03-15-95 PCPlanning Commission Minutes of March 15, 1995, cont'd. Page 4.
Industrial Site Selection Committee: Mark Wallace reported they met on March 2. They need
one more meeting and then will prepare a written report. The Committee will set up a meeting to
present their information to the Planning Commission, City Council and the EDAAC.
Annexation: No new information per CM Fournier.
CM Fournier stated that Mayor Freske likes to attend all meetings because of their importance
but couldn't be here tonight because of a Mayors meeting.
Dennis McAlpine stated that he is resigning from the Planning Commission. He will follow up
with a letter. Mr. McAlpine stated his reason for resigning is because of his work load. He has
been uncomfortable with the fact that he hasn't been able to contribute more time to the Planning
Commission. He has no conflict with anyone here or in the commission but realizes his job must
come first.
Carl Swenson replied that everyone understands and we respect your situation.
CM Fournier expressed on behalf of the City Council their thanks and appreciation of his services
and to keep the option open for coming back.
Bruce Rask expressed his concern with the Engineering regarding the improvements at Tom
Thumb.
He questioned why the storm water run off is not going away from the building. He would like to
see this looked into.
Another issue Bruce Rask questioned was the fact that we require Swimming Pools to have
fences installed around them and why not our holding ponds.
Chair Swenson suggested to have City Staff investigate both of these situations.
Gene Goenner questioned the Building Permit the City issued to Clark Pressler for an accessory
building, which he will use for his Home Extended Business.
Elaine Beatty said he has had this business for several years. She also said that the EDAAC is in
the process of reviewing home extended businesses. CM Fournier said it is the City's Policy to
respond only upon receiving a written complaint.
7. Adjourn
Mark Wallace motioned to adjourn meeting. Seconded by Bruce Rask. All in favor.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.
ennis McAlpine, Secretary
Minutes by Judy Hudson
Recording Secretary
ted Consultants, Inc.
JFN Northwest
Q C U R B A N PLANNI N G DESIGN • MARKET RES E
7Eg0RANTDU l - Via Fa.� '�'�- n�uussiait (1 ?agc s )
Anached r,lelse finti VAr f'ir,a-li%µd
B3,low
request.
plias? distribute. op
ies of t};i -cort 'o
t;t' Planniru COmll?:s51017
This item is scheduled For public hea, irrg on 15 "March.
Nye have rnailed copies to And", � and Mr Bulow.
t,U1;6. 1CUMEI
D1STRf3U i __
Elaine Beatty
TO:
Pii.. U nE.,
FROh1:
Bob Kirmis
ATTORNEY
8 March 1995
DATE:
DATE ._
Otsego - Bulow Estates
FILE NO:
176.02 - 95.03
Anached r,lelse finti VAr f'ir,a-li%µd
B3,low
request.
plias? distribute. op
ies of t};i -cort 'o
t;t' Planniru COmll?:s51017
This item is scheduled For public hea, irrg on 15 "March.
Nye have rnailed copies to And", � and Mr Bulow.
t,U1;6. 1CUMEI
D1STRf3U i __
Pii.. U nE.,
FLt WNIEf 1
BLDG IIruP
ATTORNEY
OTHER
`"CINEER
DATE ._
JrNNorthwest Associ�ted Consultants, Inc.
C - � ru-.�w•r�r
U R 8 A N PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT -
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis/David Licht
DATE: 8 March 1995
RE: Otsego - Bulow Estates: Rezi-ming and Preliminary Plat
(Anderson Property)
FILE NO: 176.02 - 95.03
EXECUTIVE SUNEVIARY
Background
Mr. Cris Bulow has submitter a :eguest to resubdivide 12.7 acres of 'and located south of
County Road 39 and east of Nashua Avenue. The propose.,d seven lot si lgle family residential
subdivision is entitled "Bulow Estates" and overlays a portion of the City's Oiiginal Townsite
Plat. To accommodate the development proposal, the follo , ing approval; have be~n deemed
necessary:
Vacation of portions of 5th, 7th, 8th, and C Streets -f the Towns..�te Plat which
underlie the subject property.
L. Rezoning of the sv'vje: t property from A -i, . G'_,_ :iiiii-a1 R-tirai Sei^ itw Di_.tt' co a PLM
Planned Unit Development designation.
1. Re plat,'subdivisioii of the prope*;y (preliminary ?l=it 'i:3; g considered at i'I is lime).
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - `.AC Area Pla ; (TunN '09")
Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat
Recommendation
Based on the following review, it is the opinion of our office that the requested PUD zoning of
the property is the most effective means of dealing with the property's existing development
rights, while maintaining the inte-g,.i.ty of the City's Comprehensive. Plan. Although our office
believes that justification does Dist to apt rove the requested rezoning, such requests arc
considered matters of City policy to be determined by City Officials.
If the City finds the requested PUD zoning to be appropriate, our office recommends approval
of the Bulow Estates picUrninary plat subject to the following conditions:
I. As a condition of final plat approvO, the City vacate portions of Sch, 7di, Sth, and C
Streets which underlie the subject property,
2. Sixth Street, �Nltich underlies one subject plat, is rename ;n a.ccordar,ce whir the Citi
street naming plan.
3. A temporary cul-de-sac is provided at the eastern terminus of 94th Street.
4. The City En -neer pro, ide recommendation in regard to construction standards applicable
to proposed 94th Street.
