Concept Change #4 Comp Plan- Transportation 1994IfNorthwest Associated Consultants Inc.
C U R B A N PLANNING• D E S I G N• M A R- K E T RESEARCH
TRANSMITTAL RECORD
DATE: 19 January 1995
TO: Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
FROM: Bob Ki rmi s
VIA: (xx) Mail () Pick Up () Delivery () Fax
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
QTY OF
DATED DESCRIPTION
Comp Plan Amendment (Revised)
Planning District 4 and
Resolution Approving an
Transportation Plan
Amendment to Comp Plan.
REMARKS:
For consideration at the 23 January meeting of the
City Council.
RE: Otsego - Comp Plan: Planning District 4/Transportation Plan
JOB NO: 176.08 - 94.20
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
U R B A N PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET R E S E A R C H
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Bob Kizmis
19 January 1995
Otsego -Comprehensive Plan:
Transportation Plan
176.08 - 94.20
Planning District 4
Attached please find the following items relating to the Planning District 4 Transportation Plan:
1. Resolution approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment to establish a Transportation
Plan for Planning District 4.
2. Comprehensive Plan amendment (text changes highlighted).
This item is scheduled for City Council consideration on 23 January.
pc: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
5775 Wayzata Blvd. •Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
•• • •"• 1 1 1 1 • 1
• 1" 1 • :
LJ
JZ§ W WAItZ§ K t AR Lit
0-ulb
WHEREAS, Lhe City's Comprehensive Plan directs the following:
1. Define street system routings and connections in the undeveloped urban areas of
the community.
2. Establish and develop a street system and necessary traffic control devices for the
efficient movement of people and goods.
WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the preparation of a Transportation
Plan for Planning District 4 (the boundaries of which are described in the Comprehensive Plan)
is necessary to effectively guide future transportation system planning in the district and fulfil
the City's transportation goals and objectives; and
WHEREAS, on 16 November 1994, the Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to consider two alternative Transportation Plans for said Planning District 4 (Alternatives
1 and 2); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve
the Planing District 4 Transportation Plan Alternative 1 as illustrated on attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the recommendation of the Planning Commission is concurrent with the
recommendation of City staff.
WHEREAS, the Otsego City Council agrees with the fmdings and recommendations of
the Planning Commission,
that:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Otsego
1. The City Comprehensive Plan be and hereby is amended to include a
Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 (Alternative 1) as graphically
illustrated and described in text on attached Exhibit A.
2. A copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Wright County Highway
Department for their records.
These problems, however, have apparently been considered and are
now being addressed through an organized improvement program.
Through this phased approach, the City should be able to
progressively attend to problems and eventually make system -wide
upgrades. The maintenance and upgrade program is viewed as
essential as the number of new streets continue to be built within
the City. As a means of reducing long term maintenance costs to
the City, Otsego should place a strong emphasis on quality street
standard designs.
Street Extensions
The City should concentrate on the extension of streets in
functional patterns. Future development within Otsego will have to
move primarily in a southerly direction due to a number of natural
barriers which surround the north, east and west sides of the
City's residential core. Street extensions should continue in an
orderly manner, generally from north to south, preceding actual
development. Such an'extensional street pattern will make future
development both physically practical and economically efficient by
accommodating a phased future sewer and water connection. Orderly
street extensions will also avoid having to go back and fill in
areas bypassed by sporadic development.
HiQhway Corridor
Highway 101 is invariably the City's lifeline. The highway runs
through the City from north to south and functions as the City's
!'gateway". The corridor's access and visibility give Otsego a tool
in which to project an image which is both progressive and vital.
Within the next three to four years, the upgrade of Highway 101 to
expressway status (four lane divided - limited access) is expected
to be completed. Such action is positive from a safety perspective
as well as economic development potential. This planned
I
mprovement calls for allowing only three points of local based
traffic access which are to be located at County Roads 37, 39, and
42. As a method of adjusting to the upgrade, a
1111.1.4
ea s:>":c:<f;<>:>:sre::>:>trn:>,oCt:: o plan has been developed. ''l?
p.. _ _ _ p p ....4..............::.::::::. .
�:d��pc��''��Q plan would. accommodate desired development along the
corridor by allowing a lot subdivision which would fulfill the area
needs of prospective land uses. The City should monitor existing
access points and note any need changes.
As part of present planning for Highway 101's upgrade to expressway
status, comments have been made that projected traffic volumes of
65,000 ADT by the year 2010 may warrant consideration of further
improvement to freeway classification. It is expected that a
freeway classification would lead to discussion of possible further
access point limitations. The details and implications of such a
modification have, however, not been adequately explored or
discussed to date and as a result, the City is not in a position to
address the implications of this speculative change. This issue,
however, prompts a restatement of the City's policy that all three
existing primary access points (County Roads 37, 39, and 42) with
Highway 101 are to be maintained and there is need for continuing
communication with MnDOT on the status of Highway 101. Should
future upgrades of Highway 101 become a more real consideration,
access and interchange land demands will be primary issues in which
the City needs to be involved.
Interstate 94 which bisects the City's southern corner is the
largest carrier of traffic within Otsego, however, its remote
proximity and access limitations impede Otsego's ability to exploit
its visibility. As referenced in the Inventory section of this
report, the City of Albertville has expressed a desire to construct
a full interchange at the intersection of I-94 and County Road 19.
Although such an improvement would lie outside Otsego's boundaries,
it would have a significant impact upon that portion of County Road
19 which does lie within Otsego. If such an interchange is
constructed, both the area abutting I-94 along with the County Road
19 corridor would become attractive areas for future development.
Therefore, Otsego should monitor this issue and collaborate with
the City of Albertville in the coordination of desired area land
uses in the area.
Collector and Arterial Streets
The City has cited a serious need to define in advance the network
of major "collector and arterial" routings which serve to provide
logical and necessary access and connections from one part of the
community to another. The lack of such a system has become a major
issue in review of subdivision requests and in regard to
appropriate access onto major carriers. Through a designated
classification of streets as discussed in the Concept Plan of this
report, future safety and function problems relating to access may
be avoided.
Aside from I-94 and Highway 101, Otsego has a number of designated
collector and arterial streets which channel traffic from the
City's residential areas to their intra-city and commuter
designations. Kadler, LaBeaux, McAllister, Nashua and Odean
Avenues lies as major north/south thoroughfares, while 60th, 70th,
80th, 83rd, and 97th Streets all lie as major east/west carriers of
traffic.
As noted on the Transportation Plan, several additions and/or
changes have been recommended for Otsego's functional
classification system. The proposed modifications have been
prioritized to reflect need and urgency within the City. It should
be stressed that many alignments are merely conceptual in nature
and represent long term and preferred roadway alignments.
1. 85th Street. As shown on the Transportation Plan, an easterly
extension of 85th Street has been proposed to intersect with
County Road 42. In addition, the simultaneous vacation of
that portion of River Road which lies between Page and Parrish
Avenues has been proposed. Such a roadway extension will
greatly improve the urban core's transportation patterns by
providing a convenient roadway access to County Road 42 and
relieving unnecessary congestion from the northerly County
Road 42/County Road 39 intersection.
The vacation of the said segment of River Road will eliminate
three potentially dangerous intersections and will improve the
developability orf adjacent lands. It should be noted,
however, that the proposed vacated segment lies alongside an
NSP transmission line. As such, future development in the
area must be considerate of the line's location or investigate
relocation possibilities.
2. Odean Avenue. Odean Avenue, while presenting average daily
traffic volumes in excess of 15,000, should be reclassified
from minor arterial status to collector status. According to
the State's functional classification for streets and
highways, minor arterial streets should be located on the edge
of development and neighborhoods and should exhibit a spacing
between roadways of 0.5 - 2.0 miles. Because Odean Avenue
defies the intent of its minor arterial classification, it is
recommended that it be redesignated to a collector status to
better reflect its characteristics.
