to be a lot of misdirection going on m;the;;room about what"the Board ought to have been looking at and they are not even looking at what the real.alleged problem was. He stated that he was trying to limit it t6what/how,the application read and what the planning staff was asking.to be determined. Mr. Tjossem stated that aside from the gra'ding,plan issue, they had to look at those four criteria that have to be ooked at"W'ith every,,;application fora variance. Mr. Johnson;stated that tie wanted to summarize,the criteria. First of all, the applicant had included land beyond his own prop erty,;in his,application. They object to that. There were no extraordinary conditions on.this•site that prevent the use of the site. It had been used as it was:approved, for six years. This property was similar to other property in:.the B4 Shoreland.;distnct r;So there was no substantial difference. A variance was not needed to permit the`reasonable use of the property. Again, it has been used for they past six years as an automotive service center. That criteria goes out. A variance wilf materially detriment the public welfare and be injurious to other property in the area A.300% increase in the allowable impervious area will further em�degrade the public waterway"'due to increased runoff and increased velocity of the waterway and thus degrade the storm water system even further. Adjacent property owners have incurred additional cost due to damage already caused in the waterway. Mr. Berens responded by stating that the land was unique. It was the same as it was in the original application but it was because of the MN DOT taking. This was the same business that was there before. He mentioned that land was in the application beyond that was owned by applicant. A series of letters were exchanged. There was a minor little triangle of land that has nothing to do with this issue that was on this site that Mr. Lesmeister had used as his own for decades and had paid the taxes on and he has invited them that if they had an issue with that, to bring it into court. That wasn't before the Board. That was an improper issue here. If they had a problem with what land he owned or didn't own, this was not the proper forum. There are district courts that deal with that. The standard Mr. Johnson ... he's not an attorney. But I'll advise you that earlier in this year the MN Supreme Court addressed what was a hardship for purposes of a variance and the standard for area variances, which this was a part of, was practical difficulties. That's all it was. The fact that there might be another reasonable use left for the property was not the legal standard. So what as before the Board was really the very simple concept, the fill was already there. The Board does not decide if it stays or it goes. The ordinance required no more than 25% of that area within the shoreland to be impervious. They have told the Board#hat:they were talking about 2/10 of an acre. He stated that he didn't see that there was.any evidence that it was detrimental to lands that were upstream from this property. And, they weren't the proper ones to make the call. Public Works and.;MN'DOT have addressed and they didn't have a problem with it. So that was the record before the:Board. He asked that they approve the staff recommended findrgs I f Mr. Lenton closed the public hearing. Mr. Ohly stated his concern that theBoard was allowing information that had absolutely nothing to do with the variance they:'had been asked t6.�approve or deny. He stated that he thought that if they start doing that ind'of thing, there;could be a real question of whether the decision was arbitrary or,not. It sounded to him,like there was a fight that had been brewing between these parties,for quite a Iong time,'but this was not the forum to solve that fight. He"stated that they are asked very simply to allow this greater percentage of impervious surface•based on staff findings that have been created. He continued by stating that he had to agree with#hose findings and it seemed to him that there was ";a beef".that somebody had but it wasn't with this issue. If there had been some unlawful filling that occurred in the.past, they can address that in another form but he didn't#kink the Board.shouid:allow their decision on this to be influenced by extraneous.fights, disputes,,or whatever was going on between these parties. Mr. Lenton stated that he ha&.a concern that if this is a shoreland area, he was a certified green professional and,that it concerned him a little bit on what it was going to do