HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinding of Fact - HunterValleyEstates.GenDevelopPlan329
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
___________________________________
In Re: General Development Plan Findings of Fact,
#329 Conclusions of Law,
and Order
___________________________________
On February 1, 2016, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings of the public
hearing held on January 13, 2016, in response to the application for General Development Plan
#329 (Hunter Valley Estates).
st
At the February 1 public hearing, all interested persons were given an opportunity to give
testimony and make presentations concerning the application.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Common Council of the City of
Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. At its January 13, 2016, public hearing on this application, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the issue of whether General Development Plan #329 satisfied the
conditions of ROCHESTER, MINN., CODE ORDINANCES §61.215 (2013).
2. R.C.O. §61.215, subd. 2, provides that a general development plan must comply
with all of the following criteria:
A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted zoning
map. If the general development plan is being processed concurrently
with a rezoning request, the general development plan and the rezoning
request must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. If the general
development plan is being processed concurrently with an amendment to
the land use plan map and a rezoning request, the land use plan map
amendment, rezoning request and general development plan must be
consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. If there is
inconsistency between these documents, the means for reconciling the
differences must be addressed.
B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and
circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use
of adjacent property.
C. On-site access and circulation design for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
vehicles and patrons and private vehicles, and integration of these
facilities with adjacent properties will support the safe travel of persons of
all ages and abilities by minimizing vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
conflicts through the use of appropriate traffic calming, pedestrian safety,
and other design features appropriate to the context.
D. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing
Plans.
E. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements
and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital
Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long-
Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities
plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to
accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are
compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land
Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
F. On and off-site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the
development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration
and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow
development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
1. Street system adequacy must be based on the street system's ability to
safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the
existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards,
generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or
disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact
report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements
in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the
assessment of adequacy.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed
land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of
utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such
2
utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital
Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual,
development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to
ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with
development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with
the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval
shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no
further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been
evidenced.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities must be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan
for development.
G. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled
through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time
of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be
provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified.
H. Wetlands and Edge Support Areas (as defined in Chapter 59) will be
managed consistent with Chapter 59 and, where applicable, in such a
way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging
lower aquifers and to protect discharge, interflow, infiltration and recharge
processes taking place; provided, however, the Council may waive this
requirement under the provisions of Chapter 59.
I. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design
standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and
planned development of adjacent parcels.
J. If the eventual platting of the area involves approval of a Type III Land
Subdivision Permit, the proposed development must satisfy one of the
following categories of development:
1. A development bounded on all sides by arterial or higher level
streets, streams or other topographic constraints, existing
development, land already included in an approved General
Development Plan, or permanent open space that limits the
inclusion of other abutting lands;
2. A development with adequate public facilities and constituting
the entire remaining service area of a major public facility
improvement (such as a trunk sewer or water tower) that has
been identified as a project in the Capital Improvement
3
Program;
3. A development that consists of at least 80 acres in land area
regardless of ownership or interest, and consists of all lands for
which the applicant has ownership or interest; or
4. A development for which a development agreement has been
executed by the owner and the city for the entire property
included in the proposed general development plan. The
development agreement must have been drafted based on the
development of the property occurring as proposed in the
general development plan.
K. The Plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the
Complete Streets policy of the City.
L. Where specific building footprint or layouts are identified on the Plan; the
Plan demonstrates that pedestrian access to the customer/tenant
ingress/egress locations in of the building(s), from facilities in both the
public right-of-way, and off-street parking areas that serves the use are
designed to minimize bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.
3. R.C.O. §60.532 (5) authorizes the approving body to impose modifications or
conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance
with §61.215.
4. The Planning Department staff reviewed the General Development Plan application
using the criteria found at section 61.215 and recommended the following findings of fact:
A. Zoning District amendment (#R2015-008ZC) and Land Use Plan
amendment (#R2015-007LUPA) are being considered concurrent with
this GDP. The proposed amendment to R-3 Medium Density Residential
and B-1 Restricted Commercial if approved will be consistent with the
policies of the comprehensive plan. The proposed B-4 General
Commercial is not consistent with the policies of the RUSALUP and
therefore should not be approved.