3. 964mh Street. 96th Street, which lies directly south of the
County Park, shall ultimately extend westward to provide a
direct link between Odean Avenue and County Road 42. Due to
the proposed route's convenience and access to major activity
centers, it is suggested that the route be redesignated as a
minor collector street to more closely reflect its function.
4. Nashua Avenue. As shown on the Transportation Plan, a
southerly extension of Nashua Avenue has been proposed between
60th and 77th Avenues. Such an extension of the roadway would
create a number of advantages in the City's roadway system:
o The roadway extension would provide,a more direct, high
speed route between County Roads 37 and 39 and allow a
convenient bypassing of the City's urban area.
CL
�`
t V �
o � ,:,
��
�, �:
�,
N � air �� '`'�;—
O W t � � i,,, to fd Vl
°W o9�� N� c � �'��o
�i/ m
p Z a W � �" t '• ' �-+ 111
W 4 � r �3� ! ` � oQ
�y,,� � V N i�iy /,..._..�..✓ .pNfMvtl O.Cq Oa. it
T � N 'Q ttl
r �
O � � � � 4
.�
..... � m o
�'� H C N
Pam; tQ E
tl
N � . o N N , U � � �
4' _ � Ng � � [ �:: E o rn
. •''��r '�� C � C
rvno o c m c
�� .•• .+ ��'ArOvnO VI U N 'O
' r NY NOSWd v d' � �
•�I � � p C y U
'jar ONrN7rd
I � .� � ' �
.�--- . � d
/', i' , .� ... tL � a 't7 .o
, � � ,i
CO , f7 ,
„ j" N Nr)00 r7 :�
I`. � _ � � '''w a • o
�',� � ' . `' � 5 n ..... 2
.!` ..e k�� COOMxrO
.' . � a S
'ler rnrsvN ......... ro ..............
%, tier rnHsrN = N '"
' '� G�'• �1`o`H � �
O c � 'NV NNI )vrh;:�;� 'C C V O'
-•—•—
a � -�
'y�V fgNNrl � -
N
yl V1 O
n
f n r
�� P
%••/ W �
�i„; 1 i %nr 9 rl x r l ice+
. • `•� 1
,� � � }� � J
tl)1HYY Y)�Mr )f � O � _ `v
0 n '--a.`
O ^
� � \V
� N)lOVx
1 1 Q [ O N .�.A Y/Ai I.�+
Y p � r�
u� N
c a
3 NOenvr �
1 NM1vr `^
f—"
�� ! N. tl1JYr
. . ').\� N1�Y� h
111
•�
\'Rt
SN0 •�r `'v
4
TRANSPORTATION
i I ass , - '45
I ,�lS� ��c� . REQUIRED
CONCEPT PLAN
i #024 `�� �. `? REQUIRED (TYP
Z ;
r-_m ., ! PLANNING DISTRICT 4
If
-- !- :.�
IZ7 m ..... . 11 14
toot
em
-
D40Wd
--- 1 V.
mmo
e'm- �-
c`y f _ _ MIScsK5IPP1 �1 S"OgEs /3-C ..zDtTpN
; - �,,---�02� CITY OF
VV'ml �-- / ' '' _ �• P TENTIAL RIGHT —I / RIGH OUT TSEGO
i.
1 yy ` _ i A CESS TO CSAH N 39
is _ .
'"%VV%sIPPI ON TI lI GRLAT RIVER ROAD
-
Mmm
i
-_
t•' RESTRICTED
RETAIL CENTER
see 04b
1..1� i _— _— -- -- _
' IHIGuWAY !
- = ICOIv�MERCIAL
'•`"' ••• ••••"" DISTRICT i
I � ,
DISTRICT 4
District 4 encompasses the Highway 101 corridor stretching four
miles from the City's southern border to the Mississippi River to
the north. While largely undeveloped, the diversity of land uses
I
n this district are exceeded only by District 3. As discussed
earlier, the pending upgrade of Highway 101 is likely to reinforce
District 4 as the most visible area in the community.
Currently the most prominent land use in the corridor is
agriculturally related with crop and dairy farms accounting for the
Largest land use allotments.
Residential development, accounting for the largest area of
developed land in the corridor includes a variety of residential
densities with single family lots ranging in size from 0.5 to 5.0
acres. I The corridor also contains the City's only mobile home
complex in the River Bend Mobile Home Park located near the
intersection of Highway 101 and River Road. It should be noted
that the mobile home park does operate on its own septic system and
a westerly expansion of the park has been proposed. It should be
noted that the referenced septic system does apparently have excess
capacity. As such, an expansion of the system into the County Road
42/Highway 101 commercial area may be possible. The extent of the
system's serviceability will, however, have to be determined
through an engineering study.
Existing commercial development within District 4 is located
exclusively at the intersection of Highway 101 and River Road.
Specifically, the commercial intersection is composed of an auto
sales lot and a gas station food market.
While the generalized land use map illustrates areas of commercial
and medium/high density residential development, it must be
realized that such intense uses are dependent upon the availability
of public sewer and water service. As such, actual construction of
the proposed uses must be viewed as somewhat conditional. This
should not be construed to mean that commercial development is to
be prohibited. It does indicate, however, that intense commercial
development without provision for sanitary sewer must take steps
necessary to ensure against potential soil contamination.
Because the Highway 101 corridor is essentially the focal point of
the community, care must be given to the type and quality of
development which occurs within the district. Specifically,
commercial development is suggested at the Highway 101
intersections at County Road 39 and 42 with medium/high density
residential development proposed around the commercial area's
periphery as transitional uses. Due to its proximity to the City's
major population base, an ability to accommodate future sanitary
sewer service and the existence of adjacent commercial uses, the
County Road 39/Highway 101 area has been designated as the City's
"primary" retail center. It must be realized that the City has a
limited commercial demand. As such, it is in the City's best
interest that the community's essential "downtown" be focused and
condensed to serve its primary population base. While the Couits
hwa 101 area does offer retail opportunities,
Road 42/Hig Y o ulation has contributed to its
proximity from the City s core p P limited
classification as a "secondary" retail center. Highly
nee hborhood/ highway commercia Co nt aRoadb37n indicated at the
g f Hi hway 101 and Y
intersection o g
With commercial
and medium/high density re�dCe t it
being dependent on
that this land be
utilities are made
sewer needs may be
the City.
public sewer and water se
rese ble or it is demonstrat d tha
availa an detrimental
met without posing Y
development
is suggested
ether public
t a prof ect' s
effects upon
As the population of the City continues to g
row, initiating an
industrial tax base should be constderAs such mi t t snimportant to
the community's economic developmen
the District
identify lands considered moboth access andlexposurel developmen .
With Highway 101 providing h ualit
4 corridor must be considercon tru tib on location for hig q Y
industrial development and
In order to provide potential industrial sites which are flood
free, it is suggested that design i Where the landslies beasonably
along the west side of Highway 10
level and is generally removed fro antici atedl andustpially used
p designation until
future commercial developme ricultural zoning
property should retain an ag
such time when either public sewer and water are made availaberate
it is found that such a development may sufficiently op
without public connection.
to ordinance standards, buildings utilized for human
According area. Such
habitation may not be constructed within a floodway rovided
structures are, however, permitted within the flood fringe p
riate flood proofing measures are undertaken. For the most
approp i River floodway area follows the river's
part, the Mississipp
existing shoreline within testwabdebetweenrCounty hRoadu39 a d 85th
however, extend slightly w in within the
Street. As such, the majority of lands lY� g
Mississippi River's 100 year floodplain are considered developable,
rovided appropriate flood protection measures are undertaken. All
P ro osals within the floodplain shall be subject to
development p p and flood fringe
detailed review with regard to floodway
delineations.