environmentally :;Because if they did approve this variance, as they had other issues before them, they weregomg:fo be setting precedence as to what they will allow. Once they start allowing impervious surfaces on shoreland areas, it could affect the environment. He said he was not concerned with the gravel, but was concerned about allowing blacktop to be put over it to the extent that they were asking. He continued that he was not against a motion that would allow the gravel to stay, but not allow any more blacktop, bituminous, or cement or anything that was more permanent until the site plan was done. Mr. Ohly stated that he didn't disagree with what Mr. Lenton's feelings were on that except to state that it appeared there was a process in place to address these issues of the water flowage with the grading permit that was either going to be granted or denied • or stipulations or conditions put on that. Somebody else should be resolving this problem. Mr. Lenton responded that he understood what Mr. Ohly stated. He felt that the Board was in a catch-22. In order for this to move forward, they would have to approve it. If the Board approved it though, they may be setting precedent. Mr. Ohly stated that this was probably true of any site. Whether or not the Board grants something like this depends on the unique nature or lack of unique nature of the lot and the problem and the hardships and all that. He stated that:he didn't necessarily agree that they would be setting a precedent, but he understand his concern. That was why they were going through this process. a Mr. Ryan stated that he was concerned that he:was,sup. o bd to have a pond there and didn't pay the fees because he has his own pond"there, then'fie should have his own pond there, either that, or he should have fad fo pay the fees. Mr. Lenton replied to what Mr. Ohly said and stated that was not the"decision they were making. It played into what their thought process`was, h4A"it was not the,question at hand. Mr. Ohly stated that that was his concern If the city attorney was going to be able to support their decision, he didn't think`they should make the,�decision based on things not relevant or pertinent to th`e issue at hand.., He agreed that if'somebody was supposed to put a pond in, they should havet a pond,Jn Mr. Ryan stated that if Main Street had to have so much of impervious land and so much green,space, and they had to follow those,rules, that it seemed that this-site, right in the middle''ofthetwhole bunch, there is:no reason why one .... That's like selective zoning: Mr. Ohly replied that that is true with'any kind of variance we grant. Mr. Tjossem stated that he felt"he needed to clarify that the green space question mentioned is based on a case by case basis outlined in the Ordinance that everybody has to abide by. Anyone,can apply for a variance to any provision in the Ordinance. What we're looking at toniglif"is the increase in impervious surface. (He noted where it was located on the documents in the packet.) Mr. Williams stated that looking at the information provided. Staff went to every department. There isn't one that wasn't contacted. Mr. Tjossem replied that the important players here are MN DOT and Public Works. Mr. Ryan stated that both of them have to be pretty well aware of what is going on here. • Mr. Tjossem stated, like Paul stated, in preparing the staff report and in making a decision we must look at the four criteria outlined in the Ordinance. . Irregularly shaped lot, small lot, those are the things that make something unique that is established within the ordinance. That is what staff has to look at when they make a recommendation. It is not any different than somebody applying for a variance for a garage that doesn't meet the setbacks. Mr. Lenton stated that however, he hasn't been asked to do a garage in the shore line district. That is the difference. Mr. Tjossem responded that Rochester Sand and Gravel applied for a variance to something similar a couple of years ago. Mr. Ohly stated that we have granted them in the past. It makes it difficult for us to make a decision on this one when we're looking'at things not' ceally pertinent to the decision. If we start doing something like,that;there is going to be a likely challenge to it. I don't know how we can support it if we:are making our decisions!based on extraneous issues. Whether it is true or not, I.don't thinkthat is important. It certainly plays on our feelings of protecting the environment when we see or listen to allegations that there has been