B. The proposed multifamily and restricted commercial appear to be
compatible with existing uses on the adjacent properties. Density
proposed for the multifamily development is consistent with limits in the R-
3 zoning district. Lot size will be address during the platting stage. Five
new access points are being proposed on adjacent existing roadways,
4
with the addition of internal circulation. The number and location of
access points could create traffic concerns for the area with sight distance
issues expressed by County Public Works.
C. The design provides interior circulation and connections to the adjacent
thoroughfares. On-site access and circulation design for pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit vehicles and patrons will need to be reviewed at the
platting and site development plan review stages. County Public Works is
th
only allowing two access points to 18 Avenue NW. The GDP will have
to be redesigned to reflect this requirement.
D. Developing the property with medium density development would be
consistent with the Land Use Plan and Housing Plan which encourages
developing a range of densities and development styles. The area
currently has a range of single family homes. The addition of medium
density would create a good mix of housing options for the area.
E. A traffic impact study was completed for the proposed development by the
applicant’s consultant. The City and County have a project in design to
th
reconstruct/reconfigure the Bandel Road/East Frontage Road/55 Street
intersection which should relieve future capacity problems. This is shown
th
in the Capital Improvement Program for 2017 construction. The 18
Avenue NW reconstructed roadway scheduled in the Capital
Improvements Program scheduled for 2017 should provide needed
capacity to meet future traffic demands. The Level of Service goals
established in the LDM should be met with the access improvements
assumed in the Traffic Impact Study, which included four access points
th
(only one was included for 18 Avenue NW, however the submitted GDP
shows two).
th
The proposed 25 Avenue signal location would be consistent with signal
spacing guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the
ththrd
collector street function of 25 Avenue north of 55 Street. East of 23
Avenue, the development proposes a right in, right out to be
th
approximately where what would be 20 Avenue NW. This access
location should be further evaluated to insure adequate sight distances is
present. The access may need to be shifted to meet the requirements of
Section 64.222 in the LDM. The access shown on the GDP
th
approximately 100 feet south of where Royal Place intersects 18 Avenue
was not considered in the traffic study and according to section 64.224, is
not offset by the minimum 200 feet to minimize potential conflicts between
turning vehicles at the two intersections. County Public Works has
indicated this access point will not be allowed, therefore the GDP will
need to be redesigned. The road authority will determine the needed
improvements as well as the access locations.
F. The proposed intersection design and signal spacing is consistent with
5
the guidelines of the Long Range Transportation Plan and should not
have significant impact to traffic flows on these corridors. The traffic
study evaluated the sufficiency of the length provided on the local street
connections and found there should be adequate storage capacity so that
thth
the queue of vehicles waiting to enter onto either 55 Street or 18
Avenue should not back up into the intersection on the internal collector
street.
This property is within the Main Level Water System Area, which is
available from the west at Georgetowne Drive NW, from the east at Kings
Run Drive NW and from the south at 20 ½ Avenue Lane NW. Static
water pressures within this area will range from 67 to 80 PSI depending
on final grades. The water main must be looped from east to west and
water mains must be extended to adjacent developable properties per
RPU requirements.
There are inadequate on and off site public facilities, specifically Public
Roadways, Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Management
Facilities, existing to accommodate the development of this property.
While there are sewer and water lines adjacent to the site as noted in the
Planning Department Review section of this report, until the developer
has paid their share of the burden for this infrastructure, they are not
allowed to access those lines, making the site inadequate. No
development will be allowed to occur until the City Council has
determined that all required public facilities are adequate for said
development. The developer may request to join with the City in making
these inadequate public facilities adequate for the development and may
enter into a Development Agreement, prior to recording a Final Plat for
the property that outlines the developer and City’s obligations.