As shown on the Land Use Plan, potential industrial property has
been desig
nated west of Highway 101 between County Road o 3el urinate
While such development will require some filflat, is afforded
floodplain concerns, the area is relatively immediate urban
excellent visibility, and is within thsingle,family development
service area. To buffer western lying h density residential land
from the said industrial uses, medium/hig
use has been proposed along the western border of County Road 42.
It must be reiterated that medium and high .density residential
development should only be considered when public sanitary sewer
service is made available.
Of primary concern to the City is that the three major points of
access to Highway 101 (County Roads 37, 39, and 42) be maintained
in the future. Formalization of this policy has been prompted by
present plans to upgrade Highway 101 to an expressway and also
speculation that at some point in the future, a freeway
classification may be considered for the highway. A freeway
designation could conceivably generate proposals for the further
restriction of access and most certainly would involve right-of-way
expansions in interchange areas. The magnitude of such changes
would be substantial and the City needs to stay in constant
communication with MnDOT so as to stay abreast of the needs and
status,of the highway and its future.
--- - --
--
-----
---I
-11110
-
- -
1
Will
Mill Mill III, llilift1w---
111
4111111111111W
IS W IV
SUMMARY OF DISTRICT 4 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Major commercial expansion and the provision of medium/high
density residential should be reserved, but development is not
recommended until future public sewer and water service is
made available.
2. All proposed development shall be subject to conformance with
applicable floodplain and Wild and Scenic River District
regulations.
3. The medium and high density residential land uses proposed in
this district should be viewed as transitional in nature
between commercial and single family residential land uses.
These also provide a means for a varied housing market within
Otsego.
4. The City encourage the development of a Highway 101 frontage
road plan.
7. The City adopt performance standards relative to commercial
and industrial development to ensure that future projects are
built and maintained to the highest possible standards.
S. The City establish suitable sites for commercial and
I
ndustrial development to enhance Otsego's ability to promote
economic development.
Otsego,
Minnesota
1000' 0 15001 25001
HC;.;:.. sit
^...
YAI pAT C:
SEPTEMBER 1989
FOTL• Ti" YI.I q Iyl II If "WRONG
1'1111`OUI O-lT A1C SffO
M01 U 1ALD W WA I*K CAI
K ASVILYCx17 AR( WOU CD.
Primary
Retail
Center
Secondary
Retail
Center
Restricted
Retail
Center
Planning
District
•PROPOSED LAND USE
A . ; Agricultural
LD• - Low Density Residential
MD Medium Density Residential.
HD . High Density Residential
NC , • Neighborhood Commercial
HC - Highway Commercial
I - Industrial
P -Park/Public Facility
NATURAL FEATURES '
Q FloodplainJWetlands,
®- Steep Slopes
. - Tree Massing
... • - Wild and Scenic District
Boundary
Map illustrates approximate locations
-subject to detailed review at time
of proposed development
PREPARED BY:
�orthwest
Associated
Consultants, Inc.
it Ir111H
151
.t;t�Abtt MI Ab L
7.
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGHWAY COMMERICIAL DISTRICT
<
TRA NSP OR TA TION
CONCEPT PLAN
PLANNING DISTRICT 4
4
CITY OF
'OTSEGO
ON TfIE GREAT RIVER ROAD
"no 1000
SCALE IN FEET
H.�tn 3 It
#f_ 3 n
Ajj PFR_N.' C
KK
r4o. DATE
DESCRIPTION
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED
MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS
Mimiiimiliiiml APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
FUTURE LOCAL STREETS
PROPOSED LAND USE BOUNDARIES
(SEE NOTE BELOW)
NOTES:
Proposed land use boundaries were approximated utilizing
the City of Otsego Comprehensive Plan (September, 1991).
'Roadway locations shown are schematic in nature only i
are Intended for use in planning purposes only.
RESTRICTED
RETAIL CENTER RE
STRICTED IL I
LRETA
T
....... ....
HIGHWAY
•COMMERCIAL
IDISTRICT
TRANSP OR TA TION
CONCEPT PLAN
PLANNING DISTRICT 4
\4 ALTERNATIVE NO. I
P TENTIAL RIGHT —I / RI(A CESS TO CSAH Nq. 39
iliv SIPPI
S RES —PRO SED
,DDITION I Ah S TAT CONS LICTED
FRON AGE RO D
CR S r
Z7T ft
Lm,:
ss;Ssipz:
SHCRES
7*,h AD-r)ITICN
HI6_HW'_A_Y_
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
............
<
7—,
INDUSTRIAL
Z_� DISTRICT
z
PROPOSE'
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
17
CITY OF
UT ozSEGO
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
,nr C, 1000
IHakanson
VAn en n
E
1 16-!4 PkF_N_ACCMMEKT5
Tdv. op TE OESCRIPTION
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED
MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
FUTURE LOCAL STREETS
.......... PROPOSED LAND USE BOUNDARIES
(SEE NOTE BELOW)
NOTES:
Proposed land use boundaries were approximated utilizing
t1jo city of Otsego Comprehensive Plan (September, 1391).
Roadway locations shown are schematic in nature only
are Intended for use in plannirv.g purposes only.
�x SiJ
<
#047
1043
P L;�
Z
RESTRICTED
• RETAIL CENTER
...... ... .
�7
C13
IHIG W
iCO MERCIAL
I .......... DIST ICT
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
January 19, 1995
Mr. David Licht
NAC
5775 Wayzata Blvd, Suite 555
St. Louis Park MN 55416
222 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
Re: Planning District No. 4 Transportation Plan - City of Otsego
Dear David:
Per the request of the Otsego City Council, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
has performed additional analysis for the above referenced project. This work is
supplemental to the report dated January 6, 1995 which was previously submitted
to your office. The additional work examines the area of land located southwest
of the proposed Lefebvre Watershed District easement and northeast of CSAH42
from 85th Street NE to Highway 101 . The study area is depicted on the attached
exhibit.
Land uses in this area appear to be evolving into commercial/industrial
applications. Presently, four residences and two home extended businesses exist
in this area.
The majority of the land is located above the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation. A portion of land located adjacent to Highway 101 is located below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. A considerable amount of land also lies
above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation adjacent to Highway 101 which
should allow for development without significant flood related hindrances.
The primary concern related to development of this area lies in access issues to
CSAH42. Access to CSAH42 is expected to be limited to 1 /4 spacing for public
streets and 1 /8 mile spacing for private drives. Individual access permits will be
reviewed by the County with emphasis on potential accesses to internal public
roads. Presently, there are 11 access points to CSAH42 from 85th Street to
Highway 101 from this area. These access points are currently utilized for
entrances to residences and as field entrances. We anticipate that as the land use
changes to commercial or industrial, the County access requirements will be
enforced.
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Page 2
January 12, 1995
The attached exhibit depicts a conceptual access plan to CSAH42 for this area.
The southern portion of this area could be accessed off of the proposed Quaday
Avenue. Joint access could then be utilized to serve the remainder of the
properties. The accesses shown would meet the 1 /8 mile spacing requirements.
We feel it is a workable solution in limiting the accesses to the required spacings.
Under a scenario such as this, the number of access points in this area would be
reduced from 11 to 4.
The land area depicted may not be develop as presented. This report is only
intended to serve as a guide for reviewing future developments in this area. The
concept of limited access must be considered as a key issue when reviewing
future development plans for this area.