some unlawful filling and misdirection of water. However, that is not something that we ought to do. Mr. Lenton ... but are we not being asked to do a;variance for the area that may have illegally been filled. Mr. Tjossem stated that:we are not here to to decideAf something was done illegally or if there is a penalty. Mr. Lenton responded.that he understands,that Odt the variance is for the contested area. '4 Mr. Tjossem,replied that there is a revised site development review that was submitted that shows impervious surface withinAlat shoreland and it exceeds the 25% allowable coverage. Mr. Ryan asked if we lapprovb this then it goes to Public Works and Public Works can say even though we approved it still doesn't meet the criteria and Mr. Tjossem replied that they can put whatever conditions they want as part of that grading permit. Mr. Ryan stated pretty much to get it moving forward to get it moving in some direction we should take a vote one way or the other. Either run it to the City Council or run it to Public Works. 'Mr:Ohl moved'to approve-uarian`ce re ;uest.R2008.,_024VAR b ;William r • Lesmeister with the following findings 'Mr Thornton seconded the motion The motion faded, 3 3 ' FINDINGS ' a I EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES There does appear to rbe exceptional circumstances or conditions;that apply to the applicant's"property that may not apply generally to other propie iesijmrthe same zoning district The lot has an irregular shape that makes itdifficult forarafflic flow and the storage.of vehicles 41 and other equipment associated with the oper'.at�on of the commercial use on th'e property 1 t r. i. q. I. i. I' ' ' ' v ,J i , i REASONABLE USE The gra'nting'of this variance request may be necessary to allow;for the(reasonable use'of the!appllicant's'property. The'existing conditions and condition of the site over the.years has varied in tmper�ious surface coverage By maintaining'consistency on the sitelan controlling the'stormwater runo. ii ptreatmg'ahe runoff as approved,through aGrading Plan with the City of Rochester Public'Works Dep'artme'nt it would,bring stability toahe(site thus making it more manageable k ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT ,,The'gra' ntin"g of this variance request would not appear to be' detrimental to the adjacent property owners and the neig borhood because of the ongoing development of the area 'However, the granting 'of the variance would be detrimental to the mte'ntland purpose of the City of Rochester; Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual n MINIMUM VARIANCE The minimum variance:that would be necessary to alleviate the`alleged hardship'would be a variance of fifty;percent (50%) to the maximum allowable percentage of':itnpervious urface coverage on a lot within the Shoreland District, from the permitted twenty five percent(25%) coverage, to i. s'evenf' . five' ercent 75% F Mr Ryan moved to deny the variance request R2008-024VAR by W�Iliam Lesmeister`application Mr .,Thornton seconded the motion Th'e motion'earned, pCHESTE$.M ROCH1i,8TER-OLMSTIJD PLANNING DEPARt1VIENT p�•R..••• '••..rNN�, 2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100•Rochester,MN 55904-4744 ���; sow • www.co.olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning ' COUNTY OFF'•, • yam 0 ' '• �� �ppR9 rED•AUGUST•5•p9• TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Logan Tjossem,Planner 5� DATE: October 22, 2008 RE: Variance(Type III,Phase I),R2008-024VAR November 5 h,2008,Board of Appeals Meeting Planning Department Review: APPLICANT: William Lesmeister Lesmeister Truck Center 31 Rockport Lane SE Rochester,MN LOCATION OF PROPERTY: TH PT NE1/4 NE1/4 DES AS FOLL COM AT NWCOR TH E AL N LINE 453.5FT TH SWLY 770.11FT TO PL OF BEG TH NWLY 275.68FT TO CEN LINE CSAH NO 20 TH SLY &ELY AL CEN LINE TO A PT 180FT N OF S LINE SD 1/4 1/4 TH ELY 83.37FT TH NE492.23FT TO PL OF BEG SEC 26-106-14 with and address of 31 Rockport Lane SE. ZONING: B-4 (General Commercial)Zoning District REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: See attached. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to increase the amount of impervious surface in the Shoreland District from the allowable maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) to seventy-five percent(75%). BUILDING CODE 507/328-7111 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/328-7100 • HOUSING/HRA 507/328-7150 • i ycWdp" PLANNING/ZONING 507/328-7100 • WELUSEPTIC 507/328-7111 T FAX 507/328-7958 (� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • According to Section 60.200 DEFINITIONS,of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Shoreland is defined as; "land located within the following distances from public waters: 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake,pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner." According to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Section 62.1008 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT; 2) Specific Standards; a) Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area. The applicant requests: • A variance of fifty percent (50%) to the maximum allowable percentage of impervious surface coverage on a lot within the Shoreland District, from the permitted twenty-five percent (25%) coverage, to seventy—five percent(75%). The Planning staff suggested findings are: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There does 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 lot has an irregular shape that makes it difficult for traffic flow and the storage of vehicles and other equipment associated with the operation of the commercial use on the property. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request may be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. The existing conditions and condition of the site over the years has varied in impervious surface coverage. By maintaining consistency on the site and controlling the stormwater runoff by treating the runoff as approved through a Grading Plan with the City of Rochester Public Works Department it would bring stability to the site thus making it more manageable. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would not appear to be detrimental to the adjacent property owners and the neighborhood because of the ongoing development of the area. However, the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance of fifty percent (50%) to the maximum allowable percentage of impervious surface coverage on a lot within the Shoreland District, from the permitted twenty-five percent (25%) coverage, to seventy—five percent (75%). Attachments: 1. Copy of Application and submittals 2. Copy of Site Location Map,Notification Map, and Aerial 3. Copy of Referral Agency Comments 4. Copy of the Site Development Permit Letter 5. Copy of Findings for a Variance TYPE III, PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • 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: WILLIAM LESMEISTER/LESMEISTER TRUCK CENTER ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 31 ROCKPORT LANE SE, ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (home) (work) 507-288-4965 FAX NUMBER ( ) E-MAIL (IF APPLICABLE) ADDRESS OF PROPERTY IF DIFFERENT THAN APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER:9- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TAX PARCEL 64.26.11.026070 LOCATED IN NORTHEAST QUARTER, NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 106 NORTH, RANGE 14 WEST, OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA -` }.:r:r3K �^..clti.rl TS'PgAF APPLtCATJON i�� �yG4yrJ° 11 1"t �i.'4t �.V 1 ,N Yy-ft Y',Yf t �} ¢ Ly t1' t.:'%r Y >.r. xv''^y' t.4 .q,k 3 m r tJ , .�j.',,a�{.K.a it e.wri i;:x`rs rt F� +'� � A�..;{Prdase:check;.. rOate bDJ4) t 7 4� J v+,,�{ i s-A nL�/ 1*tt�..,•h �•.,�: r ^�,i,:. .1 ..x-. { i.s> la ..5.5-... p p i• 2, ti s r € fMs; r sJai >iJL,.:£ :44 r J- ,' u:�:.w: �yy r'F i' x4'4. .µl]f T.ype lll phase Condttionat:lJse'Ftiiw t �- ti—' -"�; 4 kp .� >}.�a113 UC'� �-. e: l C E't' Y':A:-a F°M pSr�+F�;+ y ter;; _ �Ni`Y'4�zJ{.'{:5i•; • t /T� ,�<-. 1 :e^�.��'.i F ;fit:--ixs 32 \`5+.,�7�S 7"'T 3yti ' �n3v5?�,f cM�.r:, NO" "a©a`Type fJl Phass l Appeal 2}� :t�� r ;;,;r¢,.�.,x k _,�,{'��2}`^M1i ..:fir Y�� j y r a F�k1 'r: dp�1yc yv5. 1U j�s.- ^ktro.;; �a ' `*1s'F�s :r ° s,`.{ r 0 4TYpg,I Il Phase t Final Plat a�t F �>.e # #� t� it v rd ec o-t�s. fi 1 H _ z r ly f4T �rr . S e E 3 ��¢ a E c i.t .��PP1?ile�N•o $.Name ,4.. .z r.1 �' F s }tr .,.a- �-t-v�4 ,+s �.t r�'' Y� t5-. '" t�Pf'laseair rY:� Jt�''+( 4 'n t � 1 1 Y 4j•4�`# � �� 1'�'S(1 L - A -i� �# ".. 4 A Y � S' "xt}.� i t , J � y ., 1 A.i 4� •fj �.1§/l� � .Ye' i�� � +FAY„-J 4N t �-.�i i��P,k �i N �-�1 i t�.." F f '1.�' •..,i/, f.h.r.,,, pz �'.A.,a�£S r .,rt4s 1'�..�,u.:-z;K3 <:.:;f„s ,tee .,,..� �1n„!xx^., ..,.Ks:-„ J 3.,o.-.:,:�f .z d..h.tx-t, �: .