Loading...
02-15-95 PCFA- Northwest Associated Consultants},Inc. CURBAN PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH If,l 1 \I • ' 1 • � I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Attached please find our review of the Island View Estates rezoning and variance request. Please distribute co ies to eLCity Council and Planning Commission. We have mailed copies to Andy, Larry and Mr. German. This request is scheduled for public hearing on 15 February. Please call if you have any questions. UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 IV y EP 1�►� 1Ji.�J. ie 1�- �EI►:� Pll; u REc F LAII1�1E^ _ ELDa WISP UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 FA- Northwest Associated Consultants},Inc. CURBAN PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH If,l 1 \I • ' 1 • � I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Attached please find our review of the Island View Estates rezoning and variance request. Please distribute co ies to eLCity Council and Planning Commission. We have mailed copies to Andy, Larry and Mr. German. This request is scheduled for public hearing on 15 February. Please call if you have any questions. UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 IV y EP 1�►� 1Ji.�J. ie 1�- �EI►:� Pll; u REc F LAII1�1E^ _ ELDa WISP UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 FA- Northwest Associated Consultants},Inc. CURBAN PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH If,l 1 \I • ' 1 • � I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Attached please find our review of the Island View Estates rezoning and variance request. Please distribute co ies to eLCity Council and Planning Commission. We have mailed copies to Andy, Larry and Mr. German. This request is scheduled for public hearing on 15 February. Please call if you have any questions. UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 IV y EP 1�►� 1Ji.�J. ie 1�- �EI►:� Pll; u REc F LAII1�1E^ _ ELDa WISP UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT Mel FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis/David Licht 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Mr. Wayne German has expressed an intent to subdivide a 4.1 acre parcel of land lying directly south of the Island View Estates subdivision in such a manner whereby portions of the parcel would be conveyed to abutting single family residential lots within the said subdivision. To accommodate such lot division, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Rezoning of property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service District. 2. Variance to allow a lot less than 2.5 acres in area within an R-1 Zoning District (2.1 acre lot area proposed). 3. Variance to allow a lot width less than 150 feet in an R-1 Zoning District (142 foot lot width proposed). 4. Formal subdivision of the property (preliminary and final plat). At this time, the applicant has requested only consideration of the aforementioned rezoning and variance requests. Thus, any variance approvals will be contingent upon the ultimate subdivision of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Conceptual Subdivision Plan Recommendation The requested R-1 zoning of the subject site is consistent with the provisions of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan). While it is the opinion of our office that the rezoning of the site satisfies applicable rezoning evaluation criteria, rezoning matters remain issues of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Based on the following review, our office recommends the following: 1. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 2. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot width requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 4 ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Development Rights. The subject 4.1 acre parcel of land exists as a legal lot of record. While such lot fails to meet density requirements of the applicable A-1 zoning designation (1 dwelling unit per 40 acres), the property does hold a legal development right. To be specifically noted in regard to the subject application is that the applicant has proposed simply to convey portions of the parcel to adjacent single family lots and that no additional dwelling units, other than that legally allowed at this time, would result from the proposed subdivision. Rezoning R-1 District Purpose. As noted previously, the rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service will be necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Such zoning designation would represent a southerly extension of the R-1 District currently applied to the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to provide suitable areas for low density residential uses within selected areas of the Mississippi River corridor. Consistent with the provisions of the City's Wild and Scenic Ordinance (applicable to Island View Estates), the district imposes a minimum 2.5 acre lot size requirement. Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the City Council and Planning Commission to consider the possible adverse effects of the amendment. Their judgement should be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 3 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. The subject property lies within Planning District #1 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan specifically recommends that low density residential uses be developed in the area and that large scale plats (i.e., Island View Estates) be developed with 2.5 acre lots. Thus, the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property is considered consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously, the requested rezoning will not result in any additional dwelling units other than that which is currently allowed. In this regard, the proposed rezoning is not expected to overburden City service capacities or adversely impact the area. It is the opinion of our office that the requested rezoning and subsequent integration of the subject property into the Island View Estates subdivision satisfies the City's established rezoning evaluation criteria. Issues of land use are, however, considered matters of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Variances Lot Area and Width Requirements. In addition to the requested rezoning, the applicant has also requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area (21/2 acres) and width (150 feet) requirements. Specifically, the applicant has requested that Lot D, as shown on attached Exhibit C, be allowed a lot area of 2.1 acres and width of 142 feet. Variance Evaluation Criteria. According to Section 20-5-2.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district or area. 1. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. 2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot or building size, or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. 4 b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to any reasonable use. C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not the result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. e. The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. f. The request is not a use variance. g. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. Lot Area. The need for lot area variance relates directly to the proposed subdivision's intent of lessening the degree of lot area non -conformity of adjacent Island View Estates parcels. Thus, the requested variance represents a "trade off' of sorts whereby three grossly undersized lots (i.e., 1 acre) will be expanded in size, while a new 2.1 acre lot will be created. The following table summarizes existing and proposed lot areas of Block 4 of the Island View Estates subdivision which abuts the subject property. Lot No. Existing_ Proposed 1 45,000 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft. 2 45,000 sq. ft. 86,175 sq. ft. 3 48,000 sq. ft. 69,000 sq. ft. 4 48,000 sq. ft. 72,300 sq. ft. 5 82,650 sq. ft. 82,650 sq. ft. 6 51,300 sq. ft. 51,300 sq. ft. 7 48,600 sq. ft. 48,600 sq. ft. 8 61,550 sq. ft. 61,550 sq. ft. 9 54,000 sq. ft. 54,000 sq. ft. Property in Question 178,526 sq. ft. 91,476 sq. ft. 5 It is the opinion of our office that approval of the requested lot area variance is justified for the following reasons: A. Such variance will lessen existing lot area non -conformities which exist in the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The opportunity to address such non -conformities as part of the proposed subdivision represents a unique circumstance. B. Common sense dictates that the proposed subdivision presents lot configurations which are more functionally efficient than which currently exists. C. The requested 2.1 acre lot is generally consistent with adjacent single family lot sizes. D. Approval of the variance will not result in an overall increase in residential density in the area. Lot Width. The subject property currently measures 142 feet in width. While such width fails to comply with minimum R-1 District provisions, the width will effectively accommodate future single family home construction upon designated Lot D. The fact that such lot currently holds only 142 feet (greater than 75 percent of requirement) of width is not a result of actions of the applicant and therefore, represents a genuine hardship unique to the subject property. In this regard, approval of the requested lot width variance is considered justified. CONCLUSION While rezonings are considered matters of City policy, it is the opinion of our office that the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property satisfies the City's established criteria. If the City approves the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the requested lot area and width variance requests subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andrew MacArthur Wayne German 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MISSISSIPPI WRIGHT I& NORTH 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Ul Q W �1 F.— ./i IIH 311 � ►/i r/i Mw 3M1 !p r/t 3M OI Q — Q - r� v J w... W w z I I I I I O I zN Q I V J I a 2 S �a XPi � i o a� 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Q �1 z w Q - w... z 0 r/I ON 311 30 ./I 3n 3HL 30 3<1 LS3n F - cc 0 Z EXHIBIT C - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FA- Northwest Associated Consultants},Inc. CURBAN PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH If,l 1 \I • ' 1 • � I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Attached please find our review of the Island View Estates rezoning and variance request. Please distribute co ies to eLCity Council and Planning Commission. We have mailed copies to Andy, Larry and Mr. German. This request is scheduled for public hearing on 15 February. Please call if you have any questions. UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 IV y EP 1�►� 1Ji.�J. ie 1�- �EI►:� Pll; u REc F LAII1�1E^ _ ELDa WISP UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT Mel FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis/David Licht 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Mr. Wayne German has expressed an intent to subdivide a 4.1 acre parcel of land lying directly south of the Island View Estates subdivision in such a manner whereby portions of the parcel would be conveyed to abutting single family residential lots within the said subdivision. To accommodate such lot division, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Rezoning of property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service District. 2. Variance to allow a lot less than 2.5 acres in area within an R-1 Zoning District (2.1 acre lot area proposed). 3. Variance to allow a lot width less than 150 feet in an R-1 Zoning District (142 foot lot width proposed). 4. Formal subdivision of the property (preliminary and final plat). At this time, the applicant has requested only consideration of the aforementioned rezoning and variance requests. Thus, any variance approvals will be contingent upon the ultimate subdivision of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Conceptual Subdivision Plan Recommendation The requested R-1 zoning of the subject site is consistent with the provisions of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan). While it is the opinion of our office that the rezoning of the site satisfies applicable rezoning evaluation criteria, rezoning matters remain issues of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Based on the following review, our office recommends the following: 1. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 2. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot width requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 4 ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Development Rights. The subject 4.1 acre parcel of land exists as a legal lot of record. While such lot fails to meet density requirements of the applicable A-1 zoning designation (1 dwelling unit per 40 acres), the property does hold a legal development right. To be specifically noted in regard to the subject application is that the applicant has proposed simply to convey portions of the parcel to adjacent single family lots and that no additional dwelling units, other than that legally allowed at this time, would result from the proposed subdivision. Rezoning R-1 District Purpose. As noted previously, the rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service will be necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Such zoning designation would represent a southerly extension of the R-1 District currently applied to the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to provide suitable areas for low density residential uses within selected areas of the Mississippi River corridor. Consistent with the provisions of the City's Wild and Scenic Ordinance (applicable to Island View Estates), the district imposes a minimum 2.5 acre lot size requirement. Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the City Council and Planning Commission to consider the possible adverse effects of the amendment. Their judgement should be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 3 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. The subject property lies within Planning District #1 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan specifically recommends that low density residential uses be developed in the area and that large scale plats (i.e., Island View Estates) be developed with 2.5 acre lots. Thus, the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property is considered consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously, the requested rezoning will not result in any additional dwelling units other than that which is currently allowed. In this regard, the proposed rezoning is not expected to overburden City service capacities or adversely impact the area. It is the opinion of our office that the requested rezoning and subsequent integration of the subject property into the Island View Estates subdivision satisfies the City's established rezoning evaluation criteria. Issues of land use are, however, considered matters of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Variances Lot Area and Width Requirements. In addition to the requested rezoning, the applicant has also requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area (21/2 acres) and width (150 feet) requirements. Specifically, the applicant has requested that Lot D, as shown on attached Exhibit C, be allowed a lot area of 2.1 acres and width of 142 feet. Variance Evaluation Criteria. According to Section 20-5-2.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district or area. 1. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. 2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot or building size, or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. 4 b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to any reasonable use. C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not the result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. e. The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. f. The request is not a use variance. g. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. Lot Area. The need for lot area variance relates directly to the proposed subdivision's intent of lessening the degree of lot area non -conformity of adjacent Island View Estates parcels. Thus, the requested variance represents a "trade off' of sorts whereby three grossly undersized lots (i.e., 1 acre) will be expanded in size, while a new 2.1 acre lot will be created. The following table summarizes existing and proposed lot areas of Block 4 of the Island View Estates subdivision which abuts the subject property. Lot No. Existing_ Proposed 1 45,000 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft. 2 45,000 sq. ft. 86,175 sq. ft. 3 48,000 sq. ft. 69,000 sq. ft. 4 48,000 sq. ft. 72,300 sq. ft. 5 82,650 sq. ft. 82,650 sq. ft. 6 51,300 sq. ft. 51,300 sq. ft. 7 48,600 sq. ft. 48,600 sq. ft. 8 61,550 sq. ft. 61,550 sq. ft. 9 54,000 sq. ft. 54,000 sq. ft. Property in Question 178,526 sq. ft. 91,476 sq. ft. 5 It is the opinion of our office that approval of the requested lot area variance is justified for the following reasons: A. Such variance will lessen existing lot area non -conformities which exist in the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The opportunity to address such non -conformities as part of the proposed subdivision represents a unique circumstance. B. Common sense dictates that the proposed subdivision presents lot configurations which are more functionally efficient than which currently exists. C. The requested 2.1 acre lot is generally consistent with adjacent single family lot sizes. D. Approval of the variance will not result in an overall increase in residential density in the area. Lot Width. The subject property currently measures 142 feet in width. While such width fails to comply with minimum R-1 District provisions, the width will effectively accommodate future single family home construction upon designated Lot D. The fact that such lot currently holds only 142 feet (greater than 75 percent of requirement) of width is not a result of actions of the applicant and therefore, represents a genuine hardship unique to the subject property. In this regard, approval of the requested lot width variance is considered justified. CONCLUSION While rezonings are considered matters of City policy, it is the opinion of our office that the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property satisfies the City's established criteria. If the City approves the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the requested lot area and width variance requests subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andrew MacArthur Wayne German 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MISSISSIPPI WRIGHT I& NORTH 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Ul Q W �1 F.— ./i IIH 311 � ►/i r/i Mw 3M1 !p r/t 3M OI Q — Q - r� v J w... W w z I I I I I O I zN Q I V J I a 2 S �a XPi � i o a� 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Q �1 z w Q - w... z 0 r/I ON 311 30 ./I 3n 3HL 30 3<1 LS3n F - cc 0 Z EXHIBIT C - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FEB 14 '95 ff':10 HAKANSCN ANDEFEON Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. February 14, 1995 Ms. Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Block 4, Island View Estates Dear Elaine: P.1 222 Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 fax 612/427-3401 We have reviewed the proposal to create a lot out of the outlot lying just south of Block 4 in Island View Estates. The proposed subdivision shows adding some portion of the outlot to existing lots in Block 4 and then making the remainder into a lot of record. The only issue that we need to address is drainage in Block 4. Previously, we required that a 100 year event storm flood level be established at elevation 955.0. We would not need to make a change in this level with addition of the proposed subdivision. We would prefer that the developers and/or residences in the subwatershed install an outlet pipe to the swale across Kolenda Avenue which flows to the Mississippi River. The basin presently is tiled, ho'�'vever, we cannot expect the the to be functional for many more years. Ultimately, the subwatershed will need a positive outlet. When the applicant and/or builder applies for a building permit, they will need topography on the area along with a drainage plan, septic tank +rainfield site plan, water well location and driveway culvert sizing. The creation of this plat should not interfere with future street p',arr.ing and traffic circulation issues. FEB 14 195 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON If you have further questions or comments, please contact me. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Law City /mic cc: File: Ice G/ K gineer Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office OT2116 P. :. