Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 150-07 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Williams Family Partnership applied for a variance from a Flood District regulation. Specifically, the applicant seeks a variance from the "no net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters to result from activity" requirement found in Section 62.860 (2) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. The property involved is located east of the Shopko South store, east of the current terminus of 28th Street S.E., and north of Highway 52; and, WHEREAS, the applicant's request is for a variance for the loss of up to 38,000 cubic yards of flood storage for Phase I, which is the volume of fill material required to elevate the site from the existing contours up to the 100-year flood elevations, minus the storage created by excavating from the existing contours down to the water table (for Phase 1). In order to support final build-out of the site, the applicant is also requesting a Variance for the loss of 148,000 cubic yards of flood storage on site; and WHEREAS, Sections 60.417 and 62.881 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances provide the criteria by which this Y�ariance request should be analyzed; and, I WHEREAS, this matter came before the Rochester Common Council at its December 11, 2006, and April 2, 2007, meetings; and, WHEREAS, at the December 11th and April 2"d public hearings, the Council considered • the information presented to it in its council agenda packet as well as the testimony presented at the hearing; and, WHEREAS, based upon all of the information presented during the December 11th and April 2"d public hearings, the Common Council made the following findings of fact as to Section 60.417: 1. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The applicant is proposing to develop on-site stormwater treatment to protect water quality of the public waters (Willow Creek). The majority of this site is grass, with little "natural" vegetation, which has been the case for a number of years. There would be little loss of diverse vegetation and habitat with the proposal, with the exception of potential Wetland impacts which would be reviewed and considered under specific Wetland rules and regulations. 2. REASONABLE USE: Granting of the Variance request does not appear necessary to allow for the reasonable economic use of the applicant's property for commercial-industrial purposes. 3. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: In order to develop a portion of this property, ponds will be created to provide minimal on-site mitigation for loss of flood storage capacity, leaving a portion of the whole property undeveloped. Granting of the Variance would not be detrimental to the public or injurious • to other properties. 4. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum Variance to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a Variance to the maximum allowed coverage for.the northern 2/3 of the site as identified on the application; acknowledging there may :)e other limitations to developing the property; and, WHEREAS, the Council concluded that, based upon the above findings of fact, Appellant's request for a ariance satisfied the criteria of Section 60.417; and, WHEREAS, base i d upon all of the information presented during the December 11th and April 2"d public hearings,,the Common Council made the following findings of fact as to Section 62.881: 1. In order to permit limited development of Phase I of the site, a variance is necessary. Since the site has a high water table, there may be as little as 1 to 2 feet of material above the water table that can be removed to create flood storage. The amount of fill necessary to bring the site up to the 100- year flood elevation is approximately five feet across the site. 2. Strict application of the Ordinance could result in less than 2 acres of the • 36 acres being developable. A primary consideration in requiring "no net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters to result from activity" is to protect upstream and downstream areas from adverse impacts such as increased flood height. It appears the amended application addresses this concern through increased conveyance downstream of the Williams property. That the granting of such variance will not increase flood heights, create additional threats to public safety, necessitate extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or, conflict with existing local laws or ordinance. Removing segments of the berms does not create new surface storage for flood waters, but instead increases the conveyance capacity of flood waters. The result is that the fill would increase the peak flood discharge (cfs) but flood elevations would not increase due to the increased conveyance in the westerly overbank (where berms are removed). Seneca has filed a letter consenting' to the removal of berms on their property as part of this application;. It should be noted that the materials removed from the berms are proposed to be disposed on the Williams property as fill. 3. Granting this variance would not result in allowing in any uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatoryi Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area or permit . standards lower than those required by State law; and, - 2 • WHEREAS, the Council concluded that, based upon the above findings of fact, Appellant's request for a variance satisfied the criteria of Section 62.881. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the City grant to Williams Family Partnership a variance from the requirements of Section 62.860 (2) as to no net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters to result from activity for property located east of the Shopko South store, east of the current terminus of 28tn Street S.E., and north of Highway 52. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 2iyD DAYOF lh9r , 2 07. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST ITY CLERK APPROVED THIS 00) DAY OF Agtk 12007. • MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Soal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) ZoneoWarianceRes.0622 3