}t,t. J :� r .,x_ t,5..re.:J:' REASON FOR APPLICATION: (Please describe in detail if applicable) SEE ATTACHED VARIANCE REPORT CEIVED DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2008 Respectfully Submitted, OCT 10 2008 LROCHESTER,OLMSTED DWILLIAM LESMEISTER 31 ROCKPORT LANE SE, ROCHESTER, MNNIN NT (Owner or Corporation) (Address) (Phone) Return Application to: Rochester—Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Dr.SE,Suite 100 Rochester,MN 55904 Ph:(507)328-7100 Fx:(507)328-7958 DISTRIBUTION: ti gl' ME t7SE C3N C; i • Planning Department:(white copy) �� h ,� City Clerk:(canary copy) Date Recewed 3 Applicant:(pink copy) �yAPpGcatio�FeX t- 4 Forth P.1920-30 Rev.21=4 Variance Report for William Lesmeister On behalf of our client,Mr. William Lesmeister,we are requesting a variance to the Shoreland Regulation requirement(62.1008.2a),which states that impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed twenty five(25)percent of the lot area within the shoreland overlay boundary. This property is zoned B-4 and is currently being utilized as an auto repair service. The property is bounded on the west and north by U.S.Highway No. 63 right-of-way and roadway ditch,on the east by another commercial site which has impervious surface up to the property line, and on the south by Rockport Lane SE. Additional commercial property containing an auto dealership is located south of Rockport Lane. Mr. Lesmeiter's property originally contained 2.81 acres and has operated as an auto/truck repair service for over 30 years. The nature of his business requires a large area of hard surface for parking and storage of vehicles in various stages of repair. The U.S. Highway No. 63 project resulted in the taking of approximately 1.87 acres of this parcel and required Mr. Lesmeiter to relocate his building to the remaining piece of his property. He is now required to operate his business within the constraints of this much smaller area and needs most of the available space for parking and storage. We are therefore requesting an increase in allowable impervious area within the floodplain to seventy five(75)percent of said area. Stormwater runoff amounts and drainage patterns will remain unchanged by the approval of this . variance. The lot currently has 0.398 acres located within the shoreland overlay boundary. Of that amount, approximately 0.30 acres or seventy five(75)percent of the area can be designated as impervious. The subject area sheet drains into the U.S. 63 right-of-way ditch and then continues northeast to an existing stormwater pond. The recently completed LOMR,which established the new floodway and 100 year floodplain,was based on contours and surface conditions as they now exist. No additions or reductions to the impervious surface and ground contours that existed at the time the LOMR was performed are proposed by the applicant. This variance is being requested in order-to,remove the issue of non-compliance-with current shoreland regulations concerning allowable impervious surface area. The applicant feels this variance is necessary for the full utilization of his property in a manor consistent with its current zoning and intended use and its approval will not have any effect on existing stormwater management conditions. Michael E. Gowm McGhie&Betts,Inc. 1648 SE Third Avenue RECEIVED Rochester,MN 55904 OCT 10 2008 -OLMSTED[ROCHESTIER I ANNIN �SFARTMENT "f r *'R rt ' 40th Street SW r € - j' ) LPN '�—" ~l rstKr� "L T' �rrj }f /` f r/ /V..�,j � a'. _ i C.� trlg E a' r {n�.�.r •c Er �� � <{.. Bs�i� � / ,/ ���'f l/ � / y � � 1. 3. d: ] ,r f r•± rr+ y ,� �.r '1` r♦fit ;" ' oil r r -. :p, � hutI xx ,Sa w'af'U r }t„ St �¢'c¢ lr 5 �+ (� • ��` 'sr ��r ,,��'T�S��f+" �� r� 4'� ��x�.�p, .i� � Ja ���"�i 3.4 i : ] '':i / ,/'t :r r x- � �• 4:1� Ef t'! t _:yW. ��.�gS, call' K am_ .. t y�j A ayi. { _ t�kr,".��4w ,:.�+y ✓,i9 �`R. k tip ' ir°—st f.: { � £'�r T• t >, a t{ F Y k WAYS d \r "'sR M =v`-ttY z .� �, .�,y,..,;�u ] �� •,. "r r .r E•"''" �. f �i-+t`�'r ''+�-t„T'-rz`MAIM r t£'...�e..- 4 tr�F ni°tr -.C . �.£• {+?K`L] },-. ae o �r��$� „ ]- >' r - 3 S,ss,,yy;; t,.r TS 4)t tr gd ;y'+27 "a�j'• cc .pt.k' y��� ^S^4aSr" "4` 'k3` �.. rP ,_'r "�}t ' > �zti� �.t t�& C sSrre i'�r -I y,,t 'e• : R13 ..Y-. a3�Pr�t ..i Y ,r,,.? xJ,4•,C.^.�gas.i'c '1 I.,,;�" }e !t- .a� - tr ':; F�~ } r`n cxiq r 'S ,t, 4 11 `e ,.et} rat V _ +F.,,1. wA 1ya y�o' ^�};` ;' J 4c ti.=Jr 4 -. r ,•.'3�y"' �; .',c ' ;r"Y .7C.?'' ybP-...y ,r G;:Lg r.�,r '+ ,r'1`s'Cr � rcF r tr t +-^/w "r -yj, c .fyv 3 4: �..i(!� h�.�:. t `5 w^- 4!r .`' .•,y•_i't:.i,`,+ -*'a. °. ?.'�i\_i r,r4( .p r,y � > 'i' s' ✓a "` •r 8 `1�r-'" •t�dfi` Z7. W' ?i.'."�.Y Wy„T. 11 r� S' v : -s:} W.y,��'::d'rl .v. {rt""i ... v.�{. 4 .:: !=r �c K ' .ir� �>-� 4 k fyw, .z•-t: < w r- : t � Fjra„a!� ,F r:.. +{' t? t;Fr .t ev,.. �4 .. .