Please review the enclosed exhibit and do not hesitate to call if there are any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kevin P. Kielb, PE
/mlc
cc: Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers
Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning Admin. /
Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office✓
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
File: OT325
ze
(' s`qt e
(ohs)
.� ;�•. �
-- IL 1.•.
•� \ _ � O
� �
\ ° �•� �
` �1 \ '62 m
_..--� � �
/ %�i o \
I/�i� � �
500 0 / 04\ , �
' �.� %/
SCALE IN FEET �'-�,;;
/'
:''•
LEGEND '"
' CONCEPTUAL FUTURE ROADWAY
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
— — — — -- SUBDISTRICT WATERSHED
BOUNDARY
CONCEPTUAL. LOT�UNES
5.0 ac CONCEPTUAL LOT SIZES
861.9 APPROXIMATE REGULATOR(
FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION
(0-2) REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION
BUILDING AREA DEPTH BELOW
ELEVATION
X 861.9 CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY
ELEVATION
� CONCEPTUAL STORM WATER
FLOW DIRECTION
�,;,� CONCEPTUAL STORM SEWER
MANHOLE LOCATION ANO
STORM SEWER MAIN LOCATION
°h
� ��� } �j1 � J \
i
! sate � �� II
(0-1) � t I
/ �� \ 1 / \ II I �II �.
\1 I'�
I III �.
�� � I.
I art' �� i �
pet.4t� ao m 1 1 \ ji .II � �°
0
seta °
'�\
�` ��, 1�
,•,~ ` \�
' ae m I
eefA
1` i
�i
eeias
� �'"
ao m
r. � �-
'::.;i:
(z..t4) , _ ass (s-4)
' 1
�� �,
4,o m - \_
�,� . \
� � e6°1D ae m �
- eet.a
,�
(���" �
Ra.ocArEn ,
TO WADAI°' .
�, j ��.
° i
SUPPLEMENTAL
EXHIBIT � Hakanson
PLANNING DISTRICT N0. 4 '� Anderson
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AREA ■ ■ ■ ASSOC.,InC.
CONCEPTUAL Engineers, Surveyors 6 Lnndsc°pe Architects
DEVELOPMENT 222 Monroe Street, Anokn, Hinnesotn 5530�
612-427-5860 FAx 612-427-3401
MRD.DWG
� � � ' �� I � �,jrrl;:
222 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
January 6, 1995
Mr. David Licht, Planner
Northwest Assoc. Consultants, Inc.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.
Suite 555
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Planning District #4 Transportation Plan, Otsego, MN
Dear David:
At the request of the Otsego City Council, Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. has performed
the initial research into determining the feasibility of developing the commercial/industrial area
associated with Planning District No. 4 in Otsego, Minnesota. This is intended to substantiate
the conceptual location of roadways as shown on the proposed amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The information presented in the following report details our findings
relative to development of land which is at or below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation
of the Mississippi River in this area.
The City's Comprehensive Plan depicts this portion of Planning District #4 as being developed
as Highway Commercial and Industrial in the future. The plan also states that the industrial
uses will most likely be smaller, dry industries with a small number of employees. Our study
will be based upon the assumption of light industrial uses, such as showrooms, offices, etc. will
be developed in this area. Commercial uses are anticipated to be consistent with typical Highway
Commercial developments. Exhibit A of this report depicts the future roadways in this area as
shown on the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. An important roadway
consideration is the future accessibility of CSAH42. Based on traffic volume and conversations
with the Wright County Department of Highways, CSAH42 is expected to be classified as a
Major Collector Street. Access to CSAH42 will be limited to 1/4 mile spacing, or 1440 feet.
The total length of CSAH42, from CSAH39 to TH101, is approximately 1.4 miles. This allows
for a maximum of 5 access points to CSAH42. Five access points would not be enough to allow
for individual lot accesses to CSAH42. The roadway layout shown on Exhibit A appears to be a
viable option to providing access to Planning District No. 4.
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Exhibit A also depicts a conceptual lot layout for Planning District No. 4. Approximate lot sizes,
approximate Regulatory Flood Protection Elevations and approximate fill requirements are
shown for each lot. The lot sizes shown are intended to be conceptual only. These lots may be
split or joined, as required, to accommodate future lot size needs. A further discussion of Exhibit
A will occur later in this report.
Several approaches were performed to analyze the different aspects of developing this area. Our
study approached developability from four distinct views:
1. A total cost to develop a group of lots.
2. The additional costs which may be required to develop lots which lie below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
3. The costs required to place structures of varying sizes on lots which lie below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
4. The costs required to place structures on lots with varying depths below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
Several assumptions and cost estimates were used in our study. They will be discussed below.
One of the driving factors requiring that a further analysis of Planning District No. 4 be
performed was an October 19, 1994 letter written by the MRD Commercial Plat Engineer. The
letter describes site grading costs associated with developing property in the northeastern corner
of Planning District No. 4. The development analyzed in the letter was the proposed MRD
Second Addition. The proposed MRD Second Addition lies directly west of TH101, directly
south of CSAH39 and directly east of the proposed Quaday Avenue. Because of the similarities
in analysis between this report and the 10/19/94 letter, we feel it is important to briefly discuss
issues brought forth in the letter. Also, to provide continuity in this report, we will utilize the
same area as described in the 10/19/94 letter for our analysis. Issues of concern related to the
10/19/94letter are as follows:
• The letter states that any structures built on these lots must be above the 100-year
flood elevation of 861.0. As a point of clarification, per the City of Otsego's
Zoning Ordinance, structures must be placed at or above the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation is one foot
above the 100-year flood elevation, or elevation 862.0 in this case (see Exhibit A).
If a structure is constructed on fill, the fill must extend to 15 feet beyond the limits
of the structure and at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
Vehicular accesses must be at a minimum elevation of 860.0 for these lots.
Parking lots must be constructed so that the parking area is not inundated by more
than two feet, unless a flood warning system is available. Parking lot elevations
should therefore be at elevation 859.0.
2
• A Letter of Map Revision will be required by FEMA to remove areas filled to
above the 100-year flood plain elevation from the special flood hazard area
category as depicted on the FIRM maps. The fee for this study is listed as
$20,000 in the 10/19/94 letter. Based upon the estimated average response time
as listed on the required FEMA forms, an average engineering rate of $60 per
hour, and the required FEMA fees for application review and actual map revision,
we have estimated that the FEMA study will cost approximately $1,700 for the
four lots depicted on Exhibit B of this report.
• The letter estimated that topsoil removal and respreading, soil corrections and turf
establishment will cost $0.50 per cubic yard for the site. We feel that a more
conservative estimate of $2.00 per cubic yard should be utilized for this study.
• Soil analysis fees of $5,000 and borrowed structural fill (compacted -in -place)
costs of $4.00 per cubic yard will be carried through from the letter to our report.
The area to be conceptually developed for this analysis consists of approximately 16.5 acres and
lies immediately east of the proposed Quaday Avenue, immediately west of Highway 101 and
immediately south of CSAH39 (see Exhibit B). Utilizing a minimum frontage of 200' at the
building setback line, we determined that a maximum of four lots could be developed if no
roadways were constructed interior to the site. The configuration shown on Exhibit B depicts
three four acre lots and one four and a half acre lot. Building setback lines are depicted on
Exhibit B also.
We do not anticipate the presence of wetlands on this site. The area is presently utilized for
agricultural production. The National Wetlands Inventory Maps do not indicate wetlands
existing in this area. The Wright County soils survey indicates the soils are not predominantly
hydric, but that they may have hydric inclusions. Existing low areas or depressions should be
examined more closely at the time of development to verify that wetland areas do not exist on
this site.