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H kj 1_Did us]111411101 11111kyj TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 Attached please find our finalized report of the MRD preliminary plat request. Please distribute copies of the report to the Planning Commission and City Council. We have mailed copies to all other concerned parties. If you have any questions regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Ms. Mary Dare-Baufield has requested preliminary plat approval of -a multi -phase 8 lot commercial subdivision entitled MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition. The proposed plat is located south of County Road 39 between County Road 42 and Highway 101. The western one-half property currently holds an A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service Zoning Designation, while the eastern half (east of Christ Church) holds a B-2, Highway Commercial Zoning Designation. The B-2 zoning designation was applied in the mid 1970's in anticipation of a commercial retail center use. Obviously such development was never realized. The eastern portion of the site also lies within the Wild and Scenic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. To be specifically noted is that the applicant has not requested the rezoning of the property at this time due to possible property tax/financial implications. Any final platting of the property or portion of the property shall, however, be contingent upon the rezoning of the property. The applicant has indicated that a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is planned for the property. While the preliminary plat will be reviewed in comparison to such lot standards, no rights shall be vested upon the applicant in regard to the future zoning of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Floodplain Exhibit D - Transportation Plan Exhibit E - Previous Final Plat Submission Exhibit F - Preliminary Plat Recommendation Based on the following review of the submitted preliminary plat, it is evident that a number of outstanding issues remain which warrant immediate attention. In this regard, we consider approval of the preliminary plat as currently proposed unwarranted. Thus, our office recommends denial of the MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat. As an alternative action to denial, however, the City may wish to continue the public hearing (at the applicant's request) until such time as the following items have been addressed: 1. Final platting of all or a portion of the depicted lots shall be contingent upon submission of necessary rezoning applications and approval by the City Council. 2. The preliminary plat is reconfigured so as to comply with the City's Transportation Plan. Compliance with such plan will require the omission of the proposed half street and reconfiguration of Block 2 lots. 3. Per the recommendation of the City Engineer, only right-in/right-out lot access from County Road 42 is to be allowed. Preferable access location shall be subject to specific recommendation by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant specify particular lots to be phased and the proposed timing of phases. 5. In accordance with Subdivision Ordinance requirements, side lot lines are drawn at right angles to street lines and radial to curved street lines. 6. The City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department provide recommendation in regard to County Road 42 right-of-way dedication. 7. A grading and drainage plan be submitted. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. The City Park and Recreation Committee provide comment and recommendation in regard to park dedication requirements. 2 9. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to easement establishment. 10. The City Engineer provide comment as to the impact future sanitary sewer and water service will have upon the proposed subdivision and the need for the submission of a resubdivision plan. 11. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Project History. The MRD Commercial Park 1st Addition which lies north of the subject property consists of a single lot upon which the Bank of Elk River exists. At the time such lot was platted, the parcel was part of the property currently under consideration. The provisions of the LeFebrve Watershed District moratorium, however, prohibited preliminary plat consideration of the balance of the Dare property. In August of this year, the applicant requested rezoning/final plat approval of Lot 1, Block 2 as depicted upon the preliminary plat. Such application was withdrawn at the applicant's request in anticipation of an amendment to the Watershed District moratorium which would allow City consideration of preliminary plat and rezoning applications of properties within the Watershed District boundaries. In response to such amendment, preliminary plat has now been submitted for review. Zoning. In accordance with Section 21-6-2.E.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant has indicated a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is proposed to be applied to the subject property. As noted previously, the applicant has not, however, requested the formal zoning of any of the property in question. Thus, the proposed zoning designation shall be considered solely informational and shall not vest any rights upon the applicant. The applicant's suggested commercial zoning of the property is consistent with the City's adopted Land Use Plan which suggests commercial use of the property. To be noted is that the suggested B-3, General Business designation is consistent with that applied to the Elk River Bank property last year. Premature Development. In consideration of the previous final plat submission (see Exhibit E), staff raised question as to whether development of the subject property was premature. Specific issues raised related to the following: 1. Lot Configuration Acceptability. Considering that 86th Street as illustrated upon the preliminary plat is not consistent with the Transportation Plan, a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary. In this regard, questions regarding lot configuration remain. 3 FA- Northwest Associated Consultants},Inc. CURBAN PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH If,l 1 \I • ' 1 • � I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Attached please find our review of the Island View Estates rezoning and variance request. Please distribute co ies to eLCity Council and Planning Commission. We have mailed copies to Andy, Larry and Mr. German. This request is scheduled for public hearing on 15 February. Please call if you have any questions. UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 IV y EP 1�►� 1Ji.�J. ie 1�- �EI►:� Pll; u REc F LAII1�1E^ _ ELDa WISP UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT Mel FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis/David Licht 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Mr. Wayne German has expressed an intent to subdivide a 4.1 acre parcel of land lying directly south of the Island View Estates subdivision in such a manner whereby portions of the parcel would be conveyed to abutting single family residential lots within the said subdivision. To accommodate such lot division, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Rezoning of property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service District. 2. Variance to allow a lot less than 2.5 acres in area within an R-1 Zoning District (2.1 acre lot area proposed). 3. Variance to allow a lot width less than 150 feet in an R-1 Zoning District (142 foot lot width proposed). 4. Formal subdivision of the property (preliminary and final plat). At this time, the applicant has requested only consideration of the aforementioned rezoning and variance requests. Thus, any variance approvals will be contingent upon the ultimate subdivision of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Conceptual Subdivision Plan Recommendation The requested R-1 zoning of the subject site is consistent with the provisions of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan). While it is the opinion of our office that the rezoning of the site satisfies applicable rezoning evaluation criteria, rezoning matters remain issues of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Based on the following review, our office recommends the following: 1. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 2. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot width requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 4 ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Development Rights. The subject 4.1 acre parcel of land exists as a legal lot of record. While such lot fails to meet density requirements of the applicable A-1 zoning designation (1 dwelling unit per 40 acres), the property does hold a legal development right. To be specifically noted in regard to the subject application is that the applicant has proposed simply to convey portions of the parcel to adjacent single family lots and that no additional dwelling units, other than that legally allowed at this time, would result from the proposed subdivision. Rezoning R-1 District Purpose. As noted previously, the rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service will be necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Such zoning designation would represent a southerly extension of the R-1 District currently applied to the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to provide suitable areas for low density residential uses within selected areas of the Mississippi River corridor. Consistent with the provisions of the City's Wild and Scenic Ordinance (applicable to Island View Estates), the district imposes a minimum 2.5 acre lot size requirement. Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the City Council and Planning Commission to consider the possible adverse effects of the amendment. Their judgement should be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 3 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. The subject property lies within Planning District #1 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan specifically recommends that low density residential uses be developed in the area and that large scale plats (i.e., Island View Estates) be developed with 2.5 acre lots. Thus, the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property is considered consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously, the requested rezoning will not result in any additional dwelling units other than that which is currently allowed. In this regard, the proposed rezoning is not expected to overburden City service capacities or adversely impact the area. It is the opinion of our office that the requested rezoning and subsequent integration of the subject property into the Island View Estates subdivision satisfies the City's established rezoning evaluation criteria. Issues of land use are, however, considered matters of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Variances Lot Area and Width Requirements. In addition to the requested rezoning, the applicant has also requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area (21/2 acres) and width (150 feet) requirements. Specifically, the applicant has requested that Lot D, as shown on attached Exhibit C, be allowed a lot area of 2.1 acres and width of 142 feet. Variance Evaluation Criteria. According to Section 20-5-2.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district or area. 1. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. 2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot or building size, or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. 4 b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to any reasonable use. C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not the result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. e. The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. f. The request is not a use variance. g. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. Lot Area. The need for lot area variance relates directly to the proposed subdivision's intent of lessening the degree of lot area non -conformity of adjacent Island View Estates parcels. Thus, the requested variance represents a "trade off' of sorts whereby three grossly undersized lots (i.e., 1 acre) will be expanded in size, while a new 2.1 acre lot will be created. The following table summarizes existing and proposed lot areas of Block 4 of the Island View Estates subdivision which abuts the subject property. Lot No. Existing_ Proposed 1 45,000 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft. 2 45,000 sq. ft. 86,175 sq. ft. 3 48,000 sq. ft. 69,000 sq. ft. 4 48,000 sq. ft. 72,300 sq. ft. 5 82,650 sq. ft. 82,650 sq. ft. 6 51,300 sq. ft. 51,300 sq. ft. 7 48,600 sq. ft. 48,600 sq. ft. 8 61,550 sq. ft. 61,550 sq. ft. 9 54,000 sq. ft. 54,000 sq. ft. Property in Question 178,526 sq. ft. 91,476 sq. ft. 5 It is the opinion of our office that approval of the requested lot area variance is justified for the following reasons: A. Such variance will lessen existing lot area non -conformities which exist in the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The opportunity to address such non -conformities as part of the proposed subdivision represents a unique circumstance. B. Common sense dictates that the proposed subdivision presents lot configurations which are more functionally efficient than which currently exists. C. The requested 2.1 acre lot is generally consistent with adjacent single family lot sizes. D. Approval of the variance will not result in an overall increase in residential density in the area. Lot Width. The subject property currently measures 142 feet in width. While such width fails to comply with minimum R-1 District provisions, the width will effectively accommodate future single family home construction upon designated Lot D. The fact that such lot currently holds only 142 feet (greater than 75 percent of requirement) of width is not a result of actions of the applicant and therefore, represents a genuine hardship unique to the subject property. In this regard, approval of the requested lot width variance is considered justified. CONCLUSION While rezonings are considered matters of City policy, it is the opinion of our office that the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property satisfies the City's established criteria. If the City approves the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the requested lot area and width variance requests subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andrew MacArthur Wayne German 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MISSISSIPPI WRIGHT I& NORTH 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Ul Q W �1 F.— ./i IIH 311 � ►/i r/i Mw 3M1 !p r/t 3M OI Q — Q - r� v J w... W w z I I I I I O I zN Q I V J I a 2 S �a XPi � i o a� 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Q �1 z w Q - w... z 0 r/I ON 311 30 ./I 3n 3HL 30 3<1 LS3n F - cc 0 Z EXHIBIT C - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FEB 14 '95 ff':10 HAKANSCN ANDEFEON Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. February 14, 1995 Ms. Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Block 4, Island View Estates Dear Elaine: P.1 222 Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 fax 612/427-3401 We have reviewed the proposal to create a lot out of the outlot lying just south of Block 4 in Island View Estates. The proposed subdivision shows adding some portion of the outlot to existing lots in Block 4 and then making the remainder into a lot of record. The only issue that we need to address is drainage in Block 4. Previously, we required that a 100 year event storm flood level be established at elevation 955.0. We would not need to make a change in this level with addition of the proposed subdivision. We would prefer that the developers and/or residences in the subwatershed install an outlet pipe to the swale across Kolenda Avenue which flows to the Mississippi River. The basin presently is tiled, ho'�'vever, we cannot expect the the to be functional for many more years. Ultimately, the subwatershed will need a positive outlet. When the applicant and/or builder applies for a building permit, they will need topography on the area along with a drainage plan, septic tank +rainfield site plan, water well location and driveway culvert sizing. The creation of this plat should not interfere with future street p',arr.ing and traffic circulation issues. FEB 14 195 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON If you have further questions or comments, please contact me. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Law City /mic cc: File: Ice G/ K gineer Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office OT2116 P. :. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H kj 1_Did us]111411101 11111kyj TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 Attached please find our finalized report of the MRD preliminary plat request. Please distribute copies of the report to the Planning Commission and City Council. We have mailed copies to all other concerned parties. If you have any questions regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Ms. Mary Dare-Baufield has requested preliminary plat approval of -a multi -phase 8 lot commercial subdivision entitled MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition. The proposed plat is located south of County Road 39 between County Road 42 and Highway 101. The western one-half property currently holds an A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service Zoning Designation, while the eastern half (east of Christ Church) holds a B-2, Highway Commercial Zoning Designation. The B-2 zoning designation was applied in the mid 1970's in anticipation of a commercial retail center use. Obviously such development was never realized. The eastern portion of the site also lies within the Wild and Scenic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. To be specifically noted is that the applicant has not requested the rezoning of the property at this time due to possible property tax/financial implications. Any final platting of the property or portion of the property shall, however, be contingent upon the rezoning of the property. The applicant has indicated that a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is planned for the property. While the preliminary plat will be reviewed in comparison to such lot standards, no rights shall be vested upon the applicant in regard to the future zoning of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Floodplain Exhibit D - Transportation Plan Exhibit E - Previous Final Plat Submission Exhibit F - Preliminary Plat Recommendation Based on the following review of the submitted preliminary plat, it is evident that a number of outstanding issues remain which warrant immediate attention. In this regard, we consider approval of the preliminary plat as currently proposed unwarranted. Thus, our office recommends denial of the MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat. As an alternative action to denial, however, the City may wish to continue the public hearing (at the applicant's request) until such time as the following items have been addressed: 1. Final platting of all or a portion of the depicted lots shall be contingent upon submission of necessary rezoning applications and approval by the City Council. 2. The preliminary plat is reconfigured so as to comply with the City's Transportation Plan. Compliance with such plan will require the omission of the proposed half street and reconfiguration of Block 2 lots. 3. Per the recommendation of the City Engineer, only right-in/right-out lot access from County Road 42 is to be allowed. Preferable access location shall be subject to specific recommendation by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant specify particular lots to be phased and the proposed timing of phases. 5. In accordance with Subdivision Ordinance requirements, side lot lines are drawn at right angles to street lines and radial to curved street lines. 6. The City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department provide recommendation in regard to County Road 42 right-of-way dedication. 7. A grading and drainage plan be submitted. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. The City Park and Recreation Committee provide comment and recommendation in regard to park dedication requirements. 2 9. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to easement establishment. 10. The City Engineer provide comment as to the impact future sanitary sewer and water service will have upon the proposed subdivision and the need for the submission of a resubdivision plan. 11. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Project History. The MRD Commercial Park 1st Addition which lies north of the subject property consists of a single lot upon which the Bank of Elk River exists. At the time such lot was platted, the parcel was part of the property currently under consideration. The provisions of the LeFebrve Watershed District moratorium, however, prohibited preliminary plat consideration of the balance of the Dare property. In August of this year, the applicant requested rezoning/final plat approval of Lot 1, Block 2 as depicted upon the preliminary plat. Such application was withdrawn at the applicant's request in anticipation of an amendment to the Watershed District moratorium which would allow City consideration of preliminary plat and rezoning applications of properties within the Watershed District boundaries. In response to such amendment, preliminary plat has now been submitted for review. Zoning. In accordance with Section 21-6-2.E.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant has indicated a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is proposed to be applied to the subject property. As noted previously, the applicant has not, however, requested the formal zoning of any of the property in question. Thus, the proposed zoning designation shall be considered solely informational and shall not vest any rights upon the applicant. The applicant's suggested commercial zoning of the property is consistent with the City's adopted Land Use Plan which suggests commercial use of the property. To be noted is that the suggested B-3, General Business designation is consistent with that applied to the Elk River Bank property last year. Premature Development. In consideration of the previous final plat submission (see Exhibit E), staff raised question as to whether development of the subject property was premature. Specific issues raised related to the following: 1. Lot Configuration Acceptability. Considering that 86th Street as illustrated upon the preliminary plat is not consistent with the Transportation Plan, a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary. In this regard, questions regarding lot configuration remain. 