HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinding of Fact - GeneralDevelopPlan#306Amendment.ViolaHeights
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
___________________________________
In Re: General Development Plan Findings of Fact,
#306 Amendment Conclusions of Law,
and Order
___________________________________
On September 19, 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 August 24, 2016, in response to the application for an amendment to
General Development Plan #306. The amendment seeks to rezone two vacant lots described as
Lot 1, Block 2, and Lot 2, Block 1 of Viola Heights Subdivision and 0.09 acres of adjacent vacant
land from the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) Zoning District to the B-4 (General Commercial) Zoning
th
District. The September 19 public hearing was continued to October 17, 2016, and to November
21, 2016.
ththst
At the September 19, October 17, and November 21 public hearings, 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 August 24, 2016, public hearing on this application, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the issue of whether the amendment to General Development Plan #306
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.
2
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
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
3
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
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 B-4 zoning district, which is the subject of a concurrent zoning
4
map amendment application, is consistent with the “Commercial” designation
of the site within the Land Use Plan, as described above in the Zoning
Analysis Zoning Map Amendment.
An annexation for two small parcels within the GDP amendment boundary is
also being considered at this time. These parcels, labeled on the GDP as
Parcel A and Parcel B have a combined size of 0.09 acres, and are intended
to be added to the adjacent lots within the Viola Heights Subdivision. These
parcels, being outside of City limits, have Low-Density Residential Land Use
Policy. Because these parcels are small and not developable as independent
parcels, it is appropriate to allow these parcels to be zoned to the same
district as the adjacent lots within the City. If the zoning map amendment is
approved, these lots should be zoned B-4. If the zoning map amendment is
not approved, these lots should be zoned B-1.
B. The access and circulation indicated on the GDP allows for the development
of the adjacent property. The development of the City owned land with
commercial uses is compatible with the existing uses in the area.
C. Pedestrian facilities will be required along all public roadways, and will
include a combination of concrete sidewalk and bituminous pedestrian
paths. A future trail is shown running through the property. The trail is
part of a project that will construct a trail from TH 14 to Viola Road using
State Legacy and Federal funds and is planned to be constructed in 2014
and 2015.
D. The proposed General Development Plan Amendment does not propose
housing within the amendment boundary. The approved GDP includes
area not currently located within the City that is designated for “Low-
Density Residential” on the Land Use Plan. The GDP labels this property
as “future non-residential use”. When this property is annexed and
developed, if uses are proposed that are not consistent with the land use
designation it will require that the land owner seek an amendment to the
Land Use Plan.
E. The City has relocated fire station #2 to a lot within the development. The
public improvements (streets & utilities) to support the fire station
relocation to the development are indicated in the 2014 - 2018 Capital
Improvement Plan. The City of Rochester is currently considering two
options for the Viola Road reconstruction.
F. The City has relocated fire station #2 to a lot within the development. The
public improvements (streets & utilities) to support the fire station
relocation to the development is planned and is included in the 2014 -
2018 Capital Improvement Plan. The City of Rochester is currently
reviewing options for the reconstruction of Viola Road Prior to the
5
recording of the Final Plat, the City will prepare a Development
Agreement, or other formal documentation, to memorialize the specific
development related obligations that are applicable to the Property and
identify who (the city or subsequent developer) is responsible for the
obligation.
Utilities are available to serve the property but will need to be extended to
serve the development. The property is within the Northeast High Level
Water System Area, which is available in two location along the east side
of Viola Road NE. Ultimately both locations will need to be connected
into to serve the entire area and looped together if at all possible with the
full development of the Hoaglan property. The static water pressures
within the area will range from the mid 50’s to the lower 90’s PSI
depending of final grading. Pressure-reducing devices near the domestic
water meters will need to be installed as required by the Minnesota
Plumbing Code in the higher pressure areas. The plan is to connect to
the watermain, approximately 300 feet south of the property, as part of the
development of the fire station site.
A trunk sanitary sewer line is located on the southerly edge of the
Hoaglan property and planned to be extended through the Hoaglan
property to serve the properties in the southwest and southeast quadrants
of East Circle Drive and Viola Road. This trunk sanitary sewer line is
included in the 2014 - 2018 Capital Improvement Plan.
Pedestrian facilities will be required along all public roadways, and will
include a combination of concrete sidewalk and bituminous pedestrian
paths. A trail is runs through the property. The trail is part of a larger
project to connect TH 14 to Viola Road using State Legacy and Federal
funds.