`:+�,`,�{� ,N �� �f�-� S ti jr 1 t ?rr'4�-s4•`� + r Y' ��. a�'r- ] �; r r � ty '� i':. 3K1x 1 f f Itr; _irr �a Legend �T tYASS�' h 3 t P''+-M s � >fW5 —a.;ci_- icod ,lain ffkindDO T i P) RECEIVED OCT 10 2008 ROCHEff_S -OUASTED r PANNING DEPARTMENT it Wby Site Location Map of31 Rockport LN SE nce#R2008-024VAR lliam Lesmeister/Lestmeister Truck Center p PINs:64.26.11.026070,64.26.11.073075 Wardl (Ed Hruska) Neighborhood Assoc: None a _ 10/13/08 ---40-ST-SW Ll I i l n 0 I o l I cb e a ca a o_ r 3 � W (3 h g � � a MAINS STSE _ _ GO RD-101—� a >A . s qSq gE 4 N y fi a —48-ST-S 48 ST SEI 0.j `500 1 bbb h y 2,000 Feet g �( o 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. 1500 ft. Notification Area of 31 Rockport LN SE / ®o � u! I d i p Variance#R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister/Lestmeister Truck Center 9 PINs:64.26.11.026070,64.26.11.073075 =_r Ward:1 (Ed Hruska) Neighborhood Assoc:None 10/20/08 � < g t � s er a"! —40ST-Swn cdr2 � .t E I f 1:., �1' atI L•,j, 5 8 0 A t ky tiff, ilT It ki,R S tii i. YiA 3 H L L %Ir I a N I 4 -ST-Sw SE s 0 ' � 750 °� `I 500`>_ �� r .� s ,: i• 3 000 F' 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. AM` _ . x `ti'"" F.t'��e"}„ i �k_ r', .� ..�,�.,�^^�.,,�.,C'crom+ ,���x,'�'`iP'as' !"A.', tom. ,:�+..��4'F•r a HEIR g s.0.. Y �3. w.,' � :.k.3 x !yq;; y�" •?azs.r. Yx..",x:.c'..il'2r:Ci�n .��r'''iiz ;�,. �: , r' Aerial Map of 4, es 1< 4 r I } '}.-i��t.`< �Lr� 'J'� '•t•�iN(/. �' !�F' "" 31 Rockport ort LN SE �, ' �;�}•.�� �. y „tai ��a�t'�b. _V1"�:, � e-� tirr ia+�. s r ,J '4S�'Yy! r,� b4•P,.r.rz.T'al% .�m'� i.;q'+��m q�d �� �r�.i. d;, � A.r.-'tom`• '•,K!- . `'j i`*ra.�.t.7�ia, :,s ,�v'�*e^y�,�,x-'y'k:ti�. ��,.,.��.,� t'�.'ag '.J• �a'3t ire t"' S��"'� jp?` :'�"r S�sr, Jjtgst"r" a, s tn ; w � ��.h •it 1•. ,.t:,rr ,c. .':fir ° .:;. '.,, i`. :':, '`" ,'7 : ice � isi3,�>"'. `t"`rysJs 'MA" - �` � �� G�f�' Variance#R2OO8-O24VAR � by William Lesmeister/Lestmeister Truck Center NOIRE��' � PINs: 64.26.11.026070,64.26.11.073075 'd �• . ' }� Ward:1 (Ed Hruska) s` Neighborhood Assoc: None ' 10/13/08 �� sue" Y f. .e :t tk 1u" i `rT' I"."; 4 i 4 `h�Zh c L- r rK 7y s ,I s y x q' ar w 1 fq .••• �'LRa�Fr�'-• IF Ii; N. � � '�.� ^'.,�a tx t�•'.'. ,'t �� t�A<� �t1 7 r �t,}p n t hx'7Tt"f e AE, ••, "1'.�.: �t>4 Y•-rf K's tr`ti i Y; �j;„ �vs � s r=rh �+�"✓ �C.r tt � 8f F} Z�r 1l. r� gLj Tsznn . } k gx7r�� ti �„ �*�s"•" z. ,'-b;C.: ,V ,k" _.+, "E9'z i+ k, y yg r L'y k,t' i 4}• ,. [�..'-far, ;A v'e. ti r �i,,, n '�'b��..} i�.`.� _ :�'4�n:'•`.rx ��•�c�1's.�t � d. t '" _^�5. ° �^yie.'G�.� v . "�, •». Yc , rLA "�ai;J' +�.'',s`tA' >'r ;bw'' ',._:��� a � +� 4 E�P��+ _ � +� ircr F� aJ,1 fi-xn�. t e��'.,S �>1:•_+ct �'IteN r $+�F, �`��p a z '� .� �r s.�c� ;.��,�gg> -` - i+�{q{g,£� �, : .a' �.~~�,u�����'-� �, �sf"n„ r� -�� Bey +L ,tt;•{%At r` ,c 1` 1? s s5}' ' �4 �*: r w,� •� �'�` y�",�Lr*•.,,t �t�yu� � �""�` `1�-3' '��d�",'•trc..k t� r£,�iy?� �. •+`"� >< + 771� i. 4�' 1+<•*'f"rt. ° � 'vJfFT;�}jw4 �+ a� >� �it:+. '¢.� 'r_ t �� ��j .�ye�.�''�y�4ax, 3r .1=.��"f �'r�.:'} at$A rI �'' � � . 'i ,{ C�,`'�e i`E''t}•r�m',"Jt a eq o. •� t1Y, +` t ,,. F 3'J tit Ft•a•Y�''� {( - e++jc�*,.-S`.a;.�i F ^-,�-, ,� 2 Ft ,P Pam' �, � r.L r;"yF,}�' w.Y� ,,,�.�Svar ;� a V a yr ��c , �� #r a '4 � ��,1•'a,. � 9''� .•�'� ' - °.i � r ,. +[ d� i1. � 'r5 ,a'�}t.: '�'�����.��,<3��^`t1' h �cs�.a��•��i�'� �5'3:�4�1�?�h�[` t'_.' •��'� q.:,c d, ° ,• �i .y'J F� 't' "M1� 3`c' �''" -.�r i 'rv� �tAe'�i•...�,'�i`+ �`� �fr�,»�?L'"".i,� '.o `," :. •�.v-.�3:y, �':ty;±.r,�sy--� i � .:1 �•`'t,,:,� � yi ,� 4� y4 "Y} =N t'��!`.f �`��.-``rk a � CIF;3t,S .2� '.. �r�r r ,s i q F2+.� .",,�.ca+• • I � �da3 � �< �a �,� ,��, r3' � ;f ''4� tF �Y•,Fz a �{^�, '� '�'�s�-���tt�' -`t^' �.�:.-: •x Y4�`�' I s. � ''w� � �, �, � ��'r� ��'�"r..,���t , � �"� '� r<����' t»..,.` r i=t-•�� 13z' , yf � � R {������y�• ��:. a`�� ; r gtl� � � fi>Y✓ � � {`fir� `� A �Sd"t' „�,�����`r� _ ?_; � Y`�� t1, �, a ,y+ . 6. .sSyw -1 5 :"�' t.-rl d• }..I { �c -.�'� � yF for -a .�#�� w "�{t E•�Y.� C 6 i5q,,. -. ""5� �Ci-`F } �`ia"V 1 + a �"`� r�'`�"�,:;{�,,+'.'�,t, e �ri,, '�� r ra4 �- 1'ip• ds„t.r r ' � -, ,•� ���r_,� �� �r . '�'�� '::•t �`=1xa,`.% � ...{ksPv. 'fit-. ��M��ti.� e �..r �'�,' `'i`°�•�'kY r�^ �. � � a,,, �,'zz""�s ' '�2b'�•3''`Ci_"'�•r���`' r �,�_�;� �.5 u sc�*r�y»-i,ti � •€ r,. < <,y M �'rs�.,y"u , �-`�.}Y� `3 ."m..�'f��, rt. 1 `>'�t;:: {.`'f}� ;r!�a... >. +'� • ? �1k `�v§�S9«,� �� Ec- £ ' eS,. ;- , ke N 3 :v�) `' v-ar-�'y '' �'•� y� Ya k}'N� ty ' .. , � 3 i s..• ;. -ark•: T*.9, ,.'i xar,.i.'? ,�i ��ig4 Cry ;, k .X?""