3 2. Demonstration of Future Subdivision of Outlot A. The submission of the preliminary plat demonstrates a manner in which Outlot A as depicted on the previous final plat submission may be developed. 3. Compliance with Pending Transportation Plan. Since consideration of the previous final plat, the Transportation Plan has been formally adopted. 4. Determination of Floodplain Buildability (Outlot A). At the City Council's directive, the City Engineer has investigated the financial implications of developing floodplain areas of the subject site. The study basically substantiated the conceptual location of roadways depicted upon the Transportation Plan. While a number of the above cited items have been addressed, significant concern remains with regard to lot configuration and compliance with the City's Transportation Plan. These issues will be discussed further in latter sections of this report. Transportation Plan. In consideration of the original MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition plat submission in August of 1994, concern was voiced over the development's consistency with the City's Transportation Plan for the area, which had not received final approval at that time. In January of this year, the City adopted a Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 in which the subject property lies. The plan, attached as Exhibit C, has been made part of the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to identify preferred street routings in the area. As noted on the adopted Transportation Plan, a future local street intersection with Quaday Avenue has been proposed south of the subject property. Contrary to this alignment, the preliminary plat proposes the dedication of a half street along the subject property's southern property line. According to Section 21-7-7 J of the Subdivision Ordinance, half streets are to be prohibited except where practical to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. Generally speaking, the dedication of half streets is not considered preferred planning practice. As no guarantees exist in regard to full street construction, such streets further raise assessment problems. So as to fully comply with the City's adopted Transportation Plan for the area, 86th Street as depicted upon the preliminary plat should be omitted and lots within Block 2 should be rearranged accordingly. Blocks. According to Section 20-7-3.0 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, blocks intended for business or industrial uses shall be of a width considered most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking, deliveries and loading. Provided that necessary filling is accomplished within Block 1, ample width will exist to accommodate typical uses allowed in the B-3 Zoning District. Due to the necessary reconfiguration of lots within Block 2, a determination of lot/block depth appropriateness cannot be made at this time. El 2. Demonstration of Future Subdivision of Outlot A. The submission of the preliminary plat demonstrates a manner in which Outlot A as depicted on the previous final plat submission may be developed. 3. Compliance with Pending Transportation Plan. Since consideration of the previous final plat, the Transportation Plan has been formally adopted. 4. Determination of Floodplain Buildability (Outlot A). At the City Council's directive, the City Engineer has investigated the financial implications of developing floodplain areas of the subject site. The study basically substantiated the conceptual location of roadways depicted upon the Transportation Plan. While a number of the above cited items have been addressed, significant concern remains with regard to lot configuration and compliance with the City's Transportation Plan. These issues will be discussed further in latter sections of this report. Transportation Plan. In consideration of the original MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition plat submission in August of 1994, concern was voiced over the development's consistency with the City's Transportation Plan for the area, which had not received final approval at that time. In January of this year, the City adopted a Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 in which the subject property lies. The plan, attached as Exhibit C, has been made part of the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to identify preferred street routings in the area. As noted on the adopted Transportation Plan, a future local street intersection with Quaday Avenue has been proposed south of the subject property. Contrary to this alignment, the preliminary plat proposes the dedication of a half street along the subject property's southern property line. According to Section 21-7-7 J of the Subdivision Ordinance, half streets are to be prohibited except where practical to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. Generally speaking, the dedication of half streets is not considered preferred planning practice. As no guarantees exist in regard to full street construction, such streets further raise assessment problems. So as to fully comply with the City's adopted Transportation Plan for the area, 86th Street as depicted upon the preliminary plat should be omitted and lots within Block 2 should be rearranged accordingly. Blocks. According to Section 20-7-3.0 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, blocks intended for business or industrial uses shall be of a width considered most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking, deliveries and loading. Provided that necessary filling is accomplished within Block 1, ample width will exist to accommodate typical uses allowed in the B-3 Zoning District. Due to the necessary reconfiguration of lots within Block 2, a determination of lot/block depth appropriateness cannot be made at this time. El Lot Area. Lots within the preliminary plat range in size from 2.0 to 5.0 acres in size. All lots exceed minimum 1 acre lot size requirements imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts. Lot Width. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within B-3 Zoning Districts must not be less than 200 feet in width. Generally speaking, all lots meet or exceed the 200 foot lot width requirement. The minimal amount of street frontage provided Lot 5, Block 2 from 86th Street is considered moot as 86th Street as currently depicted will need to be removed from the plat (to comply with the Transportation Plan). Quaday Avenue. Quaday Avenue as depicted upon the preliminary plat exists as a southerly extension of 88th Street. The said street is a designated Municipal State Aid (MSA) Roadway and is specifically depicted upon the Transportation Plan. In accordance with City street design standards, an 80 foot wide right-of-way has been proposed. Property Access. The City Engineer has recommended that direct lot access from County Road 42 be limited to a right-in/right-out arrangement. Preferable access location should be subject to further recommendation by the City Engineer. Lot Configuration. While it is acknowledged that a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary to accommodate the removal of 86th Street (as currently depicted), it is considered appropriate to note a lot configuration concern. According to Section 21-7-4.B of the Subdivision Ordinance, side lot lines must be at right angles to street lines, radial to curved street lines unless the City Engineer finds a deviation acceptable. Such provision is considered applicable to the northern boundary of Lot 3, Block 2 and the western boundary of Lot 4, Block 2 where this provision has not been satisfied. Setbacks. The submitted preliminary plat illustrates anticipated B-3 District setback requirements. All lots demonstrate an ability to meet such setbacks as identified below: Requirement Front Yard 65 feet from State/County Highway 35 feet from local road Side Yard 20 feet Rear Yard 20 feet County Road Right -of -Way Dedication. As shown on the submitted final plat, a total right-of- way width of 100 feet has been provided for County Road 42. The acceptability of such width and the need for any additional dedication should be subject to further comment by both Wright County Highway Department and the City Engineer. 5 Land Trade. As shown on Exhibit F, a portion of the preliminary plat is to be acquired via land trade. Specifically, a triangular shaped portion of the adjoining Kolles property has been proposed to be added to the Lot 5, Block 2. If any land trade is to be included in the preliminary plat, it should be so described in the property legal description. It should be further noted that the proposed land trade is not endorsed by staff and should be a moot point pending the omission of 86th Street. Floodplain/Wild and Scenic District. As shown on Exhibits B and C, the subject property lies partially within the Mississippi Rivers 100 year floodplain and the boundaries of the Wild and Scenic District. Any development upon the included sites will need to comply with the applicable provisions of the Floodplain and Wild and Scenic Ordinance. Grading and Drainage. To date a grading and drainage plan for the subject property has not been received. As specified by the City's plat submission requirements, a specific grading and drainage plan should be submitted. Section 21-6-2.C.13 of the Ordinance stipulates that such grading plan should illustrate one foot contours and include provisions for surface water ponding and drainage. Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Easements. As required by the City Subdivision Ordinance, 10 foot wide drainage and utility widths have been appropriately provided along lot lines. The City Engineer should provide comment as to the need to establish any additional easements. Parks. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, 10 percent of the gross area of all new subdivisions (or a different percentage determined by the City Council) must be dedicated for public recreation space or other public use as determined by the City Council. If in the opinion of the City, a land dedication is deemed inappropriate, a cash contribution may be required. Specific park dedication requirements should be subject to recommendation by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Phasing. According to the submitted preliminary plat, a portion of the proposed lots are intended to be final platted in future phases. The plat does not, however, indicate which lots are to be phased nor the intended timing of such phases. This should be specified as a condition of preliminary plat approval. Sewer and Water Service. It is anticipated that, at some future point, public sewer and water service will be available to commercial properties along the Highway 101 corridor. According to Section 21-6-2.E.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance, large or excessively deep lots which may be subject to replat should indicate a logical way in which resubdivision could occur in the future. This item and the need for a resubdivision plan submission should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. N CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, it is concluded that a number of significant, outstanding issues remain with the proposed preliminary plat. In this regard, we recommend denial of the preliminary plat unless a continuance of the public hearing is requested by the applicant and the items listed within the Executive Summary of this report are satisfactorily addressed. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andy MacArthur Wally Klus Mary Dare Baufield Pastor Greg Pagh 7 SCALE IN FEET 0 2000 4000 6000 Prepared by: rw© -SI a ed onsullants, inc. Base Map by: Ankerson Anderson Assoc., Inc. .m P CITY OF TSEGO FqON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD FA- Northwest Associated Consultants},Inc. CURBAN PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH If,l 1 \I • ' 1 • � I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Attached please find our review of the Island View Estates rezoning and variance request. Please distribute co ies to eLCity Council and Planning Commission. We have mailed copies to Andy, Larry and Mr. German. This request is scheduled for public hearing on 15 February. Please call if you have any questions. UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 IV y EP 1�►� 1Ji.�J. ie 1�- �EI►:� Pll; u REc F LAII1�1E^ _ ELDa WISP UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT Mel FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis/David Licht 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Mr. Wayne German has expressed an intent to subdivide a 4.1 acre parcel of land lying directly south of the Island View Estates subdivision in such a manner whereby portions of the parcel would be conveyed to abutting single family residential lots within the said subdivision. To accommodate such lot division, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Rezoning of property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service District. 2. Variance to allow a lot less than 2.5 acres in area within an R-1 Zoning District (2.1 acre lot area proposed). 3. Variance to allow a lot width less than 150 feet in an R-1 Zoning District (142 foot lot width proposed). 4. Formal subdivision of the property (preliminary and final plat). At this time, the applicant has requested only consideration of the aforementioned rezoning and variance requests. Thus, any variance approvals will be contingent upon the ultimate subdivision of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Conceptual Subdivision Plan Recommendation The requested R-1 zoning of the subject site is consistent with the provisions of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan). While it is the opinion of our office that the rezoning of the site satisfies applicable rezoning evaluation criteria, rezoning matters remain issues of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Based on the following review, our office recommends the following: 1. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 2. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot width requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 4 ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Development Rights. The subject 4.1 acre parcel of land exists as a legal lot of record. While such lot fails to meet density requirements of the applicable A-1 zoning designation (1 dwelling unit per 40 acres), the property does hold a legal development right. To be specifically noted in regard to the subject application is that the applicant has proposed simply to convey portions of the parcel to adjacent single family lots and that no additional dwelling units, other than that legally allowed at this time, would result from the proposed subdivision. Rezoning R-1 District Purpose. As noted previously, the rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service will be necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Such zoning designation would represent a southerly extension of the R-1 District currently applied to the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to provide suitable areas for low density residential uses within selected areas of the Mississippi River corridor. Consistent with the provisions of the City's Wild and Scenic Ordinance (applicable to Island View Estates), the district imposes a minimum 2.5 acre lot size requirement. Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the City Council and Planning Commission to consider the possible adverse effects of the amendment. Their judgement should be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 3 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. The subject property lies within Planning District #1 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan specifically recommends that low density residential uses be developed in the area and that large scale plats (i.e., Island View Estates) be developed with 2.5 acre lots. Thus, the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property is considered consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously, the requested rezoning will not result in any additional dwelling units other than that which is currently allowed. In this regard, the proposed rezoning is not expected to overburden City service capacities or adversely impact the area. It is the opinion of our office that the requested rezoning and subsequent integration of the subject property into the Island View Estates subdivision satisfies the City's established rezoning evaluation criteria. Issues of land use are, however, considered matters of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Variances Lot Area and Width Requirements. In addition to the requested rezoning, the applicant has also requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area (21/2 acres) and width (150 feet) requirements. Specifically, the applicant has requested that Lot D, as shown on attached Exhibit C, be allowed a lot area of 2.1 acres and width of 142 feet. Variance Evaluation Criteria. According to Section 20-5-2.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district or area. 1. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. 2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot or building size, or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. 4 b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to any reasonable use. C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not the result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. e. The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. f. The request is not a use variance. g. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. Lot Area. The need for lot area variance relates directly to the proposed subdivision's intent of lessening the degree of lot area non -conformity of adjacent Island View Estates parcels. Thus, the requested variance represents a "trade off' of sorts whereby three grossly undersized lots (i.e., 1 acre) will be expanded in size, while a new 2.1 acre lot will be created. The following table summarizes existing and proposed lot areas of Block 4 of the Island View Estates subdivision which abuts the subject property. Lot No. Existing_ Proposed 1 45,000 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft. 2 45,000 sq. ft. 86,175 sq. ft. 3 48,000 sq. ft. 69,000 sq. ft. 4 48,000 sq. ft. 72,300 sq. ft. 5 82,650 sq. ft. 82,650 sq. ft. 6 51,300 sq. ft. 51,300 sq. ft. 7 48,600 sq. ft. 48,600 sq. ft. 8 61,550 sq. ft. 61,550 sq. ft. 9 54,000 sq. ft. 54,000 sq. ft. Property in Question 178,526 sq. ft. 91,476 sq. ft. 5 It is the opinion of our office that approval of the requested lot area variance is justified for the following reasons: A. Such variance will lessen existing lot area non -conformities which exist in the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The opportunity to address such non -conformities as part of the proposed subdivision represents a unique circumstance. B. Common sense dictates that the proposed subdivision presents lot configurations which are more functionally efficient than which currently exists. C. The requested 2.1 acre lot is generally consistent with adjacent single family lot sizes. D. Approval of the variance will not result in an overall increase in residential density in the area. Lot Width. The subject property currently measures 142 feet in width. While such width fails to comply with minimum R-1 District provisions, the width will effectively accommodate future single family home construction upon designated Lot D. The fact that such lot currently holds only 142 feet (greater than 75 percent of requirement) of width is not a result of actions of the applicant and therefore, represents a genuine hardship unique to the subject property. In this regard, approval of the requested lot width variance is considered justified. CONCLUSION While rezonings are considered matters of City policy, it is the opinion of our office that the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property satisfies the City's established criteria. If the City approves the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the requested lot area and width variance requests subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andrew MacArthur Wayne German 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MISSISSIPPI WRIGHT I& NORTH 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Ul Q W �1 F.— ./i IIH 311 � ►/i r/i Mw 3M1 !p r/t 3M OI Q — Q - r� v J w... W w z I I I I I O I zN Q I V J I a 2 S �a XPi � i o a� 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Q �1 z w Q - w... z 0 r/I ON 311 30 ./I 3n 3HL 30 3<1 LS3n F - cc 0 Z EXHIBIT C - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FEB 14 '95 ff':10 HAKANSCN ANDEFEON Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. February 14, 1995 Ms. Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Block 4, Island View Estates Dear Elaine: P.1 222 Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 fax 612/427-3401 We have reviewed the proposal to create a lot out of the outlot lying just south of Block 4 in Island View Estates. The proposed subdivision shows adding some portion of the outlot to existing lots in Block 4 and then making the remainder into a lot of record. The only issue that we need to address is drainage in Block 4. Previously, we required that a 100 year event storm flood level be established at elevation 955.0. We would not need to make a change in this level with addition of the proposed subdivision. We would prefer that the developers and/or residences in the subwatershed install an outlet pipe to the swale across Kolenda Avenue which flows to the Mississippi River. The basin presently is tiled, ho'�'vever, we cannot expect the the to be functional for many more years. Ultimately, the subwatershed will need a positive outlet. When the applicant and/or builder applies for a building permit, they will need topography on the area along with a drainage plan, septic tank +rainfield site plan, water well location and driveway culvert sizing. The creation of this plat should not interfere with future street p',arr.ing and traffic circulation issues. FEB 14 195 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON If you have further questions or comments, please contact me. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Law City /mic cc: File: Ice G/ K gineer Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office OT2116 P. :. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H kj 1_Did us]111411101 11111kyj TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 Attached please find our finalized report of the MRD preliminary plat request. Please distribute copies of the report to the Planning Commission and City Council. We have mailed copies to all other concerned parties. If you have any questions regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Ms. Mary Dare-Baufield has requested preliminary plat approval of -a multi -phase 8 lot commercial subdivision entitled MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition. The proposed plat is located south of County Road 39 between County Road 42 and Highway 101. The western one-half property currently holds an A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service Zoning Designation, while the eastern half (east of Christ Church) holds a B-2, Highway Commercial Zoning Designation. The B-2 zoning designation was applied in the mid 1970's in anticipation of a commercial retail center use. Obviously such development was never realized. The eastern portion of the site also lies within the Wild and Scenic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. To be specifically noted is that the applicant has not requested the rezoning of the property at this time due to possible property tax/financial implications. Any final platting of the property or portion of the property shall, however, be contingent upon the rezoning of the property. The applicant has indicated that a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is planned for the property. While the preliminary plat will be reviewed in comparison to such lot standards, no rights shall be vested upon the applicant in regard to the future zoning of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Floodplain Exhibit D - Transportation Plan Exhibit E - Previous Final Plat Submission Exhibit F - Preliminary Plat Recommendation Based on the following review of the submitted preliminary plat, it is evident that a number of outstanding issues remain which warrant immediate attention. In this regard, we consider approval of the preliminary plat as currently proposed unwarranted. Thus, our office recommends denial of the MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat. As an alternative action to denial, however, the City may wish to continue the public hearing (at the applicant's request) until such time as the following items have been addressed: 1. Final platting of all or a portion of the depicted lots shall be contingent upon submission of necessary rezoning applications and approval by the City Council. 2. The preliminary plat is reconfigured so as to comply with the City's Transportation Plan. Compliance with such plan will require the omission of the proposed half street and reconfiguration of Block 2 lots. 3. Per the recommendation of the City Engineer, only right-in/right-out lot access from County Road 42 is to be allowed. Preferable access location shall be subject to specific recommendation by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant specify particular lots to be phased and the proposed timing of phases. 5. In accordance with Subdivision Ordinance requirements, side lot lines are drawn at right angles to street lines and radial to curved street lines. 6. The City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department provide recommendation in regard to County Road 42 right-of-way dedication. 7. A grading and drainage plan be submitted. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. The City Park and Recreation Committee provide comment and recommendation in regard to park dedication requirements. 2 9. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to easement establishment. 10. The City Engineer provide comment as to the impact future sanitary sewer and water service will have upon the proposed subdivision and the need for the submission of a resubdivision plan. 11. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Project History. The MRD Commercial Park 1st Addition which lies north of the subject property consists of a single lot upon which the Bank of Elk River exists. At the time such lot was platted, the parcel was part of the property currently under consideration. The provisions of the LeFebrve Watershed District moratorium, however, prohibited preliminary plat consideration of the balance of the Dare property. In August of this year, the applicant requested rezoning/final plat approval of Lot 1, Block 2 as depicted upon the preliminary plat. Such application was withdrawn at the applicant's request in anticipation of an amendment to the Watershed District moratorium which would allow City consideration of preliminary plat and rezoning applications of properties within the Watershed District boundaries. In response to such amendment, preliminary plat has now been submitted for review. Zoning. In accordance with Section 21-6-2.E.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant has indicated a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is proposed to be applied to the subject property. As noted previously, the applicant has not, however, requested the formal zoning of any of the property in question. Thus, the proposed zoning designation shall be considered solely informational and shall not vest any rights upon the applicant. The applicant's suggested commercial zoning of the property is consistent with the City's adopted Land Use Plan which suggests commercial use of the property. To be noted is that the suggested B-3, General Business designation is consistent with that applied to the Elk River Bank property last year. Premature Development. In consideration of the previous final plat submission (see Exhibit E), staff raised question as to whether development of the subject property was premature. Specific issues raised related to the following: 1. Lot Configuration Acceptability. Considering that 86th Street as illustrated upon the preliminary plat is not consistent with the Transportation Plan, a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary. In this regard, questions regarding lot configuration remain. 3 2. Demonstration of Future Subdivision of Outlot A. The submission of the preliminary plat demonstrates a manner in which Outlot A as depicted on the previous final plat submission may be developed. 3. Compliance with Pending Transportation Plan. Since consideration of the previous final plat, the Transportation Plan has been formally adopted. 4. Determination of Floodplain Buildability (Outlot A). At the City Council's directive, the City Engineer has investigated the financial implications of developing floodplain areas of the subject site. The study basically substantiated the conceptual location of roadways depicted upon the Transportation Plan. While a number of the above cited items have been addressed, significant concern remains with regard to lot configuration and compliance with the City's Transportation Plan. These issues will be discussed further in latter sections of this report. Transportation Plan. In consideration of the original MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition plat submission in August of 1994, concern was voiced over the development's consistency with the City's Transportation Plan for the area, which had not received final approval at that time. In January of this year, the City adopted a Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 in which the subject property lies. The plan, attached as Exhibit C, has been made part of the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to identify preferred street routings in the area. As noted on the adopted Transportation Plan, a future local street intersection with Quaday Avenue has been proposed south of the subject property. Contrary to this alignment, the preliminary plat proposes the dedication of a half street along the subject property's southern property line. According to Section 21-7-7 J of the Subdivision Ordinance, half streets are to be prohibited except where practical to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. Generally speaking, the dedication of half streets is not considered preferred planning practice. As no guarantees exist in regard to full street construction, such streets further raise assessment problems. So as to fully comply with the City's adopted Transportation Plan for the area, 86th Street as depicted upon the preliminary plat should be omitted and lots within Block 2 should be rearranged accordingly. Blocks. According to Section 20-7-3.0 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, blocks intended for business or industrial uses shall be of a width considered most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking, deliveries and loading. Provided that necessary filling is accomplished within Block 1, ample width will exist to accommodate typical uses allowed in the B-3 Zoning District. Due to the necessary reconfiguration of lots within Block 2, a determination of lot/block depth appropriateness cannot be made at this time. El 2. Demonstration of Future Subdivision of Outlot A. The submission of the preliminary plat demonstrates a manner in which Outlot A as depicted on the previous final plat submission may be developed. 3. Compliance with Pending Transportation Plan. Since consideration of the previous final plat, the Transportation Plan has been formally adopted. 4. Determination of Floodplain Buildability (Outlot A). At the City Council's directive, the City Engineer has investigated the financial implications of developing floodplain areas of the subject site. The study basically substantiated the conceptual location of roadways depicted upon the Transportation Plan. While a number of the above cited items have been addressed, significant concern remains with regard to lot configuration and compliance with the City's Transportation Plan. These issues will be discussed further in latter sections of this report. Transportation Plan. In consideration of the original MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition plat submission in August of 1994, concern was voiced over the development's consistency with the City's Transportation Plan for the area, which had not received final approval at that time. In January of this year, the City adopted a Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 in which the subject property lies. The plan, attached as Exhibit C, has been made part of the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to identify preferred street routings in the area. As noted on the adopted Transportation Plan, a future local street intersection with Quaday Avenue has been proposed south of the subject property. Contrary to this alignment, the preliminary plat proposes the dedication of a half street along the subject property's southern property line. According to Section 21-7-7 J of the Subdivision Ordinance, half streets are to be prohibited except where practical to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. Generally speaking, the dedication of half streets is not considered preferred planning practice. As no guarantees exist in regard to full street construction, such streets further raise assessment problems. So as to fully comply with the City's adopted Transportation Plan for the area, 86th Street as depicted upon the preliminary plat should be omitted and lots within Block 2 should be rearranged accordingly. Blocks. According to Section 20-7-3.0 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, blocks intended for business or industrial uses shall be of a width considered most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking, deliveries and loading. Provided that necessary filling is accomplished within Block 1, ample width will exist to accommodate typical uses allowed in the B-3 Zoning District. Due to the necessary reconfiguration of lots within Block 2, a determination of lot/block depth appropriateness cannot be made at this time. El Lot Area. Lots within the preliminary plat range in size from 2.0 to 5.0 acres in size. All lots exceed minimum 1 acre lot size requirements imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts. Lot Width. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within B-3 Zoning Districts must not be less than 200 feet in width. Generally speaking, all lots meet or exceed the 200 foot lot width requirement. The minimal amount of street frontage provided Lot 5, Block 2 from 86th Street is considered moot as 86th Street as currently depicted will need to be removed from the plat (to comply with the Transportation Plan). Quaday Avenue. Quaday Avenue as depicted upon the preliminary plat exists as a southerly extension of 88th Street. The said street is a designated Municipal State Aid (MSA) Roadway and is specifically depicted upon the Transportation Plan. In accordance with City street design standards, an 80 foot wide right-of-way has been proposed. Property Access. The City Engineer has recommended that direct lot access from County Road 42 be limited to a right-in/right-out arrangement. Preferable access location should be subject to further recommendation by the City Engineer. Lot Configuration. While it is acknowledged that a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary to accommodate the removal of 86th Street (as currently depicted), it is considered appropriate to note a lot configuration concern. According to Section 21-7-4.B of the Subdivision Ordinance, side lot lines must be at right angles to street lines, radial to curved street lines unless the City Engineer finds a deviation acceptable. Such provision is considered applicable to the northern boundary of Lot 3, Block 2 and the western boundary of Lot 4, Block 2 where this provision has not been satisfied. Setbacks. The submitted preliminary plat illustrates anticipated B-3 District setback requirements. All lots demonstrate an ability to meet such setbacks as identified below: Requirement Front Yard 65 feet from State/County Highway 35 feet from local road Side Yard 20 feet Rear Yard 20 feet County Road Right -of -Way Dedication. As shown on the submitted final plat, a total right-of- way width of 100 feet has been provided for County Road 42. The acceptability of such width and the need for any additional dedication should be subject to further comment by both Wright County Highway Department and the City Engineer. 5 Land Trade. As shown on Exhibit F, a portion of the preliminary plat is to be acquired via land trade. Specifically, a triangular shaped portion of the adjoining Kolles property has been proposed to be added to the Lot 5, Block 2. If any land trade is to be included in the preliminary plat, it should be so described in the property legal description. It should be further noted that the proposed land trade is not endorsed by staff and should be a moot point pending the omission of 86th Street. Floodplain/Wild and Scenic District. As shown on Exhibits B and C, the subject property lies partially within the Mississippi Rivers 100 year floodplain and the boundaries of the Wild and Scenic District. Any development upon the included sites will need to comply with the applicable provisions of the Floodplain and Wild and Scenic Ordinance. Grading and Drainage. To date a grading and drainage plan for the subject property has not been received. As specified by the City's plat submission requirements, a specific grading and drainage plan should be submitted. Section 21-6-2.C.13 of the Ordinance stipulates that such grading plan should illustrate one foot contours and include provisions for surface water ponding and drainage. Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Easements. As required by the City Subdivision Ordinance, 10 foot wide drainage and utility widths have been appropriately provided along lot lines. The City Engineer should provide comment as to the need to establish any additional easements. Parks. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, 10 percent of the gross area of all new subdivisions (or a different percentage determined by the City Council) must be dedicated for public recreation space or other public use as determined by the City Council. If in the opinion of the City, a land dedication is deemed inappropriate, a cash contribution may be required. Specific park dedication requirements should be subject to recommendation by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Phasing. According to the submitted preliminary plat, a portion of the proposed lots are intended to be final platted in future phases. The plat does not, however, indicate which lots are to be phased nor the intended timing of such phases. This should be specified as a condition of preliminary plat approval. Sewer and Water Service. It is anticipated that, at some future point, public sewer and water service will be available to commercial properties along the Highway 101 corridor. According to Section 21-6-2.E.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance, large or excessively deep lots which may be subject to replat should indicate a logical way in which resubdivision could occur in the future. This item and the need for a resubdivision plan submission should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. N CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, it is concluded that a number of significant, outstanding issues remain with the proposed preliminary plat. In this regard, we recommend denial of the preliminary plat unless a continuance of the public hearing is requested by the applicant and the items listed within the Executive Summary of this report are satisfactorily addressed. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andy MacArthur Wally Klus Mary Dare Baufield Pastor Greg Pagh 7 SCALE IN FEET 0 2000 4000 6000 Prepared by: rw© -SI a ed onsullants, inc. Base Map by: Ankerson Anderson Assoc., Inc. .m P CITY OF TSEGO FqON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD 2 '1 0 3 WILD AND SCENIC DISTRICT ZONEX ZONE X� ZONEX 86� ZONEX V r�w.�Y,"Citi 861 860 LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100 -YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base Flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); base flood elevations determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100 -year flood by Federal flood protection system under construction; no base elevations determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE I I ZONE AE EXHIBIT C - FLOODPLAIN Im � � x •r` C7�L� -- RE OUIRED (TYP Z h, �_-- -I —r•, �- P TENTIAL RIGHT -1 / RIGH A CESS TO CSAH N .39 n �- • . its I pi 1pN PROF STAT 1 _ — —J 7.I.Y I: i I - 1 _ w-C•:i r _ HIGGHwAY - � - •COMMERCIAL �6 DISTRICT,-- ' .�;, INDUSTRIAL I �i •• DISTRICT _ —I I —• -� —� C Y — __� - rJlOrO�It, � - -.__- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL / HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DIST RI — - \- i e \ TRANSPORTATION � CONCEPT PLAN �Q^ PLANNING DISTRICT 4 -( \4 TED CITY or OTSEGO ON THE. GREAT RIVER ROAD n.e• n• °' LEGEND APrn OSIUATE LOCATION Or Pn OPCSED MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS �n.l e..r eller APPROXWATE LOCATION Of TUTURE LOCAL STREETS • rn OPOSCD LAND USE BOUNDARIES (SEE NOTE BELOW) \� NOTES: he1•w.eJ 1-1 ... t-4.4" .• • .yP•s.:n.I.J vl:6r:•q to. C.1=.1 0.,.y.r Cenyw rl•enr�•. Iyan IS<y1.rvLlr, 17711. \� Ib.J...T bc..:o.•. rl•e—n ... I=L. n.. G<+• nelw• wdT .nJ =-�"t ar. Y•I.NrJ Iw ur• �. y4rv•:•p yurye..1 o•JT, rj •� r4r• 100 r .......... ....... I, RESTRICTED RETAIL CENTER I �.. .• ,HIGH�y AYI M 1ER(ur -- -••••-lI IDIS STRTRICT 1518 1 EXHIBIT D - TRANSPORTATION PLA 1 / ,1 s / n :rpt,+, CJ 8n fr � 1 1 •r o. D Q .�....• I c Q o - n a cr N N __i•5— oz C19 --- 11. 11, . `=v .119 M .61,5/,00 N - I C1) ::: I ,• I Z a n CL u I ;•; W Q y1 �I •• 68'BSS 3 .EI,E9,00 5 ul \` co p co Z — of I T 3 1 U / I N O1 O IZ .h -- ---- ------------------ C UJ w , ---- -- SC'OC9 M .VC CZ.00 N << ...... ..... --- (8'609 j 3 .>f.f Z. DO 5 --- EXHIBIT E - PREVIOUS FINAL PLAT SUBMISSIC ..._. 11 i I� .•.I�� ��. ...) --.J R,p..PD A --o. La, cm.. nr. � /J� •, • I I , ELK- A CPAtt ILRBVRE .!sse•PI SNORES FIR I1 ,__\.- 1/ r•-. N H ADD!T!DN III ^ '•IF�` ,• r DoT o .• ...D.*, wc'• •�1 •; -- ' � \ � -77/ r r •ti,•.. Y.r M « W t W. « w •[ 4l f•a. 1a. i, p.. ta�j-7 � i -•� --T: _ ti5YA5' P.tOHT or PLAT ND 9 - r � _ •-'��' (CSA_H. N0. 30 n ` .�.'7�•W aFSPn�iT!DN -ftroE1T GF�.WAY_-:P1,AT-�F - `-�.i tl ,• , f(//� / .. •+N��yj�1 r 5 1- _ tU 37$•- a'eL'Pn __- i•x !1 �lI`1\•'. `[t . 'i j r I-- D B.SCIO6 0 100 700 3Do �-1 SCALE PL IEET, / • t i : !j , t •Yo aa, ' • • i , a.yyP.w, y' u.x. •.» Fwl « .. \ �. (ll 1•.< 1 r.. t �I 1 i• ' f (I. `\�'� d.a.R.t.Gd-. � l � jj�'�['i' , _ _ I ;I a^"'c" r . t :. ( m Rr .........•aaa•••rrr , - E is � •� i - I.i it _ `I' 'L1• i I-•5,'1 •'•'•i�i .. �L J K- '� 1 I it t li'. 