May 2, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

adopted specifically for the PF district in 2000 should be viewed in terms of both intent and timing. It was clearly the City's intent in the 2000 PF standards to address places of worship) (and their special architectural needs related to symbolism). Since those special standards also clearly post date the general standard of 300.12 it is the PF standard that is applicable. No variance is required for the steeple/cross proposed by the Rockpoint site plan. Staff has previously advised the Commission that the 2002 application of the am Inded architectural performance standards should have been extended to the PF zone as well as the commercial zones — and we thought it had been when during earlier advice the applicants) The Rockpoint site plan is responsive to those 2002 standards. If the Code amendment to extend.those standards to PF is recommended by the Planning Commission on April 24 and adopted by theII City Council on May 2, no variance or modification of exterior surfacing will be required on the Rockpoint site plan. Assuming the foregoing, the only remaining variance is that for sidewall height. The PF standard for sidewall height is 35 feet. The Rockpoint site plan proposes a widely varying sidewall height (depending on where and which side of the building is measured). There are locations wheree the sidewall height ranges up to 49 feet. By a March 29, 2006 letter from the Rockpoint architects (BWBR) the applicant has presented its case for hardship based primarily on the physical characteristics of the site. Findings and Recommendations: The Commission should be aware that staff had previously advised the applicant's consultants/architects that there would be a height compliance issue with the plan they had brought to a pre -application meeting with staff. The applicant argues (by the March 29, 2006 letter) that the efficient site utilization dictates the "extra" finished level of the building, and that dictates the sidewall height proposed_ Clearly the actual site chosen (from an initial 108 acres of "choices") would suggest the "walkout" design proposed. Clear also is the applicant's argument that, by adding the extra level to the building, impervious coverage of the site is reduced from what it would be should the building's "prow am" be built without the extra level. The single question that results appears to be whether that argument constitutes a hardship in terms of the reasonable use of the property. Given this is a unique structure to Lake Elmo by any measure, and the overall characteristics of the site anits relationship to surrounding lands, staff suggests that the sidewall height proposed does constitute a reasonable use of the property, and the following findings are suggested: 1. The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance requested. The proposed sidewall height variance applies to only a portion of the building and relates to both utilizing the site contours as they appear naturally and minimizing the impervious coverage of the site by creating floor area vertically rather than horizontally. 2. The variance requested does result from circumstances unique to this Place of Worship use and the physical characteristics of the site. 3. Granting of the variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood_ These Findings and recommendation assume that the amendment to the PF performance s will be recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council removing the variance action for exterior surfacing.