G. Grading and drainage plan approval will be required through the
development review process for the individual lots and phases. Decorah
Edge does not exist on the site. The applicant will be required to
complete a flood study as part of the preliminary plat process. Any
information that results from this study will have to be considered during
the design of the site layout.
H. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property
and maintaining previously identified wetlands. Decorah Edge and hydric
soils do not exist on the site.
I. The GDP identifies the properties future development as commercial and
medium density residential. Prior to developing the property the site
development plan review process would need to be completed to ensure
that it meets the R-3 zoning district regulations. If the density or floor
6
area ratio exceeds the permitted Type I review allowed within the zoning
district, the development would need to be reviewed through the incentive
development provisions. The lot, block and street layout will be further
reviewed during the preliminary plat submission. The layout shown on
the current GDP may be impacted greatly by the required flood study.
The outdated information used to identify the likely 100 year flood zone
could alter the density, street layout, and lot configuration. This is
because no development can occur in the floodway. Any development
shown outside the floodway boundaries can occur if proper mitigation
strategies are utilized.
J. The property is surrounded by arterial streets on the north and east,
existing single family development to the south, and existing multifamily
development on the west.
There is only 58.10 acres within this development proposal.
There currently is no development agreement for this property, however it
likely will be required to complete the necessary on and off site public
facility construction.
K. If the land use plan amendments are approved for medium density
residential and commercial land uses, the proposed GDP will comply with
the Comprehensive Plan. Additional site detail, such as pedestrian
connections to the existing adjacent public sidewalks/trails, will be
reviewed at the time of a detailed development review. Public sidewalks
will be required on along both sides of public roadways.
L. Building footprints and lot layout have not been identified on the GDP.
Additional site detail, such as pedestrian connections to the existing
adjacent public sidewalks/trails, will be reviewed at the time of a detailed
development review. Public sidewalks will be required on along both
sides of public roadways.
5. Based upon its recommended findings of fact, the Planning Department staff
recommended denial of the General Development Plan and stated the following outstanding
issues associated with this application that need to be addressed:
th
A. Access to the site is not in approvable locations (18 Avenue NW allowed
one, not two access locations per County Public Works).
B. Circulation patterns within the site (Not knowing the floodway locations
within the site, the circulation patterns could be altered. Additionally, the
th
loss of an access onto 18 Avenue will alter the current design).
7
C. Floodplain boundaries (While development can occur in the flood fringe,
unknown locations of the floodway due to outdated flood information
could alter the development pattern).
D. Developable areas (The areas allowed to be developed could change
depending on the results of the required flood study).
E. Excessive commercial locations (As the locational criteria has shown, this
intersection can support 5-6 acres of commercial, the request is for
approximately 28 acres of commercial).
6At its January 13, 2016, meeting, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
.
held a public hearing on this General Development Plan, reviewed the application according to the
requirements of section 61.215, adopted the Planning Department’s recommended findings of fact,
and recommended denial of the General Development Plan application on the basis that the
proposed land uses are not in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan and zoning map, and
did not meet the criteria found at R.C.O. §61.215, subd. 2(C) due to the lack of pedestrian
connectivity.
st
7. At the February 1 public hearing before the Common Council, the Applicant’s
representative appeared and testified that, should the Council approve the requested land use
plan amendment and zone change request as submitted, findings could be made in support of
approval of the general development plan.
st
8. At the February 1 public hearing before the Common Council, the Applicant’s
representative appeared and testified that the Council should approve the general
development plan as submitted subject to the following conditions of approval:
th
A. The Applicant shall resolve the issue of acceptable accesses to 18
Avenue N.W., with Olmsted County Public Works and amend the general
development plan to be consistent with County approval of the access
8
locations.
B. The Applicant shall provide an updated flood study to the City prior to
submittal of a preliminary plat that may modify the internal roadway
circulation, change the total developable area, and possibly a change to
the flood fringe and floodway limits.
