HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 530-06 k
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Carl Johnson, Drywall Supply requested approval of land disturbing activities
associated with an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #04-41 that would allow for the
movement of over 100,000 cubic yards of material on the entire parcel., - Section
62.1101(B)(1)(a) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances defines such an activity as a "Substantial
Land Alteration". The property is located east of West Circle Drive, north of Highway 14, south of
the railroad right-of-way and west of United Building Center; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. § 62.1105 states that the City must approve a conditional use permit
authorizing an excavation activity if the applicant satisfies all of the requirements of Section
61.146 and, in addition, satisfies the following findings:
A. The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or
unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4)
proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways;
B. Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off-site environmental impacts on
public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the
• Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate
the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of
funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such
mitigation activities are carried out;
C. The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and
maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be
mitigated;
D. The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface
water quality;
E. The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the
natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects
are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration
of the site following completion of the excavation activity;
F. The activity will be compatible with existing development and development
anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive
Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing
or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other
natural resources;
•
1
• G. The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties;
H. The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from
unsightly features of the excavation operation;
I. The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and
stabilization of cut and fill areas;
o .
J. The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or
stormwater management facilities;
K. The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other
natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality;
L. The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is
appropriate for the size and location of the activity;
M. Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved
by the City;
N. Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after
completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits
• reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan,
neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies.
O. The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building
code; and,
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the City of Rochester Common Council held a public
hearing on this Substantial Land Alteration application, reviewed the application according to the
requirements of R.C.O. §61.146. After closing the public hearing, the Council made the
following findings:
1. Access to the site for material delivery will be to and from the frontage road south
of the property, a designated Urban Arterial.
2. Not applicable.
3. Not applicable.
4. Not applicable.,
5. Not applicable.
6. Not applicable.
7. Not applicable.
8. Not applicable.
•
2
• WHEREAS, the .City of Rochester Common Council also reviewed the application
according to the requirements of R.C.O. § 62.1105 and made the following findings:
1. The property is located in a large area zoned M-2 and the material placed
on the site will elevate the buildings and surrounding storage/parking
areas. Access will be to an existing Urban Arterial.
2. Noise and dust may be a localized issue during the construction but will
end once construction is complete. There are no residential areas
adjacent to this property.
3. The access to this site is by the frontage road, 7th St., NW and West
Circle Drive. These streets are Urban Arterials or higher level streets.
4. The applicant has proposed on-site stormwater ponds and will be required
to have a stormwater permit during construction. There are no city wells
located within the immediate area.
i
5. The site includes wetlands, mowed grassland and narrow wooded areas.
The property is located within an area designated for industrial
development on the Land Use Plan and in the zoning ordinance.
6. Warehouse uses are consistent with the Land Use Plan designation and
• current zoning district. The fill in the flood fringe is permitted in order to
elevate buildings to the flood protection elevation.
7. The floodplain standards and the Flood Insurance Rate Map allow for fill
to elevate buildings within the Flood Fringe District. Fill within the property
boundary is consistent with the flood plain standards should not have an
impact on adjacent property.
8. Not applicable.
9. The grading plan must meet all city standards for erosion control of the fill
areas on the property. The grading plan will be required prior to the
issuance of any zoning certificates. -
10. Stormwater runoff will be directed to 2 proposed stormwater ponds on,the,
property.
11. The applicant must complete the wetland review process prior to approval.
of a grading permit. A portion of the wetlands on the property Will not be
affected by the proposed project.
12. Not applicable.
13. No grading permit has been reviewed and approved by the city at this
time. However, before any grading is permitted and any zoning certificate
is issued the grading plan must be approved by the city.
14. A bond will be required by the city under the city/owner contract.
w .
15. Review of the grading plan by the Public Works and Building Safety
Departments will determine compliance; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
substantial land alteration activity; and,
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the Common Council of the City of Rochester
concluded that, based upon the above-stated findings of fact, the Applicant has shown by a
substantial weight of the evidence submitted at the public hearing that it has satisfied the criteria
found at Sections 61.146 and 62.1105 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that, based upon the above-stated findings of fact, the Applicant has shown by a
substantial weight of the evidence submitted at the public hearing that it has satisfied the criteria
• found at Sections 61.146 and 62.1105 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Common Council that the City does approve the
proposed conditional use permit authorizing the Substantial Land Alteration activity as proposed
by Carl Johnson, Drywall Supply associated with the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit#04-
41.
•
4
i
r
• PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS /&H DAY OF f�(' p,�_ , 2006.
c
PR SIDE T,cq SAI COMMON"COUNCIL
PM TEM
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS 17&_ DAY OF Q2�Z7E)Z , 2006.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone05\SubLandA1t\29
•
S