The soils investigation performed for this report was limited to research of the Wright County
Soils Survey prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. Soils in this area are primarily Becker
loams with smaller portions of Hubbard sandy loams and Alluvial land present. Becker loams
generally are classified as A4 soils from 0-28 inches of depth and as A-2 or A-3 soils from 28-
48 inches of depth in accordance with the AASHTO Soil Classification System. Hubbard sandy
loams are generally A-2 soils from 048 inches of depth. Alluvial soils vary and must be
examined from site to site. A-2 soils are generally excellent to good for subgrade uses. A-4 soils
are generally fair to poor for subgrade uses. As a conservative approach to our analysis, we will
assume that all A4 materials will be removed from the site. A conservative estimate that 2 feet
A A4 material exists across the entire site will be utilized in this study. A more detailed soils
investigation may indicate that a portion of the A-4 soil could be utilized for on -site fill. This
should be reviewed more closely at the time of construction.
3
A building footprint of 10,000 square feet was utilized for the analysis. Parking areas were
analyzed assuming an average of one parking stall per every 200 square feet of building area.
This equates to 50 spaces per building. Utilizing City Zoning requirement, a parking lot area of
approximately 14,000 feet' would be required.
We have preformed our analysis utilizing several different approaches. The first approach
analyzes the cost involved in developing the lots and includes the following:
1. Roadway assessment based on frontage
2. Soil analysis fees
3. FEMA study
4. Topsoil removal, replacement and revegetation
5. Structural fill placement and site grading
6. Septic drainfield installation
We have also reviewed the project to determine costs which may be incurred because a lot is
located below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Costs incurred which may be incurred
because these lots lie below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation are:
1. FEMA study
2. Additional soil analysis fees
3. Structural fill placement
4. Waterproofing the septic/drainfields
Septic drainfields were analyzed utilizing designs in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter
7080 for alternative systems within flood plain areas. The designs and associated estimated costs
assume that no "wet industries" will be constructed at this time. The drainfields are sized only
for domestic uses within the commercial/industrial structures. Commercial and industrial type
uses which will have significant wastewater flows additional to the domestic flows will most
likely incur costs beyond those listed in this report.
Roadway assessment costs are based upon the current City of Otsego assessment policy
associated with MSA streets. These costs include assessment fees associated with storm sewer
construction.
Costs utilized in our study are described below:
ITEM
Roadway Assessment
Soil Analysis Fees
FEMA Study
Topsoil Removal, Replacement and Revegetation
Structural Fill (compacted -in -place)
Septic Drainfield Installation
COST
$65.00/FF
$5,000
$1,700
$2.00/CY
$4.00/CY
Varies
As a note of comparison, roadway assessment costs and septic drainfield costs were not included
in the 10/19/94 letter. All costs depicted throughout the study are presented in 1995 dollars and
should be utilized accordingly. Costs which may be incurred, but were not analyzed include but
may not be limited to: land acquisition costs, City processing fees, park land dedication, water
well construction, engineering fees and possible assessments other than for the roadway.
A cost analysis for development of the four lots depicted on Exhibit B is as follows:
Table 1
ITEM
1
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
1. Roadway Assessment ($65.00/FF)
025
L$l
$11,570
$20,410
$165835
2. Soil Analysis Fees
$ 1,250
$ 1,250
$ 1,250
$ 1,250
3. FEMA Study
$ 425
$ 425
$ 425
$ 425
4. Topsoil Removal
$10,800
$ %940
$ %940
$ 8,780
5. Structural Fill
$20,240
$3%360
$38,760
$343800
6. Septic Drainfield
$ 9,000
$ 91000
$ %000
$ %000
TOTAL COST
$53,740
$71,545
$79,785
$71,090
Table 1 depicts costs associated with development of roadways, drainfields, excavation and
overhead costs. The total cost for all lots is approximately $276,000. For comparison to the
10/29/94 letter from the MRD Commerical Plat Engineer, the roadway assessment cost and the
septic drainfield cost must be deducted from the $276,000. This leaves a total amount of
approximately $179,000 for comparison against the $320,000 estimate presented in the 10/29/94
letter.
Developing land located below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation will be more costly
than developing lands located above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Table 2 depicts
our estimate of costs which would be incurred by a developer for developing land located below
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These costs represent a portion of the costs listed in
Table 1. The costs are estimates for comparison to a lot of similar size located above the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. On -site borrow material for use as structural fill is
assumed to be available on lands located above the Regulatory Flood Protection EleVation.
E
Table 2
ITEM
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
1. Additional Soil Analysis Fees
$ 750
$ 750
$ 750
$ 750
2. FEMA Study
$ 425
$ 425
$ 425
$ 425
3. Structural Fill
$12,140
$31,905
$31,305
$28,215
4. Additional Septic Drainfield Costs
$ 4,000
$ 4,000
$ 4,000
$ 4,000
TOTAL COST
$17,315
$37,080
$36,480
$33,390
The costs listed in Table 2 assume that similar topsoil conditions would exist in other
developable areas. An estimated $124,000 in additional costs would be borne by the developer
to develop the entire 16.5 acre parcel to the parameters listed earlier in this report and as depicted
on Exhibit B of this report. Based upon the structure size of 10,000 SF, an average additional
cost of $3.10 per square foot of building pad area would be incurred by the developer.
The third analysis performed in our study examines the costs for placing structures of different
sizes on the lots in Planning District No. 4. Structure sizes of 5,000 SF, 10,000 SF, 20,000 SF
and 30,000 SF were analyzed. We utilized Lot 3 as shown on Exhibit B of this report for
placement of the structures. Exhibit C depicts grading associated with placement of a 5,000 SF
building. Exhibit D depicts placement of a 10,000 SF building. Exhibit E depicts placement of a
2000 SF building. Exhibit F depicts placement of a 30,000 SF building.
The following table depicts costs associated with placing various sized structures on Lot 3:
Table 3
Structure
Roadway
Assessment
Soil
Analysis
FEMA
Study
Topsoil
Removal
Structural
Fill
Septic
Drainfield
TOTAL
Cost*
Per Sr
53000SF
$20,410
$ 1,250
$ 425
$ 8,740
$33,320
$ 85000
$72,145
$14.43
10,000SF
$20,410
$ 13250
$ 425
$ 9,940
$38,760
$ %000
$79,785
$ 7.98
20,OOOSF
$20,410
$ 1,250
$ 425
$14,740
$55,400
$25,800
$118,025
30,000SF
$20,410
$ 1,250
$ 425
$19,480
$69,920
$33,200
$144,685
* Indicates cost per square foot of building pad area.
Roadway assessment costs, soil analysis fees and the FEMA study costs are anticipated to remain
essentially the same independent of structure size. Septic drainfield costs were estimated
assuming that mound system construction and floodproofing would be required. The 20,000 SF
and 30,000 SF buildings were of such size that a hydrogeological study may be required to
determine the long term acceptance rate of the soil for drainfields. We have assumed that this
study would be required for the larger two structures and estimated the cost of the study to be
$10,000. This becomes perhaps the most important point brought forth in this study. Structures
over 12,000 SF in size and businesses which generate wastewaters other than domestic flows
may require similar studies be performed. A strong need for a sanitary sewer collection and
treatment system exists in this area. Growth in this area may be impeded by the lack of such a
sanitary sewer system. Almost 25% of the cost of placing larger structures on these lots will
occur due to septic drainfield requirements.