1' `♦ �QQ = »+,arra I�. ���- '\ o' 1` ..}::.E:FT •-s.. t\1' ;;' •/ ,1 � / s., `` ''`°ti .lII • ,i •I'A Y). PARI• LDE• V, :e 1« 1 i ;'\ 11♦ p - ♦. Ll ti3'3ennn_E�\3xas;` / d ` �. ♦♦ I 4-14 wY_roe'>.• L t _tom Y v .' � ,1 S6 Hfia 88TH 9 QST_. f +-- f �v! . ` .ti l ' �.. 3i /'r-------_-- i9fim-- y— — •® {; ' 1`�4%. 1 ��� 2 -I,J:', '' 7 1 ° i. i�` 'i Q``r � .//' �� :T� a� i.A � ,;♦ (\�, ;` (/rte .'�~ • a\ s II. ,� I• _. __. I I I 3.7c ac %-\I ♦ - /•5 Z \ 117,,00 wL2.7 At \` PPDP09E, aoNPw 9-i V. t i LT 'A / • 1 •1 T I ___________________-_- ___ •. L__ T`�.- n!! 1- ems° rT 0 �' '� \• `�,� ��A jlr;� �� ; 7 Ae. +/- L / iW i 1 �', 5.2D.At, .,_' Y.D. At N1 > T'� ♦♦: ,•.� 5`\ 1!61,71 aL-. ♦♦. II e7.54 I2o &.1. • �� w.i r \ • L� -5 3 _ : , N.E ---- ---- - 88TH ST. i ,� -- - 4335.J3_.�._: i 1 \ `\-' I ; N e9'58'78' E A03,. SAM - WI. W « W K V. « W K 1/4 K.4E. i. OL"l a♦♦ / I `-_ •a a:rizr.`oi .» �! «P. tl �f.c »I/�•.• I l F ( •1 w0•.k LAND TRADE LErEnPE I � � / r EXISTING DRIVEWAY ' PROPOSED FUTURE ACCESS: RIGHT W/RIGHT OUT ONLY t I EXHIBIT F - PRELIMINARY PLAT 02-14-1995 03: 40PM FROM RHD=W I LLLAWOFF = '" "1iT' " "- " 44188_Z P. 02 Wd mn S. Radmig Wrew J. MaeAn hur Michael C. Couri February 14, 1995 Planning Commission City of Otsego c/o Elaine Beatty City Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue Elk. River, MN 55330 RADZWILL LAW OFFICE Attorney: at Law 4- 705 Cenral Avenue East PO Bax 369 St. Michael, MN 55376- (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) Members W RE: MRD PRELIMINARY PLAT Dear Planning Commission Members: I have reviewed the preliminary plat submitted by Developers for MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition as well. as the planning report drafted by NAC and dated February 8, 1995 relative to their review of said preliminary plat. I have the following comments: 1. 1 am mystified as to what exactly is being proposed on the southern boundary of the submitted preliminary plat, regarding the proposed N.E. 86th Street. and Lot 5, Block 2. I agree with the planning report that dedication of a half street on the southern edge of the plat is a very poor idea. Such a partial dedication would require the city to somehow obtain the southern portion of the right of way to construct a roadway. I strongly agree that this portion of the proposal needs to be reconsidered by the applicant. 2. South of Lot 5, Block 2, is a tiny triangle of land, not included within the boundary of the plat, which is designated as a "Land Trade". This triangle is apparently a portion of the Kolles property to the south. There is no indication that the Developer has any legal interest in that property or that their exists any signed agreement creating any right. Further, it is unclear which land would be traded since the proposed plat apparently includes all lands in that immediate vicinity which are owned by the Developer. Based upon the configuration submitted, the "triangle 11 of land would constitute the only available access to Lot 5, except for CSAR 42. If it is determined that no access is available to CSAH 42 for that lot, than approving the plat as presented would only serve to approve a let with no access since the proposed NE 86th Street does not front on that lot. 02-14-1995 07- : 40PM FROM RADZW I LLLAWOFFIt"t"" T Q ' 4418823 P 03 Letter to Otsego Planning Commission February 141 1995 Page 2 I believe that the City Engineer should comment on whether this proposed configuration would have any adverse on the local drainage conditions. I would concur with the Planner's recommendations regarding this preliminary plat. Very truly yours, Andrew a ur RADZWILL LAA OFFICE cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson Wally Klus Mary Dare Baufield Pastor Greg Pagh FEB 14 '95 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON P.3 Hakanson 1Anderson Assoc., Inc. February 14, 1995 City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Ave. NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: MRD Commercial Preliminary Plat Dear Elaine. 222- ,Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Fax 612/427-3401 We have reviewed NAC's comments and report on the preliminary plat and provide herein our engineering comments: • As shown, 86th Street is not an acceptable street location. As noted in the planner's review, the City cannot accept half streets. An acceptable alternative to this proposed 86th Street is shown on an accompanying sketch. The attached sketch of the proposed street and cul-de-sac could serve Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5, Block 2. This appears to be the least costly of other alternative streets. • Right in/right out access to Lot 5, Block 2 v%/ould not be considered until a development was proposed for the lot. The right in/right out would only be recommended to Wright County if the developer could demonstrate by traffic flow {projections that it was necessary for traffic circulation at the site. Without a development plan at this time, this issue is not being reviewed. • The Quaday Avenue horizontal alignment substantially conforms to the arriendment to the ccmprehensive plan for transportation in this area. The ho; izontal curve radius should be revised to allow for a 30mph traffic. • Soils test should be performed on the proposed lots for determination of septic drainfield acceptabi!ity. FEB 14 'SS 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON Page 2 February 14, 1995 Drainage of stormwater as shown on the grading plan generally meet the needs of,the area. A drainage swale placed in Block 2 daylights to the street and a catchbasin should be placed here. A drainage swale should be placed in Lot 5 south line with water routed to CSAH42 right-of-way. • Wetland delineation needs to be made and reported. Grading and drainage plan. Plan appears to meet the conditions we have established for the area with few minor corrections. Our recommendations would be to deny the preliminary plat due to lack of access to the proposed Lots 4 and 5. The plan, does not conform to the District #4 Concept Transportation Plan. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I w - Enclosure cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office File: OT2107 /FfB 14 '95 15:12 N SON AND ON - U t -j / .49 : - - 1 �� r 1 I. •s � to � � Cit 00 LUI /I , co CIL j Co Lo 001 a 4 ( 0 JN-ry 0A, .0 2 �m go67W O 19 -4y 7e5iO WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building 1901 Highway 25 North Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jct. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138 Telephone (612)682-7383 Facsimile (612) 682-7313 February 15, 1995 Mr Lawrence G. Koshak, P.E. Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. 222 Monroe Street Anoka, MN 55303 Re: Right of Way Width for Plat on CSAH 42 in Otsego Dear Mr Koshak: WAYNE A. FINGALSON, P. Highway Engineer 682-7388 DAVID K. MONTEBELLO, P Assistant Highway Enginee 682-7387 RICHARD E. MARQUE7F Right of Way Agent 682.7386 Mr Kevin Kelb of your office called and said that a commercial plat is being developed on a parcel of land in the City of Otsego along CSAH 42. He asked that the Wright County Highway Department review the current and future right of way needs on this property located on the East side of CSAH 42 slightly south of the CSAH 42/39 intersection. Kevin requested that a recommended R/W width for this parcel be sent to your attention in letter form and would be included as part of the plat dedication. The current owner of this land in Section 22-121-23 (Tax I.D. # 118-500-221100) is listed as Mary R. Dare. The northerly portion of the parcel has 60 ft of permanent highway easement inplace while the southerly portion has 50 ft. It is my recommendation that the entire frontage for this parcel on CSAH 42 be dedicated with a 60 ft permanent R/W to allow for future turnlanes and lane widening in this fast expanding location. This should not affect the future development of this property and may actually cause less problems for future utility needs, etc. Please call our office with any questions or comments regarding this action. Sincerely, Wayn A. Fin on, P.E. Wri h Count ighway Engineer pc: Pat Sawatzke, Co. Commissioner,Dist. 2 Elaine Beatty, City of Otsego It is the opinion of our office that approval of the requested lot area variance is justified for the following reasons: A. Such variance will lessen existing lot area non -conformities which exist in the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The opportunity to address such non -conformities as part of the proposed subdivision represents a unique circumstance. B. Common sense dictates that the proposed subdivision presents lot configurations which are more functionally efficient than which currently exists. C. The requested 2.1 acre lot is generally consistent with adjacent single family lot sizes. D. Approval of the variance will not result in an overall increase in residential density in the area. Lot Width. The subject property currently measures 142 feet in width. While such width fails to comply with minimum R-1 District provisions, the width will effectively accommodate future single family home construction upon designated Lot D. The fact that such lot currently holds only 142 feet (greater than 75 percent of requirement) of width is not a result of actions of the applicant and therefore, represents a genuine hardship unique to the subject property. In this regard, approval of the requested lot width variance is considered justified. CONCLUSION While rezonings are considered matters of City policy, it is the opinion of our office that the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property satisfies the City's established criteria. If the City approves the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the requested lot area and width variance requests subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andrew MacArthur Wayne German 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MISSISSIPPI WRIGHT I& NORTH 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Ul Q W �1 F.— ./i IIH 311 � ►/i r/i Mw 3M1 !p r/t 3M OI Q — Q - r� v J w... W w z I I I I I O I zN Q I V J I a 2 S �a XPi � i o a� 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Q �1 z w Q - w... z 0 r/I ON 311 30 ./I 3n 3HL 30 3<1 LS3n F - cc 0 Z EXHIBIT C - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FEB 14 '95 ff':10 HAKANSCN ANDEFEON Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. February 14, 1995 Ms. Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Block 4, Island View Estates Dear Elaine: P.1 222 Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 fax 612/427-3401 We have reviewed the proposal to create a lot out of the outlot lying just south of Block 4 in Island View Estates. The proposed subdivision shows adding some portion of the outlot to existing lots in Block 4 and then making the remainder into a lot of record. The only issue that we need to address is drainage in Block 4. Previously, we required that a 100 year event storm flood level be established at elevation 955.0. We would not need to make a change in this level with addition of the proposed subdivision. We would prefer that the developers and/or residences in the subwatershed install an outlet pipe to the swale across Kolenda Avenue which flows to the Mississippi River. The basin presently is tiled, ho'�'vever, we cannot expect the the to be functional for many more years. Ultimately, the subwatershed will need a positive outlet. When the applicant and/or builder applies for a building permit, they will need topography on the area along with a drainage plan, septic tank +rainfield site plan, water well location and driveway culvert sizing. The creation of this plat should not interfere with future street p',arr.ing and traffic circulation issues. FEB 14 195 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON If you have further questions or comments, please contact me. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Law City /mic cc: File: Ice G/ K gineer Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office OT2116 P. :. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H kj 1_Did us]111411101 11111kyj TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 Attached please find our finalized report of the MRD preliminary plat request. Please distribute copies of the report to the Planning Commission and City Council. We have mailed copies to all other concerned parties. If you have any questions regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Ms. Mary Dare-Baufield has requested preliminary plat approval of -a multi -phase 8 lot commercial subdivision entitled MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition. The proposed plat is located south of County Road 39 between County Road 42 and Highway 101. The western one-half property currently holds an A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service Zoning Designation, while the eastern half (east of Christ Church) holds a B-2, Highway Commercial Zoning Designation. The B-2 zoning designation was applied in the mid 1970's in anticipation of a commercial retail center use. Obviously such development was never realized. The eastern portion of the site also lies within the Wild and Scenic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. To be specifically noted is that the applicant has not requested the rezoning of the property at this time due to possible property tax/financial implications. Any final platting of the property or portion of the property shall, however, be contingent upon the rezoning of the property. The applicant has indicated that a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is planned for the property. While the preliminary plat will be reviewed in comparison to such lot standards, no rights shall be vested upon the applicant in regard to the future zoning of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Floodplain Exhibit D - Transportation Plan Exhibit E - Previous Final Plat Submission Exhibit F - Preliminary Plat Recommendation Based on the following review of the submitted preliminary plat, it is evident that a number of outstanding issues remain which warrant immediate attention. In this regard, we consider approval of the preliminary plat as currently proposed unwarranted. Thus, our office recommends denial of the MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat. As an alternative action to denial, however, the City may wish to continue the public hearing (at the applicant's request) until such time as the following items have been addressed: 1. Final platting of all or a portion of the depicted lots shall be contingent upon submission of necessary rezoning applications and approval by the City Council. 2. The preliminary plat is reconfigured so as to comply with the City's Transportation Plan. Compliance with such plan will require the omission of the proposed half street and reconfiguration of Block 2 lots. 3. Per the recommendation of the City Engineer, only right-in/right-out lot access from County Road 42 is to be allowed. Preferable access location shall be subject to specific recommendation by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant specify particular lots to be phased and the proposed timing of phases. 5. In accordance with Subdivision Ordinance requirements, side lot lines are drawn at right angles to street lines and radial to curved street lines. 6. The City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department provide recommendation in regard to County Road 42 right-of-way dedication. 7. A grading and drainage plan be submitted. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. The City Park and Recreation Committee provide comment and recommendation in regard to park dedication requirements. 2 9. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to easement establishment. 10. The City Engineer provide comment as to the impact future sanitary sewer and water service will have upon the proposed subdivision and the need for the submission of a resubdivision plan. 11. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Project History. The MRD Commercial Park 1st Addition which lies north of the subject property consists of a single lot upon which the Bank of Elk River exists. At the time such lot was platted, the parcel was part of the property currently under consideration. The provisions of the LeFebrve Watershed District moratorium, however, prohibited preliminary plat consideration of the balance of the Dare property. In August of this year, the applicant requested rezoning/final plat approval of Lot 1, Block 2 as depicted upon the preliminary plat. Such application was withdrawn at the applicant's request in anticipation of an amendment to the Watershed District moratorium which would allow City consideration of preliminary plat and rezoning applications of properties within the Watershed District boundaries. In response to such amendment, preliminary plat has now been submitted for review. Zoning. In accordance with Section 21-6-2.E.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant has indicated a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is proposed to be applied to the subject property. As noted previously, the applicant has not, however, requested the formal zoning of any of the property in question. Thus, the proposed zoning designation shall be considered solely informational and shall not vest any rights upon the applicant. The applicant's suggested commercial zoning of the property is consistent with the City's adopted Land Use Plan which suggests commercial use of the property. To be noted is that the suggested B-3, General Business designation is consistent with that applied to the Elk River Bank property last year. Premature Development. In consideration of the previous final plat submission (see Exhibit E), staff raised question as to whether development of the subject property was premature. Specific issues raised related to the following: 1. Lot Configuration Acceptability. Considering that 86th Street as illustrated upon the preliminary plat is not consistent with the Transportation Plan, a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary. In this regard, questions regarding lot configuration remain. 3 FA- Northwest Associated Consultants},Inc. CURBAN PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH If,l 1 \I • ' 1 • � I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Attached please find our review of the Island View Estates rezoning and variance request. Please distribute co ies to eLCity Council and Planning Commission. We have mailed copies to Andy, Larry and Mr. German. This request is scheduled for public hearing on 15 February. Please call if you have any questions. UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 IV y EP 1�►� 1Ji.�J. ie 1�- �EI►:� Pll; u REc F LAII1�1E^ _ ELDa WISP UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT Mel FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis/David Licht 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Mr. Wayne German has expressed an intent to subdivide a 4.1 acre parcel of land lying directly south of the Island View Estates subdivision in such a manner whereby portions of the parcel would be conveyed to abutting single family residential lots within the said subdivision. To accommodate such lot division, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Rezoning of property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service District. 2. Variance to allow a lot less than 2.5 acres in area within an R-1 Zoning District (2.1 acre lot area proposed). 3. Variance to allow a lot width less than 150 feet in an R-1 Zoning District (142 foot lot width proposed). 4. Formal subdivision of the property (preliminary and final plat). At this time, the applicant has requested only consideration of the aforementioned rezoning and variance requests. Thus, any variance approvals will be contingent upon the ultimate subdivision of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Conceptual Subdivision Plan Recommendation The requested R-1 zoning of the subject site is consistent with the provisions of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan). While it is the opinion of our office that the rezoning of the site satisfies applicable rezoning evaluation criteria, rezoning matters remain issues of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Based on the following review, our office recommends the following: 1. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 2. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot width requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 4 ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Development Rights. The subject 4.1 acre parcel of land exists as a legal lot of record. While such lot fails to meet density requirements of the applicable A-1 zoning designation (1 dwelling unit per 40 acres), the property does hold a legal development right. To be specifically noted in regard to the subject application is that the applicant has proposed simply to convey portions of the parcel to adjacent single family lots and that no additional dwelling units, other than that legally allowed at this time, would result from the proposed subdivision. Rezoning R-1 District Purpose. As noted previously, the rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service will be necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Such zoning designation would represent a southerly extension of the R-1 District currently applied to the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to provide suitable areas for low density residential uses within selected areas of the Mississippi River corridor. Consistent with the provisions of the City's Wild and Scenic Ordinance (applicable to Island View Estates), the district imposes a minimum 2.5 acre lot size requirement. Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the City Council and Planning Commission to consider the possible adverse effects of the amendment. Their judgement should be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 3 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. The subject property lies within Planning District #1 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan specifically recommends that low density residential uses be developed in the area and that large scale plats (i.e., Island View Estates) be developed with 2.5 acre lots. Thus, the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property is considered consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously, the requested rezoning will not result in any additional dwelling units other than that which is currently allowed. In this regard, the proposed rezoning is not expected to overburden City service capacities or adversely impact the area. It is the opinion of our office that the requested rezoning and subsequent integration of the subject property into the Island View Estates subdivision satisfies the City's established rezoning evaluation criteria. Issues of land use are, however, considered matters of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Variances Lot Area and Width Requirements. In addition to the requested rezoning, the applicant has also requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area (21/2 acres) and width (150 feet) requirements. Specifically, the applicant has requested that Lot D, as shown on attached Exhibit C, be allowed a lot area of 2.1 acres and width of 142 feet. Variance Evaluation Criteria. According to Section 20-5-2.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district or area. 1. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. 2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot or building size, or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. 4 b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to any reasonable use. C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not the result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. e. The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. f. The request is not a use variance. g. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. Lot Area. The need for lot area variance relates directly to the proposed subdivision's intent of lessening the degree of lot area non -conformity of adjacent Island View Estates parcels. Thus, the requested variance represents a "trade off' of sorts whereby three grossly undersized lots (i.e., 1 acre) will be expanded in size, while a new 2.1 acre lot will be created. The following table summarizes existing and proposed lot areas of Block 4 of the Island View Estates subdivision which abuts the subject property. Lot No. Existing_ Proposed 1 45,000 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft. 2 45,000 sq. ft. 86,175 sq. ft. 3 48,000 sq. ft. 69,000 sq. ft. 4 48,000 sq. ft. 72,300 sq. ft. 5 82,650 sq. ft. 82,650 sq. ft. 6 51,300 sq. ft. 51,300 sq. ft. 7 48,600 sq. ft. 48,600 sq. ft. 8 61,550 sq. ft. 61,550 sq. ft. 9 54,000 sq. ft. 54,000 sq. ft. Property in Question 178,526 sq. ft. 91,476 sq. ft. 5 It is the opinion of our office that approval of the requested lot area variance is justified for the following reasons: A. Such variance will lessen existing lot area non -conformities which exist in the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The opportunity to address such non -conformities as part of the proposed subdivision represents a unique circumstance. B. Common sense dictates that the proposed subdivision presents lot configurations which are more functionally efficient than which currently exists. C. The requested 2.1 acre lot is generally consistent with adjacent single family lot sizes. D. Approval of the variance will not result in an overall increase in residential density in the area. Lot Width. The subject property currently measures 142 feet in width. While such width fails to comply with minimum R-1 District provisions, the width will effectively accommodate future single family home construction upon designated Lot D. The fact that such lot currently holds only 142 feet (greater than 75 percent of requirement) of width is not a result of actions of the applicant and therefore, represents a genuine hardship unique to the subject property. In this regard, approval of the requested lot width variance is considered justified. CONCLUSION While rezonings are considered matters of City policy, it is the opinion of our office that the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property satisfies the City's established criteria. If the City approves the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the requested lot area and width variance requests subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andrew MacArthur Wayne German 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MISSISSIPPI WRIGHT I& NORTH 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Ul Q W �1 F.— ./i IIH 311 � ►/i r/i Mw 3M1 !p r/t 3M OI Q — Q - r� v J w... W w z I I I I I O I zN Q I V J I a 2 S �a XPi � i o a� 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Q �1 z w Q - w... z 0 r/I ON 311 30 ./I 3n 3HL 30 3<1 LS3n F - cc 0 Z EXHIBIT C - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FEB 14 '95 ff':10 HAKANSCN ANDEFEON Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. February 14, 1995 Ms. Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Block 4, Island View Estates Dear Elaine: P.1 222 Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 fax 612/427-3401 We have reviewed the proposal to create a lot out of the outlot lying just south of Block 4 in Island View Estates. The proposed subdivision shows adding some portion of the outlot to existing lots in Block 4 and then making the remainder into a lot of record. The only issue that we need to address is drainage in Block 4. Previously, we required that a 100 year event storm flood level be established at elevation 955.0. We would not need to make a change in this level with addition of the proposed subdivision. We would prefer that the developers and/or residences in the subwatershed install an outlet pipe to the swale across Kolenda Avenue which flows to the Mississippi River. The basin presently is tiled, ho'�'vever, we cannot expect the the to be functional for many more years. Ultimately, the subwatershed will need a positive outlet. When the applicant and/or builder applies for a building permit, they will need topography on the area along with a drainage plan, septic tank +rainfield site plan, water well location and driveway culvert sizing. The creation of this plat should not interfere with future street p',arr.ing and traffic circulation issues. FEB 14 195 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON If you have further questions or comments, please contact me. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Law City /mic cc: File: Ice G/ K gineer Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office OT2116 P. :. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H kj 1_Did us]111411101 11111kyj TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 Attached please find our finalized report of the MRD preliminary plat request. Please distribute copies of the report to the Planning Commission and City Council. We have mailed copies to all other concerned parties. If you have any questions regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Ms. Mary Dare-Baufield has requested preliminary plat approval of -a multi -phase 8 lot commercial subdivision entitled MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition. The proposed plat is located south of County Road 39 between County Road 42 and Highway 101. The western one-half property currently holds an A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service Zoning Designation, while the eastern half (east of Christ Church) holds a B-2, Highway Commercial Zoning Designation. The B-2 zoning designation was applied in the mid 1970's in anticipation of a commercial retail center use. Obviously such development was never realized. The eastern portion of the site also lies within the Wild and Scenic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. To be specifically noted is that the applicant has not requested the rezoning of the property at this time due to possible property tax/financial implications. Any final platting of the property or portion of the property shall, however, be contingent upon the rezoning of the property. The applicant has indicated that a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is planned for the property. While the preliminary plat will be reviewed in comparison to such lot standards, no rights shall be vested upon the applicant in regard to the future zoning of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Floodplain Exhibit D - Transportation Plan Exhibit E - Previous Final Plat Submission Exhibit F - Preliminary Plat Recommendation Based on the following review of the submitted preliminary plat, it is evident that a number of outstanding issues remain which warrant immediate attention. In this regard, we consider approval of the preliminary plat as currently proposed unwarranted. Thus, our office recommends denial of the MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat. As an alternative action to denial, however, the City may wish to continue the public hearing (at the applicant's request) until such time as the following items have been addressed: 1. Final platting of all or a portion of the depicted lots shall be contingent upon submission of necessary rezoning applications and approval by the City Council. 2. The preliminary plat is reconfigured so as to comply with the City's Transportation Plan. Compliance with such plan will require the omission of the proposed half street and reconfiguration of Block 2 lots. 3. Per the recommendation of the City Engineer, only right-in/right-out lot access from County Road 42 is to be allowed. Preferable access location shall be subject to specific recommendation by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant specify particular lots to be phased and the proposed timing of phases. 5. In accordance with Subdivision Ordinance requirements, side lot lines are drawn at right angles to street lines and radial to curved street lines. 6. The City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department provide recommendation in regard to County Road 42 right-of-way dedication. 7. A grading and drainage plan be submitted. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. The City Park and Recreation Committee provide comment and recommendation in regard to park dedication requirements. 2 9. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to easement establishment. 10. The City Engineer provide comment as to the impact future sanitary sewer and water service will have upon the proposed subdivision and the need for the submission of a resubdivision plan. 11. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Project History. The MRD Commercial Park 1st Addition which lies north of the subject property consists of a single lot upon which the Bank of Elk River exists. At the time such lot was platted, the parcel was part of the property currently under consideration. The provisions of the LeFebrve Watershed District moratorium, however, prohibited preliminary plat consideration of the balance of the Dare property. In August of this year, the applicant requested rezoning/final plat approval of Lot 1, Block 2 as depicted upon the preliminary plat. Such application was withdrawn at the applicant's request in anticipation of an amendment to the Watershed District moratorium which would allow City consideration of preliminary plat and rezoning applications of properties within the Watershed District boundaries. In response to such amendment, preliminary plat has now been submitted for review. Zoning. In accordance with Section 21-6-2.E.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant has indicated a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is proposed to be applied to the subject property. As noted previously, the applicant has not, however, requested the formal zoning of any of the property in question. Thus, the proposed zoning designation shall be considered solely informational and shall not vest any rights upon the applicant. The applicant's suggested commercial zoning of the property is consistent with the City's adopted Land Use Plan which suggests commercial use of the property. To be noted is that the suggested B-3, General Business designation is consistent with that applied to the Elk River Bank property last year. Premature Development. In consideration of the previous final plat submission (see Exhibit E), staff raised question as to whether development of the subject property was premature. Specific issues raised related to the following: 1. Lot Configuration Acceptability. Considering that 86th Street as illustrated upon the preliminary plat is not consistent with the Transportation Plan, a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary. In this regard, questions regarding lot configuration remain. 3 2. Demonstration of Future Subdivision of Outlot A. The submission of the preliminary plat demonstrates a manner in which Outlot A as depicted on the previous final plat submission may be developed. 3. Compliance with Pending Transportation Plan. Since consideration of the previous final plat, the Transportation Plan has been formally adopted. 4. Determination of Floodplain Buildability (Outlot A). At the City Council's directive, the City Engineer has investigated the financial implications of developing floodplain areas of the subject site. The study basically substantiated the conceptual location of roadways depicted upon the Transportation Plan. While a number of the above cited items have been addressed, significant concern remains with regard to lot configuration and compliance with the City's Transportation Plan. These issues will be discussed further in latter sections of this report. Transportation Plan. In consideration of the original MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition plat submission in August of 1994, concern was voiced over the development's consistency with the City's Transportation Plan for the area, which had not received final approval at that time. In January of this year, the City adopted a Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 in which the subject property lies. The plan, attached as Exhibit C, has been made part of the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to identify preferred street routings in the area. As noted on the adopted Transportation Plan, a future local street intersection with Quaday Avenue has been proposed south of the subject property. Contrary to this alignment, the preliminary plat proposes the dedication of a half street along the subject property's southern property line. According to Section 21-7-7 J of the Subdivision Ordinance, half streets are to be prohibited except where practical to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. Generally speaking, the dedication of half streets is not considered preferred planning practice. As no guarantees exist in regard to full street construction, such streets further raise assessment problems. So as to fully comply with the City's adopted Transportation Plan for the area, 86th Street as depicted upon the preliminary plat should be omitted and lots within Block 2 should be rearranged accordingly. Blocks. According to Section 20-7-3.0 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, blocks intended for business or industrial uses shall be of a width considered most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking, deliveries and loading. Provided that necessary filling is accomplished within Block 1, ample width will exist to accommodate typical uses allowed in the B-3 Zoning District. Due to the necessary reconfiguration of lots within Block 2, a determination of lot/block depth appropriateness cannot be made at this time. El 2. Demonstration of Future Subdivision of Outlot A. The submission of the preliminary plat demonstrates a manner in which Outlot A as depicted on the previous final plat submission may be developed. 3. Compliance with Pending Transportation Plan. Since consideration of the previous final plat, the Transportation Plan has been formally adopted. 4. Determination of Floodplain Buildability (Outlot A). At the City Council's directive, the City Engineer has investigated the financial implications of developing floodplain areas of the subject site. The study basically substantiated the conceptual location of roadways depicted upon the Transportation Plan. While a number of the above cited items have been addressed, significant concern remains with regard to lot configuration and compliance with the City's Transportation Plan. These issues will be discussed further in latter sections of this report. Transportation Plan. In consideration of the original MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition plat submission in August of 1994, concern was voiced over the development's consistency with the City's Transportation Plan for the area, which had not received final approval at that time. In January of this year, the City adopted a Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 in which the subject property lies. The plan, attached as Exhibit C, has been made part of the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to identify preferred street routings in the area. As noted on the adopted Transportation Plan, a future local street intersection with Quaday Avenue has been proposed south of the subject property. Contrary to this alignment, the preliminary plat proposes the dedication of a half street along the subject property's southern property line. According to Section 21-7-7 J of the Subdivision Ordinance, half streets are to be prohibited except where practical to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. Generally speaking, the dedication of half streets is not considered preferred planning practice. As no guarantees exist in regard to full street construction, such streets further raise assessment problems. So as to fully comply with the City's adopted Transportation Plan for the area, 86th Street as depicted upon the preliminary plat should be omitted and lots within Block 2 should be rearranged accordingly. Blocks. According to Section 20-7-3.0 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, blocks intended for business or industrial uses shall be of a width considered most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking, deliveries and loading. Provided that necessary filling is accomplished within Block 1, ample width will exist to accommodate typical uses allowed in the B-3 Zoning District. Due to the necessary reconfiguration of lots within Block 2, a determination of lot/block depth appropriateness cannot be made at this time. El Lot Area. Lots within the preliminary plat range in size from 2.0 to 5.0 acres in size. All lots exceed minimum 1 acre lot size requirements imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts. Lot Width. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within B-3 Zoning Districts must not be less than 200 feet in width. Generally speaking, all lots meet or exceed the 200 foot lot width requirement. The minimal amount of street frontage provided Lot 5, Block 2 from 86th Street is considered moot as 86th Street as currently depicted will need to be removed from the plat (to comply with the Transportation Plan). Quaday Avenue. Quaday Avenue as depicted upon the preliminary plat exists as a southerly extension of 88th Street. The said street is a designated Municipal State Aid (MSA) Roadway and is specifically depicted upon the Transportation Plan. In accordance with City street design standards, an 80 foot wide right-of-way has been proposed. Property Access. The City Engineer has recommended that direct lot access from County Road 42 be limited to a right-in/right-out arrangement. Preferable access location should be subject to further recommendation by the City Engineer. Lot Configuration. While it is acknowledged that a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary to accommodate the removal of 86th Street (as currently depicted), it is considered appropriate to note a lot configuration concern. According to Section 21-7-4.B of the Subdivision Ordinance, side lot lines must be at right angles to street lines, radial to curved street lines unless the City Engineer finds a deviation acceptable. Such provision is considered applicable to the northern boundary of Lot 3, Block 2 and the western boundary of Lot 4, Block 2 where this provision has not been satisfied. Setbacks. The submitted preliminary plat illustrates anticipated B-3 District setback requirements. All lots demonstrate an ability to meet such setbacks as identified below: Requirement Front Yard 65 feet from State/County Highway 35 feet from local road Side Yard 20 feet Rear Yard 20 feet County Road Right -of -Way Dedication. As shown on the submitted final plat, a total right-of- way width of 100 feet has been provided for County Road 42. The acceptability of such width and the need for any additional dedication should be subject to further comment by both Wright County Highway Department and the City Engineer. 