HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinding of Fact - MorrisMemorial.GeneralDevelopPlan338
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
___________________________________
In Re: General Development Plan Findings of Fact,
#338 Conclusions of Law,
and Order
___________________________________
On June 6, 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 May 11, 2016, in response to the application for General Development Plan #338
(Morris Memorial).
th
At the June 6 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 May 11, 2016, public hearing on this application, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the issue of whether General Development Plan #338 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, subd. 2, and recommended the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed land uses are commercial/industrial which is consistent
with the adopted zoning map and land use designation and
comprehensive plan. The request is not being processed concurrently
with a rezoning request nor a land use plan map amendment.
B. The proposed lot sizes and density are compatible with the existing and
permissible future use of adjacent property. The surrounding property
contains a mixture of industrial and agricultural uses, neither which would
be in conflict with the proposed plan for commercial/industrial uses.
C. Sidewalks will be located along all right of ways. The roadways shown
through the plan would provide circulation throughout the property with
two means of exit to Broadway North (C.S.A.H 33).
4
D. The proposal is for commercial/industrial uses and not housing.
E. The plat is consistent with the North Highway 63 Access Management
th
Study that was completed in 2010. 44 St NE is designated as a local
collector and as such is required to have a 44’ roadway surface on a 66’
right of way, the plat only shows 38’ of roadway surface and 60’ of right of
th
way, however is consistent with the existing 44 Street that was
previously built.
th
F. It is anticipated that the intersection of 44 St NE and CSAH 33 at some
point in the future will meet warrants for a traffic signal assuming
anticipated growth both on this property and on currently undeveloped
property east of CSAH 33 occurs. Otherwise, the intersection should
provide adequate service for the development of the subdivision.
This property is within the Main Level Water System Area, which is
thst
available at east end of 44 St NE and intersection of 41 St and future
Morris Rd NE.
Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all roads. The
proposed development will be done in phases. The first phase is one lot
and two outlots which is being platted at this time and shows sidewalks
and public utilities.
G. Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and
approved prior to development.
H. A wetland delineation has been completed and no wetlands or Edge
Support Areas will be affected by the development.
I. The plan is not for residential development, but the lot layout and design
is consistent with subdivision design standards in section 64.100 and
compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels.
J. A development agreement has been executed by the owner and the city
for the entire property, certain terms and conditions have not been met so
a Supplemental Agreement should be executed to address the
inconsistencies.
K. The proposal is in compliance with the locational criteria for light
industrial/business parks as found in the Comprehensive Plan. Such
criteria include:
1. Having terrain that can accommodate the development without the
need to be quarried (the terrain currently is relatively flat and will
take little grading.
5
2. Having excellent access to road transportation facilities. The
property is located at the intersection of a collector and an arterial
roadway which has a plan for a future controlled access point.
3. Each proposed lot is large enough to provide buffers if needed.
There currently is no residentially slated property adjacent to this
property.
4. The area is served by public facilities.
5. The proposal includes access to public transportation, with
sidewalks throughout so there would be no conflicts with
pedestrian traffic throughout the site as proposed.
L. Specific building footprints are not identified on the Plan and will be
addressed during the site development review phase.
5. Based upon its recommended findings of fact, the Planning Department staff
recommended approval of the General Development Plan subject to the following conditions:
A. Pedestrian facilities are required along both frontages of all public streets
within/abutting this development.
B. Execution of City-Owner Contract, and dedication of any applicable public
easements (not shown on the final plat) is required prior to any
new/additional public infrastructure needed to serve this development.
C. Fire hydrants are required prior to building construction at an average of
450 feet.
6At its May 11, 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, subd. 2, adopted the Planning Department’s recommended
findings of fact, and recommended approval of the General Development Plan application subject
to three conditions of approval.
th
7. At the June 6 public hearing before the Common Council, the Applicant’s
representative indicated agreement with all of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s
6
recommended findings of fact and recommended approval of the application subject to the
three conditions of approval.
th
8. At the June 6 public hearing before the Common Council, the Common Council
concurred with and adopted as its own the findings of fact and recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission 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
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
7
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.
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
8
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.
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
9
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 June 6,
2016, public hearing, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that
General Development Plan #338 complies with the requirements of §61.215, subd. 2 subject to the
satisfaction of the three conditions of approval described above.
ORDER
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §61.215, subd. 2,does
hereby approve General Development Plan #338 subject to the satisfaction of the three conditions
of approval described above.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this _____ day of June, 2016.
____________________________________
Randy Staver
President of the Rochester Common Council
Approved at Rochester, Minnesota this _____ day of June, 2016.
______________________________
Ardell F. Brede
Mayor of the City of Rochester
FOF.Zone15\\GDP\\338
10