The final analysis performed in this study involves constructing buildings on lots which are at
varying levels below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Planning area #4 consists of
various surface elevations and depths above and below the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation. Utilizing the City's aerial topography maps, we have depicted the following
categories of lots relative to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation:
l . Areas which are at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
2. Areas which are 0' to 2' below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
3. Areas which are 2' to 4' below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
4. Areas which are 4' to 6' below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
5. Areas which are 6' to 8' below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
Exhibit A depicts conceptual lot layouts and approximate Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevations associated with the lots. The lots contain buildable areas which fall into one of the
three following categories:
1. Lots which contain buildable area at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation.
2. Lots which contain buildable areas which are 0' - 2' below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation.
3. Lots which contain buildable areas which are 2' - Al below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation.
Lots which fall into category 1 are considered buildable without flood protection.
7
We analyzed cost of construction for the various categories of depth listed above. The same
parameters utilized for Lot 3 on Exhibit B were utilized in this analysis. The following table
depicts our findings:
Table 4
Depth Below
Reg. Flood
Roadway
Soil
FEMA*
Topsoil
Structural
Septic
TOTAL
Cost***
Elevation
Assess
Analysis
Study
Removal
Fill
Drainfield
COST
per SF
Above
$20,410
$ 750
N/A
$ 9,940
$ 7,455**
$ 5,000
$43,555
$ 4.36
0' - 2'
(average V)
$20,410
$ 1,250
$ 425
$ %940
$21,700
$ %000
$62,725
$ 6.27
2' - 4'
(average Y)
$20,410
$ 1,250
$ 425
$ 9,940
$38,760
$ 9,000
$79,785
$ 7.98
* Assumes group development. Fees for individual lots may be less than this amount.
** Assumes borrow area is available on -site.
*** Indicates cost per square foot of building pad area.
The above report details our analysis of Planning District No. 4. The figures presented should be
utilized by your office to aid in determining if development of this area, as a commercial/
industrial region, is feasible.
Please review the information presented above. We would appreciate any comments regarding
the relationship between development of the Commercial/Industrial area as it pertains to the
above listed information.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
Kevin P. Kielb, P.E.
cc: Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning Admin.
Mayor & City Council Members
Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office t �'
Lawrence G. Koshak
File: OT325
15 14IIIIl�lIII'
f
i;I; Io=�Il, I'j II ; I-II� ,rIIi(1III�II III Ir�IIIIII I7 I,II IlI'r�IfI ' lIIIr �I'- �'( II"\ II II I`fiIIIII1II.IhIIIII I)/IIII III r'I 1
I�\,iI1\ s/ iI „% j i - 1a.,1_:3�� ,-�-,a '.` -.Ix�1`1 �_-�:"\.i __-.=,:r `-w_;I `II = �0,i _:_``' '_'\\m_.7i'9-` I�\r .':y' :^'I "r<= '`�\:� � `I� =°
4.5 08
862-0
(0-2)
A-/
4.0 ac
882-0
(2-4)
A
40 a j8 Ic 0
5.7 ac (2-4)
c� I(ABOIA)
M 0 0 (AB VE)
IiII
MEMO
4.4 cc
882-0
(ABOVE)
4.0,
862. 0 LEGEND
....... ..
Ii
II
(2-4) zz CONCEPTUAL FUTURE ROADWAY
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
2.8 ac b. CZ3, 0( - - - - - - - SUBDISTRICT WATERSHED
8iio
BOUNDARY
862.0
(ABOVE) OVE)
15 (�cc \ 2 2 _0 CONCEPTUAL LOT LINES
820 N
(G-2)
5.0 ac, CONCEPTUAL LOT SIZES
861.9 APPROXIMATE REGULATORY
FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION
r
NF.
(0-2) BUILDING AREA DEPTH BELOW
--2.0 a
8620 887-0 REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION
r) - (ABOVE) ELEVATION
./4.7 ac 5.0 ac
t 81 8112-0 X 861.9 CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY
(2-4) (0 -2) ELEVATION
V 2-1 Jac m CONCEPTUAL STORM WATER
9, L FLOW DIRECTION
(ABOVE)
4"
zq ac 0 CONCEPTUAL STORM SEWER
MANHOLE LOCATION AND
STORM SEWER MAIN LOCATION
(ABO
50 cc If
861.9 861.9
(2-4)
c &41 (0-2)
2.1 a
8619
j(ABOVE) 0
,ZO.OD
5.0
861.8
(0-2)
it ill-1
a 861.7 7.2 cc
2 acN 8e1j
(2-4)
(ABOVE)l I
SM% 0
5.0 cc 0
861.7
(G-2)
C11 0
cc
----------- --- -----
J (ABO`<E1950.00
It,
MS* O-w r
- .1
c A.0 06 5.8 cc
j
j 861.6 J, III,
(0-2)
fill
'N, 1 5.0 cc
4 cc. 861.5
.0
861.5 (0-2)
(2-4)
�7
r7
5.0 ac
4'0
8611�0 861.4
0.5%
(2�4) (2-4)
71
ko
W.0 5.0 ac
861.2
(2-4) 400 0 400
0.5%
SCALE IN FEET
mw
861.0
5.5 ac
(2-4)
\ k
EXHIBIT A
0 0
PLANNING DISTRICT NO 4
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ARE OH I I
A
(,If lull - - ------- CONCEPTUAL
SLOPE
(GREA DEVELOPMENT
0 REVISED 01/09/95
PWPOSED QUADAY AVENUE
`tSKADM)
�Ji
Hakanson
Anderson
tl 5
Assoc.,Inc.
cD III Ill
Engineers, Surveyors & Landscape Architects
222 Monroe Street, Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-3401
_ I /
x 6692
x 069,2 ►
►
x 0691 IXI
` x 868,9
1 866 x
370,5 x 069, I ►
867, •J►xl
X 8785
` ` 870A
064,1 � ►
863b
x 865.0 \ I
I
x 865.3
O
X 9593
\ / x 064,9
037.3
�
63,SI I' II x 850
x
4.5 ac & 939a
870.5
x 8632
\ x 864,9 ego x J
I a* Few and
9.2
670A k I` pokleve
X
° r 4.0 cc
X 869 -9645 x x 85&
Iis $00
so
x9 A \ 1 I•
ago
1111111661108 869,3 : ::,l
x 06
.,.. .,.Dead
I rq I q I p .4 1 1..,,. x, 869.3..,.as
5 6 be
X Bfil%U e4
I X 8673 1 x 869d X 86966 r / x 900 11 1 1 p•, x 85
/ 1
I( 865A x 8692/ / . 74 1
` X 867.E x 839,y
d:::
►eal
so
x
X 06
X 867,4 / x 8682 / / `
III ► !/ / \ / Oe� ..,•
V l x 86&6....� x 8631 x 863.3\ 1
x 867.4
r � -- \ 4
X
m 8G6.3 X 865.1 \ `.
x LB
x 86U
► x 862.E
I x 865.3 I I / 861.9 x 8631 /
o X
► / 1 / v 866,2
0 x e66.3 �n i � x 865,7 / 1
x 862.6
�•3S1
x 8602 \\ � x 060,5
X
x 860A
Bx 3 /
\\\ X 602 \\x 8\ �\
X 0"
x 9,5
X 839b \ \\\
e \\` x e59.5
X 9
\\ \\\ • ( x 8572
x 8391 $\\\ \ \ + x
3
x 059,
,. 4.0 cc
\V
X 858A / �\
4.0 acmilk
\
x
• \ X 857 \ ��
\ X 9571
9691 x,, \0. x 1
x 862,8
��859,9 X 05791 I I x 86"
200 0 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
CONCEPTUAL SEPTIC
DRAINFIELD LOCATION
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING PAD
-' g CONCEPTUAL PARKING LOT
FUTURE ROADWAY
(QUADAY AVENUE)
- -- - - - CONCEPTUAL CONTOURS
- - - EXISTING CONTOURS
20 CONCEPTUAL LOT NUMBER
- CONCEPTUAL BUILDING
SETBACK LINE
EXHIBIT B
CONCEPTUAL
FOUR LOT DEVELOPMENT
Hakanson
—p Anders n
■ Assoc.,,Tnc.