G. Grading and drainage plan approval was required as part of a plat.
H. A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department. The
southern portion of the property is located within the Decorah Edge.
Section 62.1105(P and Q) may apply to any grading/development of that
portion of the property. The applicant shall include information related to
the Decorah Edge standards as part of the application.
I. The area within the revised General Development Plan has been platted,
including the right-of-way for Wheelock Drive NE. The roadway pattern
allows for the development of the adjacent property. Design standards
were reviewed as part of the preliminary plat filed on the City owned
property.
6
J. The area within the GDP boundary has been platted, except for Parcels A
and B included in the annexation application. These parcels can be
combined with lots within the Viola Heights Subdivision through a Type I
Land Subdivision.
K. The Plan appears to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Complete Streets Policy of the City. Sidewalks will be along both sides of the
public roadway. Pedestrian facilities (including applicable pedestrian ramps)
are required along Viola Rd NE & East Circle Drive.
L. The GDP amendment identifies a layout and building footprint for the
intended Convenience Retail land use. However, pedestrian access and
internal circulation will be reviewed at a final site plan stage, such as a CUP
or Site Development Plan.
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. The Traffic Impact Study waiver granted for development of Kwik Trip,
was limited to the Kwik Trip development only and not for re-zoning
and/or development of residual parcels of land included in the GDP.
The applicant agrees that the City may require a Traffic Impact Study
prior to approval of development in excess of the Kwik Trip for which the
waiver was issued.
B. Prior to approval of development and a Site Development Plan, and prior
to entering into a development agreement with the City, the applicant
shall:
(1) Complete a pedestrian access and circulation study in consultation
with the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator;
(2) Develop a pedestrian improvement plan that includes on and off-
site improvements necessary for safe, convenient non-vehicular
access to/from the development from surrounding areas and
origins;
(3) Receive approval of the improvement plan from the Directors of
Public Works and Planning; and,
(4) Incorporate the required improvements into the development
agreement.
C. All conditions from the original General Development Plan for
R00306GDP shall apply.
7
6At its August 24, 2016, meeting, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
.
held a public hearing on this amended 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.
st
7. At the November 21 public hearing before the Common Council, the Planning
Department recommended condition of approval #B be amended to read as follows:
B. Prior to site development approval, the pavement markings for the
proposed pedestrian facilities connection from the site to the Viola Road
sidewalk shall be identified. The alignment of this connection shall be
designed to cross internal driveways perpendicularly.
st
8. At the November 21 public hearing before the Common Council, the Planning
Department recommended the addition of a fourth condition of approval to read as follows:
D. The convenience retail use proposed for Lot 1, Block 2, shall not open for
business until the completion of the construction of Viola Road and the
installation of a traffic signal at Wheelock Drive and Viola Road, or until
December 1, 2018, if these improvements have not been completed.
st
9. At the November 21 public hearing, the Applicant’s representative indicated
agreement with all of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommended findings of fact,
and the recommended approval of the application subject to the four conditions of approval as
amended by the Planning Department.
st
10. At the November 21 public hearing before the Common Council, the Common
Council determined that this Amendment to General Development Plan #306 could not be
approved as the concurrent application for a zone change from the B-1 zoning district to the
8
B-4 zoning district was denied. The Council denied the zone change on the basis that, if
approved, it would have resulted in spot zoning and on the basis that the applicant had failed
to show satisfaction with any of the remaining criteria found at R.C.O. §60.338.
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
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
9
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
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.
10
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
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.
11
3. By a substantial amount of the evidence and testimony presented at the September
19, 2016, October 17, 2016, and November 21, 2016, public hearings, it is hereby determined by
the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the amendment to General Development Plan
#306 does not comply with the requirements of §61.215, subd. 2 as a result of the denial of the
concurrent zone change application that sought to change the underlying zoning district from B-1
to B-4.
ORDER
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §61.215, subd. 2,does
hereby deny the amendment to General Development Plan #306.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this _____ day of November, 2016.
____________________________________
Randy Staver
President of the Rochester Common Council
Approved at Rochester, Minnesota this _____ day of November, 2016.
______________________________
Ardell F. Brede
Mayor of the City of Rochester
FOF.Zone15\\GDP\\306 Amd
12