O LUPA Page 1. Olmsted County Planning Advisory Commission February 6, Kristi Gross, AICP, CFM Senior Planner-Floodplain Administrator

Transcription

1 O LUPA Page 1 Olmsted County Planning Department Olmsted County Planning Advisory Commission February 6, 2020 Prepared by: Request: Kristi Gross, AICP, CFM Senior Planner-Floodplain Administrator Olmsted County Land Use Plan Amendment #O LUPA by Rochester Township to redesignate approximately 30 acres from "Urban Service Area" to Resource Protection/Potential Suburban on the Olmsted County Future Land Use Map. Location: The property is located in the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, Rochester Township, west of Lilly Farm Subdivision and north of Boulder Creek Subdivision. Zoning: A-3 Agricultural District ACTION ITEMS Board Action Summary: The request is a land use plan amendment from Urban Service Area to Resource Protection/Potential Suburban. Planning Staff Recommendations: Deny the land use map amendment based on the findings of fact in the staff report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Background The property in question is zoned A-3 Agricultural District. It is located in the Southwestern quarter of Section 6 of Rochester Township. North and west of the property is identified as Urban Service Area in the Olmsted County Land Use Plan. This is the Urban Service Area for the city of Rochester. The area east and south of the property is identified as Suburban Development. The property to the east was removed from the Urban Service Area in At that time, the City of Rochester stated that the elevations made the property to the East unable to physically serve with city services and did not object to it being removed from the Urban Service Area. The City of Rochester has submitted a referral comment to this request. The property is shown as the Urban Reserve Area Beyond 2050 on the City of Rochester s Growth Management map

2 O LUPA Page 2 adopted in They state that the property can be served by municipal services in the future. Therefore, they believe this property should remain in the Urban Service Area. The city is recommending denial of the land use plan amendment at this time. Soils and Topography The soils on the property have mostly a prime crop equivalency rating of over 55. Approximately 7 acres of the 30-acre parcel consist of soils with a CER of 55 or less. See attached soils map. Cascade Creek crosses the north side of the property. Cascade Creek is a protected water and shoreland standards apply. There is a mapped floodway that extends southernly from the creek, see attached floodplain map. See the attached floodplain map. Based on the topography of the property there is a bluff on the property. There is a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. This could limit the buildable area of lots 9 and 10 on the concept plan. This does not impact the land use plan designation, but the applicant should be aware of this and adjust the lots prior to future development. See the Bluff Impact Zone Exhibit attached to this report. The property falls within the Decorah Edge Support Area, including soil 477B. A Decorah Edge study will need to be completed prior to development to ensure that no Decorah Edge features are disturbed by the development. Transportation The property has access along Boulder Creek Ln SW, a township road. Boulder Creek Ln SW connects to Boulder Creek Dr SW and Weatherhill Rd SW. These roads both access 60 Ave SW, (County Rd 104). 60 Ave SE is identified in the Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) 2040 plan as Secondary Urban Arterial Corridor Upgrade. Weatherhill Rd SW also connects to Salem Rd SW (County Rd 25) which is identified in the ROCOG 2040 plan as a Major Regional Arterial Corridor Upgrade. Environmental Analysis Staff has reviewed the environmental factors surrounding the property and have found no significant issues that would result from the land use plan amendment. The property contains a small area of Decorah Edge; a drainageway with Floodplain and a bluff. These factors can be taken into account with proper site design of future development. Referral Comments As stated earlier, the City of Rochester has submitted a comment that does not support the change of land use designation. Planning staff has received a referral from Don Vankeulen commenting on behalf of the Local Government Unit for wetlands that the property contains Decorah Edge and Hydric soils. The