` [f�. '�k- lx° ti�,..,, $it•,�:..,... t-U�"n�F;� t tF ;,ii" i, :. '�i` L` ,'�Y "+.<•'•,i. ''i;rx .tit,"'•"'ff' -r..}, i a.&4J•'9 `' �`.r :k .. „F...�, Wit. cx'Y r ,F'r ,p�%K+, r�'.,,�;YC(+�` ,rry}��'t,�A PYT •3 e �•�,�'x�'� :'2��`' t: Y .. •A�: *!':r.* ,r p tS �1M T � �t :rr q-��p 4 �:s "v `fir k•r ' rx&r F d ;i i •' ' sr t�4# � `�s''i."'�+�,�.',�r�.y�,ms�.:�t�a•4z�`"`���"`'`�`�` �-'`. ���'t"`+� w �i>< _�� ,r,4i,.�� ' �. �. ��-�"�i'.,�-',�r�c_� +x p'ri•nj T - �jF.TS�� ..� ...�`� rv:`�'� r�'q� ..J ��j� cY*'+ '+: eG. 't rr�,�y l v r th� 1�yy� a;; � *. { ,fr Y.,d ik rG♦1 �Y �yi y;.) - A4 _ +. I rax l.�. - r`^ ,y, ,,i+{�. f ■ az� kk' �"va' i'� �J'x 3 ti � �. ,fo- e t ai '4 PW 'tiT'S,�-�.Y:'4 pp r'r r;L ry �ty'"s „4r�' r 'r•. ,:•iv�'J"`�':±• '`v _ '..6s�.,n '�fj, i 's-.•7' `-r3� S�tT�((--, 'J 5,�7 u�v a��"pY �-v�� .ad 1,�' a +t", r , � •*k�+. .... ^3 a .. �.. '•" �.a k, �.'��� ' +';r it • �} 't�'¢' r '� .r' 3 I •7 tr'��*a. �. .ti�k'e}* c �' �k Y"d� Y X' t��'�*` t "'f"' ,.may ' L `� t� �''` ' tG,��y ` •'�' r`�,' � I� 'i j 7 ��?,�.1�,/-. - g i�•�I.Jt• �d � 1 F �,.�,ti� an; ,, rum"' j� j 4 3`'.Y x ,�+�-i -.1� z�i 'r'•n l � h+�s.C � "C 't1 i"'t,s i y, rn±. S '^ yr. < � 1 :�' �. 2 � ,`•) ' y'�. a'J R3Y Y S rh-?'E x. £,. `yt 1911E, +•., AM' �. 0 95 1;9Q 380 feet ' { Atr4 � � t"'!i t r t i +t t': t t k 'r � �� �7����a.�r�� � �'-'`o`'.• i�� � �� F d xt,,rf"�,,x J� � f �t'•`a. �.�r.;'r'x`� - �"�� �.�-�}.t;`.�"';si4 •a ti�t�•`��-'"e �f � � �� ����' 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. • Referral Comments Submitted By: Rochester Public Works Dated: 10/28/08 Department Staff: Mark Baker Planning File: R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center There are no comments from this agency at this time. Foster Stephanie . From: Debra Persoon-Bement[Debbie.Persoon@dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:10 PM To: Planning Referrals Cc: Chris Moates; Peter Waskiw Subject: No Comment Mn/DOT has no comment for the following review. Type III, Phase I, Variance Request R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister, to allow for the increase of an impervious surface within the Shoreland District. The property is in the 13- 4(General Commercial) Zoning District. The property address is 31 Rockport LN SE, Rochester, MN. Thank you - Debbie Debbie Persoon-Bement, Transportation Specialist Minnesota Department of Transportation 2900 48th Street NW Rochester, MN 55901-5848 Phone: (507) 286-7598 Fax: 507-285-7279 • 1 i Referral Comments Submitted By: LGU Dated: 10/14/08 Department Staff: John Harford Planning File: R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister/LesmeisterTruck Center A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. The MNDOT addressed wetland delineation and replacement as a part of the TH 63 project. • Referral Comments Submitted By: GIS/E911 Dated: 10/16/08 S Department Staff: Randy Growden Planning File: R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center Division Staff. There.are no comments at this time from the E911 Addressing Referral Comments Submitted By: Fire Department Dated: 10/14/08 Department Staff: Vance Swisher Planning File: R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center There are no comments from this agency at this time. Referral Comments Submitted By: Park and Recreation Dated: 10/14/08 Department Staff: Jeff Morton Planning File: R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center There are no comments from this agency at this time. • Referral Comments Submitted By: RPU Water Division Dated: 10/16/08 -Department Staff. Donn Richardson " `Planning File: R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center There are no comments from this agency at this time. Referral Comments Submitted By: County Public Works Dated: 10/20/08 Department Staff: Lori Collins Planning File: R2008-024VAR by William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center There are no comments from this agency at this time. Referral Comments Submitted By: RPU Operations Division Dated: 10/15/08 Department Staff: Mike Engle Planning File: R200&024VAR by William Lesmeister/Lesmeister Truck Center There are no comments from this agency at this time. ROCRESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DuAnfMENT o�. ocxESTEa.