5 Land Trade. As shown on Exhibit F, a portion of the preliminary plat is to be acquired via land trade. Specifically, a triangular shaped portion of the adjoining Kolles property has been proposed to be added to the Lot 5, Block 2. If any land trade is to be included in the preliminary plat, it should be so described in the property legal description. It should be further noted that the proposed land trade is not endorsed by staff and should be a moot point pending the omission of 86th Street. Floodplain/Wild and Scenic District. As shown on Exhibits B and C, the subject property lies partially within the Mississippi Rivers 100 year floodplain and the boundaries of the Wild and Scenic District. Any development upon the included sites will need to comply with the applicable provisions of the Floodplain and Wild and Scenic Ordinance. Grading and Drainage. To date a grading and drainage plan for the subject property has not been received. As specified by the City's plat submission requirements, a specific grading and drainage plan should be submitted. Section 21-6-2.C.13 of the Ordinance stipulates that such grading plan should illustrate one foot contours and include provisions for surface water ponding and drainage. Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Easements. As required by the City Subdivision Ordinance, 10 foot wide drainage and utility widths have been appropriately provided along lot lines. The City Engineer should provide comment as to the need to establish any additional easements. Parks. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, 10 percent of the gross area of all new subdivisions (or a different percentage determined by the City Council) must be dedicated for public recreation space or other public use as determined by the City Council. If in the opinion of the City, a land dedication is deemed inappropriate, a cash contribution may be required. Specific park dedication requirements should be subject to recommendation by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Phasing. According to the submitted preliminary plat, a portion of the proposed lots are intended to be final platted in future phases. The plat does not, however, indicate which lots are to be phased nor the intended timing of such phases. This should be specified as a condition of preliminary plat approval. Sewer and Water Service. It is anticipated that, at some future point, public sewer and water service will be available to commercial properties along the Highway 101 corridor. According to Section 21-6-2.E.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance, large or excessively deep lots which may be subject to replat should indicate a logical way in which resubdivision could occur in the future. This item and the need for a resubdivision plan submission should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. N CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, it is concluded that a number of significant, outstanding issues remain with the proposed preliminary plat. In this regard, we recommend denial of the preliminary plat unless a continuance of the public hearing is requested by the applicant and the items listed within the Executive Summary of this report are satisfactorily addressed. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andy MacArthur Wally Klus Mary Dare Baufield Pastor Greg Pagh 7 SCALE IN FEET 0 2000 4000 6000 Prepared by: rw© -SI a ed onsullants, inc. Base Map by: Ankerson Anderson Assoc., Inc. .m P CITY OF TSEGO FqON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD FA- Northwest Associated Consultants},Inc. CURBAN PLANNING• D E S I G N• MARKET RESEARCH If,l 1 \I • ' 1 • � I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Attached please find our review of the Island View Estates rezoning and variance request. Please distribute co ies to eLCity Council and Planning Commission. We have mailed copies to Andy, Larry and Mr. German. This request is scheduled for public hearing on 15 February. Please call if you have any questions. UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 IV y EP 1�►� 1Ji.�J. ie 1�- �EI►:� Pll; u REc F LAII1�1E^ _ ELDa WISP UTORNEY0 T I-IcR EE:u;►,EER DATE 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT Mel FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis/David Licht 1 February 1995 Otsego - Island View Estates - Rezoning/Variance 176.02 - 95.02 Mr. Wayne German has expressed an intent to subdivide a 4.1 acre parcel of land lying directly south of the Island View Estates subdivision in such a manner whereby portions of the parcel would be conveyed to abutting single family residential lots within the said subdivision. To accommodate such lot division, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Rezoning of property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service District. 2. Variance to allow a lot less than 2.5 acres in area within an R-1 Zoning District (2.1 acre lot area proposed). 3. Variance to allow a lot width less than 150 feet in an R-1 Zoning District (142 foot lot width proposed). 4. Formal subdivision of the property (preliminary and final plat). At this time, the applicant has requested only consideration of the aforementioned rezoning and variance requests. Thus, any variance approvals will be contingent upon the ultimate subdivision of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Conceptual Subdivision Plan Recommendation The requested R-1 zoning of the subject site is consistent with the provisions of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan). While it is the opinion of our office that the rezoning of the site satisfies applicable rezoning evaluation criteria, rezoning matters remain issues of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Based on the following review, our office recommends the following: 1. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 2. Approval of the requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot width requirements subject to the following conditions: a. The City approve the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property. b. A complete application for the subdivision of the property is received no later than 1 June 1995. C. The City approve a subdivision of the subject property substantially similar to that depicted upon Exhibit C of this report. d. Comments from other City staff. 4 ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Development Rights. The subject 4.1 acre parcel of land exists as a legal lot of record. While such lot fails to meet density requirements of the applicable A-1 zoning designation (1 dwelling unit per 40 acres), the property does hold a legal development right. To be specifically noted in regard to the subject application is that the applicant has proposed simply to convey portions of the parcel to adjacent single family lots and that no additional dwelling units, other than that legally allowed at this time, would result from the proposed subdivision. Rezoning R-1 District Purpose. As noted previously, the rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-1, Residential Long Range Urban Service will be necessary to accommodate the proposed subdivision. Such zoning designation would represent a southerly extension of the R-1 District currently applied to the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to provide suitable areas for low density residential uses within selected areas of the Mississippi River corridor. Consistent with the provisions of the City's Wild and Scenic Ordinance (applicable to Island View Estates), the district imposes a minimum 2.5 acre lot size requirement. Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the City Council and Planning Commission to consider the possible adverse effects of the amendment. Their judgement should be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 3 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. The subject property lies within Planning District #1 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan specifically recommends that low density residential uses be developed in the area and that large scale plats (i.e., Island View Estates) be developed with 2.5 acre lots. Thus, the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property is considered consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously, the requested rezoning will not result in any additional dwelling units other than that which is currently allowed. In this regard, the proposed rezoning is not expected to overburden City service capacities or adversely impact the area. It is the opinion of our office that the requested rezoning and subsequent integration of the subject property into the Island View Estates subdivision satisfies the City's established rezoning evaluation criteria. Issues of land use are, however, considered matters of City policy to be determined by City Officials. Variances Lot Area and Width Requirements. In addition to the requested rezoning, the applicant has also requested variance from minimum R-1 District lot area (21/2 acres) and width (150 feet) requirements. Specifically, the applicant has requested that Lot D, as shown on attached Exhibit C, be allowed a lot area of 2.1 acres and width of 142 feet. Variance Evaluation Criteria. According to Section 20-5-2.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district or area. 1. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. 2. Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Chapter. 3. Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot or building size, or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. 4 b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to any reasonable use. C. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are not the result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. e. The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the same district. f. The request is not a use variance. g. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. Lot Area. The need for lot area variance relates directly to the proposed subdivision's intent of lessening the degree of lot area non -conformity of adjacent Island View Estates parcels. Thus, the requested variance represents a "trade off' of sorts whereby three grossly undersized lots (i.e., 1 acre) will be expanded in size, while a new 2.1 acre lot will be created. The following table summarizes existing and proposed lot areas of Block 4 of the Island View Estates subdivision which abuts the subject property. Lot No. Existing_ Proposed 1 45,000 sq. ft. 45,000 sq. ft. 2 45,000 sq. ft. 86,175 sq. ft. 3 48,000 sq. ft. 69,000 sq. ft. 4 48,000 sq. ft. 72,300 sq. ft. 5 82,650 sq. ft. 82,650 sq. ft. 6 51,300 sq. ft. 51,300 sq. ft. 7 48,600 sq. ft. 48,600 sq. ft. 8 61,550 sq. ft. 61,550 sq. ft. 9 54,000 sq. ft. 54,000 sq. ft. Property in Question 178,526 sq. ft. 91,476 sq. ft. 5 It is the opinion of our office that approval of the requested lot area variance is justified for the following reasons: A. Such variance will lessen existing lot area non -conformities which exist in the adjacent Island View Estates subdivision. The opportunity to address such non -conformities as part of the proposed subdivision represents a unique circumstance. B. Common sense dictates that the proposed subdivision presents lot configurations which are more functionally efficient than which currently exists. C. The requested 2.1 acre lot is generally consistent with adjacent single family lot sizes. D. Approval of the variance will not result in an overall increase in residential density in the area. Lot Width. The subject property currently measures 142 feet in width. While such width fails to comply with minimum R-1 District provisions, the width will effectively accommodate future single family home construction upon designated Lot D. The fact that such lot currently holds only 142 feet (greater than 75 percent of requirement) of width is not a result of actions of the applicant and therefore, represents a genuine hardship unique to the subject property. In this regard, approval of the requested lot width variance is considered justified. CONCLUSION While rezonings are considered matters of City policy, it is the opinion of our office that the requested R-1 zoning of the subject property satisfies the City's established criteria. If the City approves the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the requested lot area and width variance requests subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andrew MacArthur Wayne German 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MISSISSIPPI WRIGHT I& NORTH 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Ul Q W �1 F.— ./i IIH 311 � ►/i r/i Mw 3M1 !p r/t 3M OI Q — Q - r� v J w... W w z I I I I I O I zN Q I V J I a 2 S �a XPi � i o a� 3H1 b 3x1'1 10 133! 00 -GC 1S"- 1S4 311 ! 3H11 1S3► - S31r1S3 113Ie OHnSI A 31Il lnd 1S3A Q �1 z w Q - w... z 0 r/I ON 311 30 ./I 3n 3HL 30 3<1 LS3n F - cc 0 Z EXHIBIT C - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FEB 14 '95 ff':10 HAKANSCN ANDEFEON Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. February 14, 1995 Ms. Elaine Beatty, Clerk City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Block 4, Island View Estates Dear Elaine: P.1 222 Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 fax 612/427-3401 We have reviewed the proposal to create a lot out of the outlot lying just south of Block 4 in Island View Estates. The proposed subdivision shows adding some portion of the outlot to existing lots in Block 4 and then making the remainder into a lot of record. The only issue that we need to address is drainage in Block 4. Previously, we required that a 100 year event storm flood level be established at elevation 955.0. We would not need to make a change in this level with addition of the proposed subdivision. We would prefer that the developers and/or residences in the subwatershed install an outlet pipe to the swale across Kolenda Avenue which flows to the Mississippi River. The basin presently is tiled, ho'�'vever, we cannot expect the the to be functional for many more years. Ultimately, the subwatershed will need a positive outlet. When the applicant and/or builder applies for a building permit, they will need topography on the area along with a drainage plan, septic tank +rainfield site plan, water well location and driveway culvert sizing. The creation of this plat should not interfere with future street p',arr.ing and traffic circulation issues. FEB 14 195 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON If you have further questions or comments, please contact me. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Law City /mic cc: File: Ice G/ K gineer Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office OT2116 P. :. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H kj 1_Did us]111411101 11111kyj TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Elaine Beatty Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 Attached please find our finalized report of the MRD preliminary plat request. Please distribute copies of the report to the Planning Commission and City Council. We have mailed copies to all other concerned parties. If you have any questions regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis 8 February 1995 Otsego - MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat 176.02 - 94.15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Ms. Mary Dare-Baufield has requested preliminary plat approval of -a multi -phase 8 lot commercial subdivision entitled MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition. The proposed plat is located south of County Road 39 between County Road 42 and Highway 101. The western one-half property currently holds an A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service Zoning Designation, while the eastern half (east of Christ Church) holds a B-2, Highway Commercial Zoning Designation. The B-2 zoning designation was applied in the mid 1970's in anticipation of a commercial retail center use. Obviously such development was never realized. The eastern portion of the site also lies within the Wild and Scenic and Floodplain Overlay Districts. To be specifically noted is that the applicant has not requested the rezoning of the property at this time due to possible property tax/financial implications. Any final platting of the property or portion of the property shall, however, be contingent upon the rezoning of the property. The applicant has indicated that a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is planned for the property. While the preliminary plat will be reviewed in comparison to such lot standards, no rights shall be vested upon the applicant in regard to the future zoning of the property. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Floodplain Exhibit D - Transportation Plan Exhibit E - Previous Final Plat Submission Exhibit F - Preliminary Plat Recommendation Based on the following review of the submitted preliminary plat, it is evident that a number of outstanding issues remain which warrant immediate attention. In this regard, we consider approval of the preliminary plat as currently proposed unwarranted. Thus, our office recommends denial of the MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat. As an alternative action to denial, however, the City may wish to continue the public hearing (at the applicant's request) until such time as the following items have been addressed: 1. Final platting of all or a portion of the depicted lots shall be contingent upon submission of necessary rezoning applications and approval by the City Council. 2. The preliminary plat is reconfigured so as to comply with the City's Transportation Plan. Compliance with such plan will require the omission of the proposed half street and reconfiguration of Block 2 lots. 3. Per the recommendation of the City Engineer, only right-in/right-out lot access from County Road 42 is to be allowed. Preferable access location shall be subject to specific recommendation by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant specify particular lots to be phased and the proposed timing of phases. 5. In accordance with Subdivision Ordinance requirements, side lot lines are drawn at right angles to street lines and radial to curved street lines. 6. The City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department provide recommendation in regard to County Road 42 right-of-way dedication. 7. A grading and drainage plan be submitted. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. The City Park and Recreation Committee provide comment and recommendation in regard to park dedication requirements. 2 9. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to easement establishment. 10. The City Engineer provide comment as to the impact future sanitary sewer and water service will have upon the proposed subdivision and the need for the submission of a resubdivision plan. 11. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Project History. The MRD Commercial Park 1st Addition which lies north of the subject property consists of a single lot upon which the Bank of Elk River exists. At the time such lot was platted, the parcel was part of the property currently under consideration. The provisions of the LeFebrve Watershed District moratorium, however, prohibited preliminary plat consideration of the balance of the Dare property. In August of this year, the applicant requested rezoning/final plat approval of Lot 1, Block 2 as depicted upon the preliminary plat. Such application was withdrawn at the applicant's request in anticipation of an amendment to the Watershed District moratorium which would allow City consideration of preliminary plat and rezoning applications of properties within the Watershed District boundaries. In response to such amendment, preliminary plat has now been submitted for review. Zoning. In accordance with Section 21-6-2.E.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant has indicated a B-3, General Business Zoning designation is proposed to be applied to the subject property. As noted previously, the applicant has not, however, requested the formal zoning of any of the property in question. Thus, the proposed zoning designation shall be considered solely informational and shall not vest any rights upon the applicant. The applicant's suggested commercial zoning of the property is consistent with the City's adopted Land Use Plan which suggests commercial use of the property. To be noted is that the suggested B-3, General Business designation is consistent with that applied to the Elk River Bank property last year. Premature Development. In consideration of the previous final plat submission (see Exhibit E), staff raised question as to whether development of the subject property was premature. Specific issues raised related to the following: 1. Lot Configuration Acceptability. Considering that 86th Street as illustrated upon the preliminary plat is not consistent with the Transportation Plan, a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary. In this regard, questions regarding lot configuration remain. 3 2. Demonstration of Future Subdivision of Outlot A. The submission of the preliminary plat demonstrates a manner in which Outlot A as depicted on the previous final plat submission may be developed. 3. Compliance with Pending Transportation Plan. Since consideration of the previous final plat, the Transportation Plan has been formally adopted. 