3 O LUPA Page 3 property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands and Decorah Edge conditions on the property and submitting a wetland delineation prior to a preliminary plat. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis The request is for a land use plan amendment to amend the land use plan map from Urban Service Area to Resource Protection-Potential Suburban. The City of Rochester is recommending denial of the land use plan amendment. The Olmsted County General Land Use Plan (GLUP) states that proposed map amendments must be compared to the land use policies and locational criteria for the requested land use category. The policies for the Urban Service Area can be found in Chapter Four of the Land Use Plan which has been included in this staff report. In addition, the analysis of proposed map amendments must address the following policy questions, as evaluated below by Staff. 1. Was a mistake made in the data used or in the application of the data at the time the Plan was adopted? No mistake was made in the data used or in the application of the data at the time the Plan was adopted. Staff had met with and received municipal land use data for the City of Rochester when the 2011 Plan was drafted and adopted. City and township representatives were involved in shaping the boundaries of the Urban Service Areas. The intent of this designation is to (1) delineate the best areas for urban growth until the year 2040, (2) accommodate uses and development patterns compatible with future urban growth, and (3) allow for the continuation of agricultural and other resource uses. 2. Have conditions of land use, land subdivision, ownership, or growth in the community changed the character of the site and surrounding area? The property to the east of the site has developed. A land use plan amendment was approved in 2014 to remove the 180-acre property from Urban Service Area to Resource Protection-Potential Suburban and has continued to develop. The third phase of Lilly Farm was approved in July 2019 by Rochester Township. The City of Rochester conducted a more detailed sewer feasibility study this year for the area that included this property. The study has not fully concluded. It is unclear at this time if the City of Rochester will amend their urban service areas based on results of that study. 3. Have policies related to the proposal changed since the Plan was adopted?

4 O LUPA Page 4 Policies regarding the Urban Service Area and Resource Protection-Potential Suburban Development lands have not changed since the 2011 Plan update. State Statutes do not require that Urban Service Areas delineated on the County plan map be consistent with those adopted by municipalities, however consistency among them optimizes cooperation and efficiency in their implementation. 4. Is there an unanticipated shortage of land available for the proposed use? There is not an unanticipated shortage of Urban Service Area land. There is also not an unanticipated shortage of Suburban Development land. When the 2011 Olmsted County Future Land Use Map was adopted, 8500 acres were designated for Potential Suburban use. The GLUP is projected to be updated this year and this data will be reanalyzed. 5. Is the land under consideration as suited or better suited for the proposed use than other lands now designated for the proposed use, and are those lands now properly designated according to the land use policies? (This analysis will be based in part on the Comprehensive Land Use Evaluation System Model.) Urban Service Area boundaries are delineated without respect to their underlying CLUES scores; they are based on meetings and information provided by each municipality regarding their planned municipal service extensions, projected employment, and population growth. The CLUES model treats the Urban Service Area like a mask or overlay. With respect to Suburban Development, there are 8500 acres of land designated for potential suburban development that have not been developed. The CLUES scores in those areas range from The underlying CLUES scores on this site fall within these limits. It is likely that had this land not been included in Rochester s Urban Service Area, it would have been recommended for designation for suburban uses. 6. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the policies of the Plan? As described above, inclusion in the Urban Service Area is typically determined by the municipality intending to eventually provide services to the area. If this property can be served by municipal services, as stated by the City of Rochester, it should remain within the Urban Service Area. There are other ways to develop the property without creating a barrier to future growth of the city. 7. Is there an alternative to the proposed change that better meets the intent of the Plan (a different use designation or a smaller land area, for example)?

5 O LUPA Page 5 If the land use plan is not amended the landowner has the following options for the property: 1. Build non-farm dwellings under A-3 zoning restrictions. This requirement is under the jurisdiction of Rochester Township. Reviewing the site to Olmsted County A-3 standards, as long as there is a 33-foot easement to each building site, it appears there could be 3 non-farm parcels built under the current zoning designation. 2. Request an Interim Development. If city services will not serve the property for 10 years it may be appropriate to enter into an interim development with the City of Rochester and develop the property under the current land use designation. This would require a special zoning district and platting. 3. Wait to see if and the City of Rochester amends their urban service area boundaries and growth management map based on the results of the sewer study. Staff Recommendation Based on the above stated findings of fact planning staff recommend denial of the land use plan amendment from Urban Service Area to Resource Protection-Potential Suburban. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Notification Map 3. Site Location Map 4. Application and Attachments 5. Concept Map with Aerial 6. Aerial with Floodplain 7. Decorah Edge Map 8. Bluff Impact Zone Exhibit 9. Referral Report and Comments 10. Chapter Four GLUP