en8neers, s,rveyors L lcndscnpe Architects
222 Monroe Street, Anoka Minesota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-3401
A-
- CONCEPTUAL
-. CONCEPTUAL CONTOUR (TYP)
STRUCTURE Al8s9�
VA^C 8S9
t! / 'VA
N I
s �
. 9 00
-�-iCONCEPTUAL
�
-j PARKING LOT
11 �
00
40) i
$ k
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING
SETBACK LINE
100 0 100
SCALE IN FEET
k
8s89
k
k
8S9
EXHIBIT C
CONCEPTUAL
LOT 3
5,000 SF STRUCTURE
Halkanson
An ersgQn
7 Assoc.,Inc.
ErQvw rs, surveyors L Londsmpe kifttects
222 Name street Hooka, MY *-U 5mm
612-427-5060 FAX 612-427-3401
1 '
&59
L r00>
oQ
' & 9 00 w
�. 0
' Uz
...� ...� woo ' Z
00
�UU
06
9591
0"191>� =mom MONO
' CONC T AL
CONCEPTUAL PARK LOT
'lWAr
- STRUCTURE
"Now om"m
I -1
I
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING
J
SETBACK LINE
100 0 100
SCALE IN FEET
k
S9S
k
k
&S09
k
k
959�
EXHIBIT D
CONCEPTUAL
LOT 3
10,000 SF STRUCTURE
HoIonson
Anersn
1 Assoc.,,Tnc.
Enpkieers, Surveyors 6 Landscape Architects
222 Monroe Street, Anoka, Mbmsota 55303
612-427-3860 FAX 612-427-3401
k
8s91
CONCEPTUAL
STRUCTURE
k $
CONCEPTUAL
CONTOUR (TYP)
k _
k
s9s
k
✓' CONCEPTUAL
PARKING LOT
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING
SETBACK LINE
k
8S0
k
859�
EXHIBIT E
CONCEPTUAL
LOT 3
20,000 SF STRUCTURE
Hakanson
AndersoQn
1 Assoc.,inc.
ErgtKer a, Surveyors L Landscape Arclkhcts
222 Marro¢ Street Anoka MMnesota 55303
612-427-3860 FAX 612-427-3401
�zz
k
8SB6
CONCEPTUAL
CONTOUR (TYP)
CONCEPTUAL k STRUCTURE �s 9'>
k
s9S
CONCEPTUAL
PARKING LOT
04 c�
8 9 00
I
'4 :-k: 1
ammm woo
Gomm
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING
SETBACK LINE
100 0 100
SCALE IN FEET
0
k
�589
k
k
859�
EXHIBIT F
CONCEPTUAL
LOT 3
30,000 SF STRUCTURE
Hal0anson
Anaaers n
7 Assoc.,nc.
Enprwers, Su vor" & Landscape Ardwtects
222 Monroe street Anoko, Mwwsota 55303
612-427-5860 FAX 612-427-3401
o�,`NN�orq
Fy
rOF TR
November 29, 1994
Minr ;ota Department of Transportati(
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2I k I lip
,
Roseville, Minnesota 55113 it
L _.
Kathleen Poate, Director
Rogers Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 95
Rogers, MN 55374
Dear Ms. Poate:
Commissioner Denn and I want to thank you for the opportunity to have met with you to share common
concerns and to find ways to achieve our goals of providing a safe and efficient transportation system
serving Rogers.
Enhancing the safety of the present system will best be accomplished by the reconstruction of T.H. 101
to its ultimate 4-lane divided section. To this end, after internal review of available resources (personnel
and money), it appears that with a concentrated, focused effort that the letting date on the remaining
segments of T.H. 101 could be advanced from a June, 1996, date toLFeb_ ruarv. 1996i The completion
and opening of this corridor will then become the Fall of 1996, rather than the summer of 1997 as
previously planned. �— �yr1v,Q y2'r��tic,rJ/
Our Traffic Engineering staff will also review other elements of this corridor to determine whether any
short term or interim enhancements could be made without detracting from our goal of an earlier bid
letting and opening. With our advanced contract date, we do not believe that it would be sensible to
install temporary traffic signals, since they would be in operation for such a short time.
I have asked Mr. Richard Elasky, Assistant Division Engineer, to contact you to arrange a meeting in
December, 1994, to discuss and answer your questions on the operation of the long term improvement.
Kathleen, you will find along with this letter a listing of members of the Transportation Advisory Board
(TAB) as you requested.
Thank you again for your concern and cooperation.
Sincerely,
ce114 YzAr
Charles A. Siggerud, P.E.
Division Engineer
cc: Commissioner James Denn
Gary Eitel, City Administrator, City of Rogers
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk, City of Otsego - 8899 Nahua Ave NE, Elk River, MN 55330
Steve Peaslee, Township Administrator, Hassan Township - 25000 Hassan Pkwy,
Hassan Township, MN 55374
Sherry Berning, Township Clerk, Frankfort Township - 12239 - NE 42nd Street,
St. Michael, MN 55376
An Equal 01)portunity Employer
ME�110RANDUI\1
TO: —
FROM:
DATE:.
RE: _
Dan Wilson
David Licht
20 December 1994
Otsego - Comprehensive Plan - Planning District 4/Transportation Plan
FILE NO,: 176.08 - 94.20
In conjunction with the Otsego
land parcel configurations and
District 4. This is primarily
and is projected for commercial
� ° •n•0
r. /. U ,� � ♦ � � '
. • • • • •
City Engineer's office, we are evaluating circulation,
development costs of the Comprehensive Plan - Planning
the area located east of TH 101 and County Road 42
and industrial development.
A primary concern of this area relates to the feasibility of developing these lots
bordering TH 101 which are within the floodplain (flood fringe) area. In the
attached letter from the City Engineer, site improvement costs including those
generated by the floodplain requirements are calculated. Based upon the informa-
tion provided, I am requesting your professional opinion on the feasibility and
salability of these parcels for development.
Due to varying opinions which may surface on this issue, I would appreciate some
comparative analysis along with a documented statement from you.
As this matter will be reviewed by the City Council during the first week in January,
receipt of your comments is needed by 29 December.
Please call if there are questions or further background information is required.
Should I be unavailable, Bob Kirmis can also be of assistance.
pc: Larry Koshak
Kevin Kielb
Elaine Beatty
Andrew MacArthur
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555
�t%(����1XL���'XX•�1�"��� • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416
WHITE ORIGINAL YELLOW - FILE COPY PINK C FILE
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
U R B A N PLANNING DESIGN MARKET R E S E A R C H
TRANSMITTAL RECORD
DATE: 12 December 1994
TO: Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
FROM: Bob Ki rmi s
VIA: ()Mail ()Pick Up (x) Delivery ()Fax
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
QTY
OF
DATED
DESCRIPTION
1
Resolution
Planning District 4.Transportat
1
Comp Plan Amendment
REMARKS
For consideration at the 12 December meeting of the City Council.
RE: Otsego -Comp Plan Amendment:
JOB NO: 176.08 - 94.20
Planning District 4 Transportation Plan
5775 Wayzata Blvd. •Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ESTABLISH A
rRA.NSPORTATION PLAN FOR PLANNING DISTRICT 4
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan directs the following:
1. Define street system routings and connections in the undeveloped urban areas of
the community.
2. Establish and develop a street system and necessary traffic control devices for the
efficient movement of people and goods.
WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the preparation of a Transportation
Plan for Planning District 4 (the boundaries of which are described in the Comprehensive Plan)
is necessary to effectively guide future transportation system planning in the district and fulfil
the City's transportation goals and objectives; and
WHEREAS, on 16 November 1994, the Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing to consider two alternative Transportation Plans for said Planning District 4 (Alternatives
1 and 2) 0 and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve
the Planing District 4 Transportation Plan Alternative 1 as illustrated on attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the recommendation of the Planning Commission is concurrent with the
recommendation of City staff.
WHEREAS, the Otsego City Council agrees with the findings and recommendations of
the Planning Commission.
that:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Otsego
1. The City Comprehensive Plan be and hereby is amended to include a
Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 (Alternative 1) as graphically
illustrated and described in text on attached Exhibit A.
2. A copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Wright County Highway
Department for their records.
PASSED this day of 1994.
ATTEST:
BY:
Jerome Perrault, City Clerk
CITY OF OTSEGO
BY:
2
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
II Mays \ I
CUL-DE-SAC
vd: 024 / /, z r REQUIRED (T'
co - MISSISSIPPI I� C'ORES /3-C .,-- TON i^ �
TRANSPORTATIO N
CONCEPT PLAN
� 0 PLANNING DISTRICT 4
' i�4 ALTERNATIVE NO 1
CITY OF
UT TSEGO
6th DDITION i �� _�
PRO SED ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
- -� -- — �" �/ STAT CONS UCTED
�_��\\ = FRON AGE RO D
31,RT-EI- ACRES (i i`
'-E 8_'ch MISSISSIPD. (� Z
SMCR=S
-'th ADDITICN t
HIGHWAY I�
COMMERCIAL
DISTRIC ,
z f I�
• .. ....�.. /
. :.
.. s
<
INDUSTRIAL -
DISTRICT ,
-
'� -- --
--- PROPOSED
—_ . DRA A ---
EASE?
E j
—
a
L_
I
iii
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL / -
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT _ \
I
P TENTIAL RIGHT -I / RI(
A CESS TO CSAH N . 39
SIPPI I i
1�
,or 0 SOC 1000
SCALE IN FEET
Hakanson
An en n
1
11-16-99
CIIANGEO LOCATION 01` FUTURE
STREETS VCR NAC�MM
KK
_
_
tJO.
DATE
DESCRIPTION
B�
s LEGEND
�=
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED
n MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS
��1•� APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
= FUTURE LOCAL STREETS
..........
•,••••••• PROPOSED LAND USE BOUNDARIES
(SEE NOTE BELOW)
i
5.4 NOTES:
Proposed land use boundaries were approximated utilizing
the City of Otsego Comprehensive Plan (September, 1991).
Roadway locations shown are schematic in nature only an,
are intended for use in planning purposes only.
j Fc F.,� •
C,�C f✓# 047
... I...........
BEND
G � -
\\\ C<�
RESTRICTED
RETAIL CENTER
I
�HIGF{IWAY
CO ERCIAL
"" DIST ICT I
I !
I I � i
gp
In k
222 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
September 8, 1994
Honorable Mayor &
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
City Council
NE
Re: Transportation Concept for District #4
of the Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mayor & Council Members:
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. is proposing two alternative
concept plans for vehicle transportation in the District #4
planning area of the comprehensive plan.
We have reviewed this matter with the City Planner who provided a
number of options for us to consider.
In the area north of CSAH39 and east of CSAH42, the street pattern
was modified from the original shown to the Council. The plan was
modified to account for different zoning districts which are
anticipated to develop in this area. The MSA designation would
remain the same from,Park Avenue to 96th Street. Access to CSAH42
from the east would be limited to Park Avenue, 94th Street and 96th
Street.
South of CSAH39, the only difference between the two alternatives
is the location of Quaday Avenue intersection with CSAH42 south of
85th Street.
4e offer the following discussion of the two alternatives to
consider:
Alternate No. 1 - This alternative shows the MSA street location as
originally depicted in the MSAS Needs Study. The roadway connects
to Quaday Avenue to the south. This location will provide a major
intersection with CSAH42 in this proposed commercial area. The
focus of the traffic movement should be to this intersection upon
complete development of the planning district. This routing joins
with Quaday Avenue to the south and continues the proposed access
road from CSAH36 in Frankfort to 88th Street and CSAH42.
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Page 2
September 8, 1994
The problem with this route is the potential crossing of wetlands
and a creek. The creek is the primary drainageway for the Lefebvre
Watershed. Current wetland mitigation on this type of crossing
could mean the construction of a bridge to span the creek.
Although a bridge would be an eligible MSA cost, it would utilize
significant MSA funds to construct. Loss of wetland due to road
construction would also require replacement in the watershed which
could be another additional cost.
Alternate No. 2 - The intersection �r:ith CSAH42 in this alternative
I
s shown to be opposite.the Otsego Elementary School access. The
route shown on Alternate No. 2 exhibit would not cross any known
wetland nor the creek at this point. A drainage easement and
drainage swale would have to be acquired and completed in the
future. This alternative crossing would be far less costly in
terms of environmental mitigation costs.
The school itself is buffered from CSAH42 by one residential
property, the City's well site and the school's athletic fields.
This intersection may not present a safety issue for pedestrian
traffic, however, a conflict between the anticipated high volume of
commercial vehicles and school buses at one location may be of
concern.
This roadway configuration also leaves a large parcel of property
in the southeastern. section west of TH101 and north of CSAH42
without collector street access.
Both of the alternatives show the easterly extension of 85th Street
to Quaday Avenue looping south and then back easterly to intersect
with Quaday Avenue. This extension could be eligible for
designation as a MSA street. Should either or both of the two
routes of Quaday Avenue discussed above become unacceptable
locations, the extension of 85th Street east of CSAH42 could become
the MSA link necessary to complete the required loop to qualify for
MSA designation.
The only street access east of CSAH42 onto CSAH42 south of CSAH39
and its intersection of TH101 will be at 88th Street, 85th Street
and Quaday Avenue or as shown on Alternate No. 2. We also must
consider the presence of existing single family, farm and business
accesses. Any access that would create a high volume of traffic
must be directed ultimately to a street access.
The area west of TH101 and south of the creek and east of Quaday
Avenue will need to be reviewed at a later date pending more
complete development plans.
Page 3
September 8, 1994
Street pattern in future platted areas, will need to be addressed
at the time of platting. If the MRD Commercial Park plat
developers continue with platting one parcel at a time it may be
necessary for the developer to build private access streets for
property without access to 88th Street/Quaday Avenue. This
approach to platting is not recommended due to the uncertain
location of future streets, utilities and drainage facilities.
However, in the case of the MRD commercial park, the existence of
a development moratorium in the Lefebvre watershed causes platting
limitations.
The transportation concept plan provides the city with a guide to
street locations and traffic circulation along with utilization of
the MSA designated access roads.
We prefer Alternate No. 1 over Alternate No. 2 because it offers
the continuance of the access road concept along the length of
TH101 through the City.
The technical issues of the creek and wetland crossings may be able
to be addressed with a different prospective in the future when the
extension is needed.
The location of the intersection of Quaday Avenue with the CSAH42
as shown in Alternate No. 2 presents some negatives. The location
of the intersection is very close to the school and the proposed
roadway would have to cross residential property east of CSAH42.
We would recommend the Council adopt the Alternate No. 1 concept
plan and, if so chooses, first have it reviewed by the planning
commission. If this document is to amend the comprehensive plan,
a hearing may be necessary prior to adoption. Please be advised on
this matter by the city attorney and planner.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours truly,
HAKANSODI1 DERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
ence/G. �Koshak, P . E .
Enclosures
cc: Elaine Beatty, Deputy Clerk
Bob Kirmis, NAC
Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office ��
File: OT325