C. If required by the City of Rochester, a modified general development plan
shall be submitted that reflects the changes that may occur with
conditions A and B.
st
8. At the February 1 public hearing before the Common Council, the Common
Council concurred with and adopted as its own the findings of fact and conditions of approval
recommended by the Applicant as described above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. R.C.O. §61.215, subd. 2, provides that the Council shall approve a general
development plan if the following criteria are satisfied:
A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted zoning
map. If the general development plan is being processed concurrently
with a rezoning request, the general development plan and the rezoning
request must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. If the general
development plan is being processed concurrently with an amendment to
the land use plan map and a rezoning request, the land use plan map
amendment, rezoning request and general development plan must be
consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. If there is
inconsistency between these documents, the means for reconciling the
differences must be addressed.
B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and
circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use
of adjacent property.
C. On-site access and circulation design for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
vehicles and patrons and private vehicles, and integration of these
facilities with adjacent properties will support the safe travel of persons of
all ages and abilities by minimizing vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
9
conflicts through the use of appropriate traffic calming, pedestrian safety,
and other design features appropriate to the context.
D. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing
Plans.
E. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements
and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital
Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long-
Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities
plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to
accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are
compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land
Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
F. On and off-site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the
development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration
and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow
development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
1. Street system adequacy must be based on the street system's
ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land
uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating
safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or
intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in
the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity
from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be
included in the assessment of adequacy.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the
proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the
extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development
and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-
Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements
(contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.)
have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available
concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be
available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant
for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no
development will occur and no further development permit will be
issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities must be based on the level
of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing
plan for development.
10
G. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled
through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time
of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be
provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified.
H. Wetlands and Edge Support Areas (as defined in Chapter 59) will be
managed consistent with Chapter 59 and, where applicable, in such a
way as to maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater recharging
lower aquifers and to protect discharge, interflow, infiltration and recharge
processes taking place; provided, however, the Council may waive this
requirement under the provisions of Chapter 59.
I. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design
standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and
planned development of adjacent parcels.
J. If the eventual platting of the area involves approval of a Type III Land
Subdivision Permit, the proposed development must satisfy one of the
following categories of development:
1. A development bounded on all sides by arterial or higher level
streets, streams or other topographic constraints, existing
development, land already included in an approved General
Development Plan, or permanent open space that limits the
inclusion of other abutting lands;
2. A development with adequate public facilities and constituting
the entire remaining service area of a major public facility
improvement (such as a trunk sewer or water tower) that has
been identified as a project in the Capital Improvement
Program;
3. A development that consists of at least 80 acres in land area
regardless of ownership or interest, and consists of all lands for
which the applicant has ownership or interest; or
4. A development for which a development agreement has been
executed by the owner and the city for the entire property
included in the proposed general development plan. The
development agreement must have been drafted based on the
development of the property occurring as proposed in the
general development plan.
11
K. The Plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the
Complete Streets policy of the City.
L. Where specific building footprint or layouts are identified on the Plan; the
Plan demonstrates that pedestrian access to the customer/tenant
ingress/egress locations in of the building(s), from facilities in both the
public right-of-way, and off-street parking areas that serves the use are
designed to minimize bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.
2. R.C.O. §60.532 (5) authorizes the Council to impose conditions on its approval of a
general development plan.
3. By a substantial amount of the evidence and testimony presented at the February 1,
2016, public hearing, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that
General Development Plan #329 complies with the requirements of §61.215, subd. 2, if the
Applicant satisfies the three conditions of approval recommended by the Applicant.
ORDER
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §61.215, subd. 2, does
hereby approve General Development Plan #329 subject to the satisfaction of the three conditions
of approval recommended by the Applicant.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this _____ day of February, 2016.
____________________________________
Randy Staver
President of the Rochester Common Council
Approved at Rochester, Minnesota this _____ day of February, 2016.
______________________________
Ardell F. Brede
Mayor of the City of Rochester
FOF.Zone15\\GDP\\329
12