�IfNN�s 2122 Campus Drive SE,Suite 100•Rochester,MN 55904-4744 www.co.olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning COUNTY OF (�O•. �00 R4rED•AUGUs'T-S. �4 — r October 15,2008 William Lesmeister c/o Lesmeister Truck Center PO Box 8173 Rochester,MN 55903 RE: REVISED: Site Development Plan#03-58 for the Bill Lesmeister Truck Center Amendment. Zoning approval for the above referenced REVISED Site Development Application has been denied. Listed below are items that need to be addressed/submitted to complete the review process: • A recorded Cross Parking Agreement or a recorded Parcel Combination is required for the two lots shown on the site plan. • A variance is needed to allow for the increase of impervious surface to the noted 75 percent on the site plan within the Shoreland District as defined in the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. • A Site Plan showing the identified storage area fifteen (15) feet from the front property line. • The semi-trailers being stored on the west side of the lot are not being actively used for transportation of merchandise or stored adjacent to the loading dock relating to the business. This is based on drive-by inspections of the site over the last 60 days by Randy Klement, Zoning Enforcement Officer. If the semi-trailers are to stay at the site, they will need to be identified on the site plan and meet all requirements of Section 62.396 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. This includes screening of the trailers. If the trailers are not to be stored at the site, this will need to be identified, in writing, under the Exterior Storage Standards of the site plan. • The revised plans will need referral approval from Rochester Public Works Department,Rochester Fire Department and Rochester Public Utilities. You will need to submit additional information outlined above to determine compliance. Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at 328-7128. BUILDING CODE 507/328-7111 • GIS/ADD RESSING/MAPPING 507/328-7100 • HOUSING/HRA 507/328-7150 .a aw.r PLANNING/ZONING 507/328-7100 • WELUSEPTIC 507/328-7111 Q,11 FAX 507/328-7958 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • NOTE: To ensure compliance and verify approval of the REVISED Site Development Plan, a zoning certificate is required once the above noted items have been completed. Since 'ly, ogan Tjossem Planner Cc: Michael Gowin-McGhie and Betts, Randy K. —Zoning Enforcement Officer, Terry Adkins—City Attorney,Richard Freese—City Public Works • Ny7d ' aZIS QauxaK 2IatlL H3 x0fl l HH,LSISHSa7 TIIS -^° _• _ -._,_..__ 7ZGI-RL a31 1N3M1[ev n 3pala0TOO 35 N LOSS Y15901 A313 Yi'8 0 3s Sao —•—. mar orro m raw sriwrta angt mi"'�Om"uaa �y�-.�'>�'•?•mm• =�^fa� � ��\ 3ar]tlni s orwoam v\ot a>arnun j ��� axar rea rm LaJro�M otlgwa maA � ��� � ��0� i near seo vaer ulmea viol i r I• i xsa WY pro)is oLaf-rdaY snotnaaa r1 - J \ sraar�31vaa do Nonen un xN. Q� xvL(0r oe'o)as osott-raaY snolnaaasa (]Y oYp)dS pas'LS_YSHT W101 P a ° ^•9�6'!• '� m % IYMpIap aid By 533w15io pM'S7S= "41 SStld 53 o Ya wL aNn / 3N1 apt AII'eSlsapdSay Sld3]]Y pNV Spw15a3pNn .••• tl3NMp3W"xL'NYHI'SSiI-P/'NMIp5Y3aV3M• •�v LS'pTE'pT'�"(xLZ)'3p'/apjspayYNp76ap Q �� C iP dS eLCVt_(xpf)aDYHOJS 31"APn1' nro Ao,tn 3arnsga s oMmn Jo Nauats orr � N]enTW 31Q YW aNlD]na IS'gJWIM3 Zo-K 3]H'/i] nY W 10 aN'aOMa lW qt aNgtl]]TI g3iegttl30 Sre TNaI AUM10 56LL is Yie'pi-YaaY jaj 'A,Y•T,Jlrvlle a M'ia LYII M NOLLMY¢aM Aa,N]T'M,SaR]Nl m �-- �- f 19IiII-7.I11�1' 'd3YHQIL` W I 8 ��•w 00 ------- asreots/wwwa eMtmq —•—•— tw+amw wJt-00l 673ONDWd � 5 \ Z •�'�' ••' ! -0t� ' �d'„_. r/ Ay...n aNYtln sm SMd sagas AaIM 0 x�nay apa USH3A oz_alHrarnr SaaraS o t _ aaa�ea aZMnb3a SIMS oa-(SAYH f)xra MVdaa and S (n ® I 1 \.I'•% / - __ nu..rgq,■.gm 1i: i nrn•� pr I °°' u■rm° Ix a= °ao• j•� r trsra mqu xof'S'.L QIIYawjs ZVYaas a �' I aN�M nS C UMLLSap aaYQNALS"is a aavaarys peHLapn aplaaj a :{ 1 1 .° aarrms f-H Notyl'JfdISSY77 pMNOZ ■ axsussga en d r '� 1°r'0 a1°° � e>�""r.J".Y N `��',j.-� Ilvv(Q`'-'V\ / ■ atar awana qy ' �.,f ■ nun ere or fe'0 MY ZMS'Moy '� • } ,•;•A'' •:d . I�� Q1r �'`/ �� � / L trgxrlu (xTI)ar oro WHY S•nYdSNaaap : ItZ 1 Q 0 SGalxal ar f0'p MY 30y"4 SnolAaadla /1� a:••-`•••• ; •• / 0 /(�`//j1j'7 a xos l cN/n3t is vLA'v Yaav alum Tam■ maaroa - �� x&VIiW7S�5 � ' ____�—� i \ .'.-°n�• g� L+i -- -_----- / 1 i i Y --- m Igernaa Loos oasgaou % � '' \\"� cmanm r Mntrtan Aq6 gM,A,v % i �, 1 � 4 �•'u, .- - .5 _ ---°so'----- w�gawa e'usw I i �\ ce�•.• �.• _'i�./! 9 1N3W1>jVd34°JNINNb'ld i i / , ,� 'i•' 6y55a�C 031�W7O•i13153H0021 i I 1; ; ,% .ef'oo� g$`gg\ _.•'� 800Z 0 1130 Q3.1I3D32I \ 1 City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Mamial 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 or 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 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.