Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinding of Fact - Findings of Fact - Denial of Appeal No. CD2022-001AP Related to Manor Hills Variance BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA In Re: Appeal No. CD2022-001AP by Affected Property FINDINGS OF FACT, Owners in Country Club Manor CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER On June 6, 2022, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public hearing to consider the above appeal from the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). On April 20, 2022, the ZBA approved a variance submitted by People of Hope Church to allow an increase of the permitted impervious surface coverage beyond the 25% limitation. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Country Club Road and th 36 Avenue NW, in the City of Rochester, State of Minnesota, and is within the Cascade Creek Shoreland District. At the hearing, the affected property owners in County Club Manor were represented by Dennis Fields, a professional planner and son of one of the affected property owners. The developer, Titan Development and Investments, was represented by Jason Scrimshaw, an engineer with Kimley Horn. The Council sitting in a quasi-judicial manner reviews the matter pursuant to R.C.O. § 60.417, subd. 1 (A-F). After considering all of the testimony and evidence submitted to the Council in this matter, the Council adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conditions: 1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS Criteria A. There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district: Country Club Road creates a substantial separation between the shoreland on the north side of the road and the shoreland on the south side of the road, which impacts the aesthetics, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities that are traditionally preserved by the shoreland district ordinance. It also altered how water flows from the north side of the road to the south side. The site is connected to Cascade Creek through a 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe in the southeast corner of the development, which in connection with the location of Country Club Road, results in a hydraulic surface flow barrier which concentrates stormwater flow directly to the southeast corner of the lot. The presence of Country Club Road NW disrupts the shoreland district on this site. The presence of the culvert in the southeast corner, and how stormwater flows through the site in relation to the road, is unique to this parcel. Criteria B. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances are due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The applicant is not responsible for the installation of Country Club Road NW, or the existing stormwater challenges on the site. The engineering team notes that the site will have stormwater challenges even if the 25% impervious surface limit is met. While the increase in impervious surface does add to the stormwater challenges on the site, innovative stormwater management strategies will be required during the grading and stormwater review process in order for the project to move forward. Criteria C. The variance is necessary to overcome practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance so that the property can be used in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance: A variance is necessary to overcome practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance so that the property can be used in a reasonable manner. The R3 zoning district permits low-density residential uses, medium density residential uses, and some low- intensity commercial uses. While the city anticipates a medium density residential development on the site, any development of the site will have similar stormwater management challenges, and likely require a variance for additional impervious surface coverage. Criteria D. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, and will not alter the essential character of the locality: The applicant has not fully demonstrated that exceeding the 25% impervious surface 2 requirement will not be materially detrimental. Preliminary information has been provided to demonstrate that the stormwater management has been considered as part of the proposed site layout. The city team recommends that if the project can meet the city’s stormwater regulations as it moves through the regular development process, than the project will not be materially detrimental from a water quality perspective. As previously stated, the shoreland has already been negatively impacted from a recreational and wildlife habitat perspective. The city team recommends that the variance be approved contingent on the project meeting all city stormwater regulations and receiving an approved stormwater management and grading permit and including additional vegetation. The city engineering team offers the following information: The applicant has not fully demonstrated that exceeding the 25% impervious surface requirement will not be materially detrimental to other properties in the area. However the same could be held true at this stage in the development process even if the proposed project complied with the 25% impervious surface requirement. The applicant has provided preliminary information that the magnitude of this development relative to the larger watershed will be negligible. However the applicant still needs to demonstrate that the peak discharge rates including emergency overflow discharges will not exceed existing conditions. In addition, the stormwater routing will need to remain the same. This work would need to be completed even without the variance. An increase in impervious surface will make it more challenging for the applicant to fully demonstrate that that discharges will not exceed existing conditions. Approval of the variance should be conditional on demonstrating compliance. Criteria E. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance: The variance, including the proposed conditions of approval, are in harmony with the intent of the shoreland ordinance. The shoreland ordinance is intended to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands (wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and aesthetics), and provide for the wise use of water and related land resources of the state. The presence of Country Club Road, the development on neighboring properties, and historical use of the site has not provided quality wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities, and aesthetics (sightlines) have already been altered. While it has been identified that the applicant has not demonstrated that Cascade Creek will be sufficiently protected, it is acknowledged that the level of analysis and planning is not completed until later on in the development process and a conditional of variance approval is recommended. Criteria F. The terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: The variance is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the 2020 Olmsted County Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis. If the shoreland variance is approved, the development of a 72 unit affordable housing development will be constructed on the 3 site, helping the city address the shortage of affordable housing in Rochester. The site recently underwent a Land Use Plan Amendment (CD2021-002LUPA) and a Zoning Map Amendment (CD2021-006ZC) where the site was reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Conditions: 1. The applicant shall demonstrate full compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management regulations and receive an approved Stormwater Management and Grading Permit, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. During the site plan approval process the applicant shall include additional vegetation that will provide a visual break, assist with stormwater treatment, and provide habitat for birds and animals. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. R.C.O. § 62.1008 (2)(a) applies to this parcel given its proximity to Cascade Creek. 2. R.C.O. § 60.417, subd. 1 (A-F) sets forth the criteria for finding a variance. 3. The Council agrees with staff and the ZBA and concludes that People of Hope Church has in fact met the criteria for a variance per R.C.O. § 60.417, subd. 1 (A-F). ORDER The Common Council of the City of Rochester does hereby deny Appeal No. CD2022-001AP by the Affected Property Owners in Country Club Manor and affirms the decision of the ZBA. 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS __________ DAY OF _______________, 2022. ___________________________________ PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: __________________________ CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________________, 2022. ___________________________________ MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) 5