4. Determination of Floodplain Buildability (Outlot A). At the City Council's directive, the City Engineer has investigated the financial implications of developing floodplain areas of the subject site. The study basically substantiated the conceptual location of roadways depicted upon the Transportation Plan. While a number of the above cited items have been addressed, significant concern remains with regard to lot configuration and compliance with the City's Transportation Plan. These issues will be discussed further in latter sections of this report. Transportation Plan. In consideration of the original MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition plat submission in August of 1994, concern was voiced over the development's consistency with the City's Transportation Plan for the area, which had not received final approval at that time. In January of this year, the City adopted a Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 in which the subject property lies. The plan, attached as Exhibit C, has been made part of the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to identify preferred street routings in the area. As noted on the adopted Transportation Plan, a future local street intersection with Quaday Avenue has been proposed south of the subject property. Contrary to this alignment, the preliminary plat proposes the dedication of a half street along the subject property's southern property line. According to Section 21-7-7 J of the Subdivision Ordinance, half streets are to be prohibited except where practical to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. Generally speaking, the dedication of half streets is not considered preferred planning practice. As no guarantees exist in regard to full street construction, such streets further raise assessment problems. So as to fully comply with the City's adopted Transportation Plan for the area, 86th Street as depicted upon the preliminary plat should be omitted and lots within Block 2 should be rearranged accordingly. Blocks. According to Section 20-7-3.0 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, blocks intended for business or industrial uses shall be of a width considered most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking, deliveries and loading. Provided that necessary filling is accomplished within Block 1, ample width will exist to accommodate typical uses allowed in the B-3 Zoning District. Due to the necessary reconfiguration of lots within Block 2, a determination of lot/block depth appropriateness cannot be made at this time. El 2. Demonstration of Future Subdivision of Outlot A. The submission of the preliminary plat demonstrates a manner in which Outlot A as depicted on the previous final plat submission may be developed. 3. Compliance with Pending Transportation Plan. Since consideration of the previous final plat, the Transportation Plan has been formally adopted. 4. Determination of Floodplain Buildability (Outlot A). At the City Council's directive, the City Engineer has investigated the financial implications of developing floodplain areas of the subject site. The study basically substantiated the conceptual location of roadways depicted upon the Transportation Plan. While a number of the above cited items have been addressed, significant concern remains with regard to lot configuration and compliance with the City's Transportation Plan. These issues will be discussed further in latter sections of this report. Transportation Plan. In consideration of the original MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition plat submission in August of 1994, concern was voiced over the development's consistency with the City's Transportation Plan for the area, which had not received final approval at that time. In January of this year, the City adopted a Transportation Plan for Planning District 4 in which the subject property lies. The plan, attached as Exhibit C, has been made part of the Comprehensive Plan and is intended to identify preferred street routings in the area. As noted on the adopted Transportation Plan, a future local street intersection with Quaday Avenue has been proposed south of the subject property. Contrary to this alignment, the preliminary plat proposes the dedication of a half street along the subject property's southern property line. According to Section 21-7-7 J of the Subdivision Ordinance, half streets are to be prohibited except where practical to require the dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is subdivided. Generally speaking, the dedication of half streets is not considered preferred planning practice. As no guarantees exist in regard to full street construction, such streets further raise assessment problems. So as to fully comply with the City's adopted Transportation Plan for the area, 86th Street as depicted upon the preliminary plat should be omitted and lots within Block 2 should be rearranged accordingly. Blocks. According to Section 20-7-3.0 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, blocks intended for business or industrial uses shall be of a width considered most suitable for their respective use, including adequate space for off-street parking, deliveries and loading. Provided that necessary filling is accomplished within Block 1, ample width will exist to accommodate typical uses allowed in the B-3 Zoning District. Due to the necessary reconfiguration of lots within Block 2, a determination of lot/block depth appropriateness cannot be made at this time. El Lot Area. Lots within the preliminary plat range in size from 2.0 to 5.0 acres in size. All lots exceed minimum 1 acre lot size requirements imposed in B-3 Zoning Districts. Lot Width. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within B-3 Zoning Districts must not be less than 200 feet in width. Generally speaking, all lots meet or exceed the 200 foot lot width requirement. The minimal amount of street frontage provided Lot 5, Block 2 from 86th Street is considered moot as 86th Street as currently depicted will need to be removed from the plat (to comply with the Transportation Plan). Quaday Avenue. Quaday Avenue as depicted upon the preliminary plat exists as a southerly extension of 88th Street. The said street is a designated Municipal State Aid (MSA) Roadway and is specifically depicted upon the Transportation Plan. In accordance with City street design standards, an 80 foot wide right-of-way has been proposed. Property Access. The City Engineer has recommended that direct lot access from County Road 42 be limited to a right-in/right-out arrangement. Preferable access location should be subject to further recommendation by the City Engineer. Lot Configuration. While it is acknowledged that a reconfiguration of Block 2 lots will be necessary to accommodate the removal of 86th Street (as currently depicted), it is considered appropriate to note a lot configuration concern. According to Section 21-7-4.B of the Subdivision Ordinance, side lot lines must be at right angles to street lines, radial to curved street lines unless the City Engineer finds a deviation acceptable. Such provision is considered applicable to the northern boundary of Lot 3, Block 2 and the western boundary of Lot 4, Block 2 where this provision has not been satisfied. Setbacks. The submitted preliminary plat illustrates anticipated B-3 District setback requirements. All lots demonstrate an ability to meet such setbacks as identified below: Requirement Front Yard 65 feet from State/County Highway 35 feet from local road Side Yard 20 feet Rear Yard 20 feet County Road Right -of -Way Dedication. As shown on the submitted final plat, a total right-of- way width of 100 feet has been provided for County Road 42. The acceptability of such width and the need for any additional dedication should be subject to further comment by both Wright County Highway Department and the City Engineer. 5 Land Trade. As shown on Exhibit F, a portion of the preliminary plat is to be acquired via land trade. Specifically, a triangular shaped portion of the adjoining Kolles property has been proposed to be added to the Lot 5, Block 2. If any land trade is to be included in the preliminary plat, it should be so described in the property legal description. It should be further noted that the proposed land trade is not endorsed by staff and should be a moot point pending the omission of 86th Street. Floodplain/Wild and Scenic District. As shown on Exhibits B and C, the subject property lies partially within the Mississippi Rivers 100 year floodplain and the boundaries of the Wild and Scenic District. Any development upon the included sites will need to comply with the applicable provisions of the Floodplain and Wild and Scenic Ordinance. Grading and Drainage. To date a grading and drainage plan for the subject property has not been received. As specified by the City's plat submission requirements, a specific grading and drainage plan should be submitted. Section 21-6-2.C.13 of the Ordinance stipulates that such grading plan should illustrate one foot contours and include provisions for surface water ponding and drainage. Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Easements. As required by the City Subdivision Ordinance, 10 foot wide drainage and utility widths have been appropriately provided along lot lines. The City Engineer should provide comment as to the need to establish any additional easements. Parks. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, 10 percent of the gross area of all new subdivisions (or a different percentage determined by the City Council) must be dedicated for public recreation space or other public use as determined by the City Council. If in the opinion of the City, a land dedication is deemed inappropriate, a cash contribution may be required. Specific park dedication requirements should be subject to recommendation by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Phasing. According to the submitted preliminary plat, a portion of the proposed lots are intended to be final platted in future phases. The plat does not, however, indicate which lots are to be phased nor the intended timing of such phases. This should be specified as a condition of preliminary plat approval. Sewer and Water Service. It is anticipated that, at some future point, public sewer and water service will be available to commercial properties along the Highway 101 corridor. According to Section 21-6-2.E.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance, large or excessively deep lots which may be subject to replat should indicate a logical way in which resubdivision could occur in the future. This item and the need for a resubdivision plan submission should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. N CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, it is concluded that a number of significant, outstanding issues remain with the proposed preliminary plat. In this regard, we recommend denial of the preliminary plat unless a continuance of the public hearing is requested by the applicant and the items listed within the Executive Summary of this report are satisfactorily addressed. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak Andy MacArthur Wally Klus Mary Dare Baufield Pastor Greg Pagh 7 SCALE IN FEET 0 2000 4000 6000 Prepared by: rw© -SI a ed onsullants, inc. Base Map by: Ankerson Anderson Assoc., Inc. .m P CITY OF TSEGO FqON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD 2 '1 0 3 WILD AND SCENIC DISTRICT ZONEX ZONE X� ZONEX 86� ZONEX V r�w.�Y,"Citi 861 860 LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100 -YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base Flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); base flood elevations determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100 -year flood by Federal flood protection system under construction; no base elevations determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE I I ZONE AE EXHIBIT C - FLOODPLAIN Im � � x •r` C7�L� -- RE OUIRED (TYP Z h, �_-- -I —r•, �- P TENTIAL RIGHT -1 / RIGH A CESS TO CSAH N .39 n �- • . its I pi 1pN PROF STAT 1 _ — —J 7.I.Y I: i I - 1 _ w-C•:i r _ HIGGHwAY - � - •COMMERCIAL �6 DISTRICT,-- ' .�;, INDUSTRIAL I �i •• DISTRICT _ —I I —• -� —� C Y — __� - rJlOrO�It, � - -.__- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL / HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DIST RI — - \- i e \ TRANSPORTATION � CONCEPT PLAN �Q^ PLANNING DISTRICT 4 -( \4 TED CITY or OTSEGO ON THE. GREAT RIVER ROAD n.e• n• °' LEGEND APrn OSIUATE LOCATION Or Pn OPCSED MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS �n.l e..r eller APPROXWATE LOCATION Of TUTURE LOCAL STREETS • rn OPOSCD LAND USE BOUNDARIES (SEE NOTE BELOW) \� NOTES: he1•w.eJ 1-1 ... t-4.4" .• • .yP•s.:n.I.J vl:6r:•q to. C.1=.1 0.,.y.r Cenyw rl•enr�•. Iyan IS<y1.rvLlr, 17711. \� Ib.J...T bc..:o.•. rl•e—n ... I=L. n.. G<+• nelw• wdT .nJ =-�"t ar. Y•I.NrJ Iw ur• �. y4rv•:•p yurye..1 o•JT, rj •� r4r• 100 r .......... ....... I, RESTRICTED RETAIL CENTER I �.. .• ,HIGH�y AYI M 1ER(ur -- -••••-lI IDIS STRTRICT 1518 1 EXHIBIT D - TRANSPORTATION PLA 1 / ,1 s / n :rpt,+, CJ 8n fr � 1 1 •r o. D Q .�....• I c Q o - n a cr N N __i•5— oz C19 --- 11. 11, . `=v .119 M .61,5/,00 N - I C1) ::: I ,• I Z a n CL u I ;•; W Q y1 �I •• 68'BSS 3 .EI,E9,00 5 ul \` co p co Z — of I T 3 1 U / I N O1 O IZ .h -- ---- ------------------ C UJ w , ---- -- SC'OC9 M .VC CZ.00 N << ...... ..... --- (8'609 j 3 .>f.f Z. DO 5 --- EXHIBIT E - PREVIOUS FINAL PLAT SUBMISSIC ..._. 11 i I� .•.I�� ��. ...) --.J R,p..PD A --o. La, cm.. nr. � /J� •, • I I , ELK- A CPAtt ILRBVRE .!sse•PI SNORES FIR I1 ,__\.- 1/ r•-. N H ADD!T!DN III ^ '•IF�` ,• r DoT o .• ...D.*, wc'• •�1 •; -- ' � \ � -77/ r r •ti,•.. Y.r M « W t W. « w •[ 4l f•a. 1a. i, p.. ta�j-7 � i -•� --T: _ ti5YA5' P.tOHT or PLAT ND 9 - r � _ •-'��' (CSA_H. N0. 30 n ` .�.'7�•W aFSPn�iT!DN -ftroE1T GF�.WAY_-:P1,AT-�F - `-�.i tl ,• , f(//� / .. •+N��yj�1 r 5 1- _ tU 37$•- a'eL'Pn __- i•x !1 �lI`1\•'. `[t . 'i j r I-- D B.SCIO6 0 100 700 3Do �-1 SCALE PL IEET, / • t i : !j , t •Yo aa, ' • • i , a.yyP.w, y' u.x. •.» Fwl « .. \ �. (ll 1•.< 1 r.. t �I 1 i• ' f (I. `\�'� d.a.R.t.Gd-. � l � jj�'�['i' , _ _ I ;I a^"'c" r . t :. ( m Rr .........•aaa•••rrr , - E is � •� i - I.i it _ `I' 'L1• i I-•5,'1 •'•'•i�i .. �L J K- '� 1 I it t li'. 1' `♦ �QQ = »+,arra I�. ���- '\ o' 1` ..}::.E:FT •-s.. t\1' ;;' •/ ,1 � / s., `` ''`°ti .lII • ,i •I'A Y). PARI• LDE• V, :e 1« 1 i ;'\ 11♦ p - ♦. Ll ti3'3ennn_E�\3xas;` / d ` �. ♦♦ I 4-14 wY_roe'>.• L t _tom Y v .' � ,1 S6 Hfia 88TH 9 QST_. f +-- f �v! . ` .ti l ' �.. 3i /'r-------_-- i9fim-- y— — •® {; ' 1`�4%. 1 ��� 2 -I,J:', '' 7 1 ° i. i�` 'i Q``r � .//' �� :T� a� i.A � ,;♦ (\�, ;` (/rte .'�~ • a\ s II. ,� I• _. __. I I I 3.7c ac %-\I ♦ - /•5 Z \ 117,,00 wL2.7 At \` PPDP09E, aoNPw 9-i V. t i LT 'A / • 1 •1 T I ___________________-_- ___ •. L__ T`�.- n!! 1- ems° rT 0 �' '� \• `�,� ��A jlr;� �� ; 7 Ae. +/- L / iW i 1 �', 5.2D.At, .,_' Y.D. At N1 > T'� ♦♦: ,•.� 5`\ 1!61,71 aL-. ♦♦. II e7.54 I2o &.1. • �� w.i r \ • L� -5 3 _ : , N.E ---- ---- - 88TH ST. i ,� -- - 4335.J3_.�._: i 1 \ `\-' I ; N e9'58'78' E A03,. SAM - WI. W « W K V. « W K 1/4 K.4E. i. OL"l a♦♦ / I `-_ •a a:rizr.`oi .» �! «P. tl �f.c »I/�•.• I l F ( •1 w0•.k LAND TRADE LErEnPE I � � / r EXISTING DRIVEWAY ' PROPOSED FUTURE ACCESS: RIGHT W/RIGHT OUT ONLY t I EXHIBIT F - PRELIMINARY PLAT 02-14-1995 03: 40PM FROM RHD=W I LLLAWOFF = '" "1iT' " "- " 44188_Z P. 02 Wd mn S. Radmig Wrew J. MaeAn hur Michael C. Couri February 14, 1995 Planning Commission City of Otsego c/o Elaine Beatty City Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue Elk. River, MN 55330 RADZWILL LAW OFFICE Attorney: at Law 4- 705 Cenral Avenue East PO Bax 369 St. Michael, MN 55376- (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) Members W RE: MRD PRELIMINARY PLAT Dear Planning Commission Members: I have reviewed the preliminary plat submitted by Developers for MRD Commercial Park 2nd Addition as well. as the planning report drafted by NAC and dated February 8, 1995 relative to their review of said preliminary plat. I have the following comments: 1. 1 am mystified as to what exactly is being proposed on the southern boundary of the submitted preliminary plat, regarding the proposed N.E. 86th Street. and Lot 5, Block 2. I agree with the planning report that dedication of a half street on the southern edge of the plat is a very poor idea. Such a partial dedication would require the city to somehow obtain the southern portion of the right of way to construct a roadway. I strongly agree that this portion of the proposal needs to be reconsidered by the applicant. 2. South of Lot 5, Block 2, is a tiny triangle of land, not included within the boundary of the plat, which is designated as a "Land Trade". This triangle is apparently a portion of the Kolles property to the south. There is no indication that the Developer has any legal interest in that property or that their exists any signed agreement creating any right. Further, it is unclear which land would be traded since the proposed plat apparently includes all lands in that immediate vicinity which are owned by the Developer. Based upon the configuration submitted, the "triangle 11 of land would constitute the only available access to Lot 5, except for CSAR 42. If it is determined that no access is available to CSAH 42 for that lot, than approving the plat as presented would only serve to approve a let with no access since the proposed NE 86th Street does not front on that lot. 02-14-1995 07- : 40PM FROM RADZW I LLLAWOFFIt"t"" T Q ' 4418823 P 03 Letter to Otsego Planning Commission February 141 1995 Page 2 I believe that the City Engineer should comment on whether this proposed configuration would have any adverse on the local drainage conditions. I would concur with the Planner's recommendations regarding this preliminary plat. Very truly yours, Andrew a ur RADZWILL LAA OFFICE cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson Wally Klus Mary Dare Baufield Pastor Greg Pagh FEB 14 '95 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON P.3 Hakanson 1Anderson Assoc., Inc. February 14, 1995 City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Ave. NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: MRD Commercial Preliminary Plat Dear Elaine. 222- ,Monroe Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 Fax 612/427-3401 We have reviewed NAC's comments and report on the preliminary plat and provide herein our engineering comments: • As shown, 86th Street is not an acceptable street location. As noted in the planner's review, the City cannot accept half streets. An acceptable alternative to this proposed 86th Street is shown on an accompanying sketch. The attached sketch of the proposed street and cul-de-sac could serve Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5, Block 2. This appears to be the least costly of other alternative streets. • Right in/right out access to Lot 5, Block 2 v%/ould not be considered until a development was proposed for the lot. The right in/right out would only be recommended to Wright County if the developer could demonstrate by traffic flow {projections that it was necessary for traffic circulation at the site. Without a development plan at this time, this issue is not being reviewed. • The Quaday Avenue horizontal alignment substantially conforms to the arriendment to the ccmprehensive plan for transportation in this area. The ho; izontal curve radius should be revised to allow for a 30mph traffic. • Soils test should be performed on the proposed lots for determination of septic drainfield acceptabi!ity. FEB 14 'SS 15:11 HAKANSON ANDERSON Page 2 February 14, 1995 Drainage of stormwater as shown on the grading plan generally meet the needs of,the area. A drainage swale placed in Block 2 daylights to the street and a catchbasin should be placed here. A drainage swale should be placed in Lot 5 south line with water routed to CSAH42 right-of-way. • Wetland delineation needs to be made and reported. Grading and drainage plan. Plan appears to meet the conditions we have established for the area with few minor corrections. Our recommendations would be to deny the preliminary plat due to lack of access to the proposed Lots 4 and 5. The plan, does not conform to the District #4 Concept Transportation Plan. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me. Yours truly, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I w - Enclosure cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office File: OT2107 /FfB 14 '95 15:12 N SON AND ON - U t -j / .49 : - - 1 �� r 1 I. •s � to � � Cit 00 LUI /I , co CIL j Co Lo 001 a 4 ( 0 JN-ry 0A, .0 2 �m go67W O 19 -4y 7e5iO WRIGHT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Wright County Public Works Building 1901 Highway 25 North Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Jct. T.H. 25 and C.R. 138 Telephone (612)682-7383 Facsimile (612) 682-7313 February 15, 1995 Mr Lawrence G. Koshak, P.E. Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. 222 Monroe Street Anoka, MN 55303 Re: Right of Way Width for Plat on CSAH 42 in Otsego Dear Mr Koshak: WAYNE A. FINGALSON, P. Highway Engineer 682-7388 DAVID K. MONTEBELLO, P Assistant Highway Enginee 682-7387 RICHARD E. MARQUE7F Right of Way Agent 682.7386 Mr Kevin Kelb of your office called and said that a commercial plat is being developed on a parcel of land in the City of Otsego along CSAH 42. He asked that the Wright County Highway Department review the current and future right of way needs on this property located on the East side of CSAH 42 slightly south of the CSAH 42/39 intersection. Kevin requested that a recommended R/W width for this parcel be sent to your attention in letter form and would be included as part of the plat dedication. The current owner of this land in Section 22-121-23 (Tax I.D. # 118-500-221100) is listed as Mary R. Dare. The northerly portion of the parcel has 60 ft of permanent highway easement inplace while the southerly portion has 50 ft. It is my recommendation that the entire frontage for this parcel on CSAH 42 be dedicated with a 60 ft permanent R/W to allow for future turnlanes and lane widening in this fast expanding location. This should not affect the future development of this property and may actually cause less problems for future utility needs, etc. Please call our office with any questions or comments regarding this action. Sincerely, Wayn A. Fin on, P.E. Wri h Count ighway Engineer pc: Pat Sawatzke, Co. Commissioner,Dist. 2 Elaine Beatty, City of Otsego