JZ. Access to L;�t �, Blcck 1 and List 1, Block 2 from Nashua Avenue shall be prohibited.
Access to such lots shall be provided solely via 94th Street.
b. Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot J, Block 2 are to be allowed direct lot access to Nashua Avenue
only on an intexim basis. At such dune as easterly de.Iclopment occurs anal an alternative
easterly street access is available, access to tha said lots from Nashua Avenue shall be
prohibited.
7. The interior driveway access providceJ ±o L,ot 2, Brock 1 from Nashua Avenue be located
as lar south as poss.ble _)n the lot to cnsurc area safety.
S. Sixty-five foot setbacks axe imposed from Nash�ia Avenue and iBustrated upon tht
prelirninari plat. Such setback is reftcc ive of Zhe =treet3 intended funl:-Ocn as a rniner
anerial.
9 �i* of 1� ..� .r-•, nr; •fy. f ir,
The _2.y E[iC.lif �r p::i1 iu. LOil3lti :�lt� %Z:-. :].inti tZCl.:.tC• tic ; i..:it i ... Il t.'+ . �): ,driitlonal
right-cof-way dedication for -Nashua Jrkvmue.
lin ?'he applicant i rr.urist.�,i% .. ;licrtT2Lf +il 9l'1]1Gli 11:' �OtS .;r.,'11�j �:C1--i��lj' �t; :--;ibcll�IllCd ^
the future (upo i the advf=At of p-ul)i c sat., tar;- sewer service).
11. Homes constructed upon Lot 2, Block 1 and Int 3, Block 2 are oriented in a manner
conducive to future lot access from the east and prohibition of access from Nashua
Avenue.
12. Tire applicant demonstrate Iflow future easterly stri-xt access could be provided to Lot 2,
Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2.
13. Ile City Etngmeier provide recor.nendation as to the acceptabI ty of the proposed
drainage and utility easeTnents; particularly the drainage easement proposed over a
portion of the site's contained wetland.
14. The applicant provide prcof that the wetland delineation, iilustratbi upon the; prelinihiary
plat is accurate and was perfonned by a person qualified for such work.
15. The preii-mina.-y plat is modified to Mustlate proposed well and dmi_n Sn'd locations.
16. The City Engi-neer provide, n reg?.rd to ;radilig id drainage
issues.
1?.The applicant satisfy pari: dedication requisetrWrts as de%:rtnh:cd by the Par,_ and
Recreation Advisory Committee.
IS_ The City Engineer provide re ominendation in regard to the need 'o e.reot a stT t lib ;t
as part of the proposed constriction of 94th Street.
19. As a condition of final plat approval, the appl,cjnt enter unto a deve-la:)-nne:nt aefeennent
with the City.
20. Comments from other City staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Existing Development Rights
As shown on E,-Jdbit B-2, th:. Crig nal Tov r site bloclts addh oon pi iso th;, subje ..t pzor erty
hold individual lots. Specilicnlly, thl- Ori`' nal To-unslt;, lots r! ea_ rt-,, iV, .�25 felt LI area and
are provide lot Nidths of 65 felt. Ac(-crdir!g to did ?o.rwi i Orduiai)ce, a nibihni .im lot area of
o:;e acre and a width of 150 A% -:et is requiru-d to accommodate lqiuig!e family resiue;itial uses.
Btcause zuch lots fail to me:t lot area a d density requirements of the base A-1 District Zoning
f,le!�ignaticri, Z,Zuch lots t2Xisc as'egal nc�n-;_onfr, rr�,ties. Altl'hou_h tho Ordin nc-e "Qection 10-115-
Z.A.
G-iS-
A. 1) St2teF that non-confnrmung lOtS ;O-dci front plblic-;tmels do Bold f:_oall, develom n`2nit
IZJIitS Sr�ctiQn M -15-2.A.1 of tateJ'• ., '�tc�
mt-t ripe -et ;S pe,cem
of the niiniriium requiiern nv of :life distr(r:t whl-re tiie 1 s pe: nirreO.
3
While the City could legitimately take a position that no development rights are due the subject
.property, the City attorney has indicated that the applicant car. make the argument that the
existing Townsite Plat affords him present development rights, and that the City can legitimately
take the position that no such present development rights exist. Due to the Zomplexity of the
issue, the City Attomey recommended that the City Council consider -a compromise agreement
with the applicant.
Rezoning
PUD Zoning Designation. To accommodate the applicaait's development re,,uest and .avoid the
creation of a non-ccnformity (density), a rezoning of the subject property, will. be ne-c essary. Tlie
proposed development involves a number of unique features w icl. esse^tiauy ,^.tape the
application of a standard R-3 zoning desig iati.on (one acre lot size) inappropriate:. These features
include:
1. The exclusion of the property from the City'_ linmediate urban service ar-?a (to
accommodate an R-3 zoning, a Comprehensive Plan ;intendment to adjust the urban
service area boundary would be n=ssary).
�. The possible existence of legal developrre. t *:ghts.
3. A conflict with the City's land use pl In (the pl�r proposes four per 40 density upon the
subject property).
4. Tie desire to make development upon the subject property consistent :with the long term
planning objectives of the area.
5. A standard residential zo-drlg designation (i.e., R-3) would set a poor precedent in regard
to future development proposals in the .:area.
Recognizing the uniqueness of the aprplic.,nt's request., a re on%g of the subje-ct proper: tG a
Planned Unit Development (PTM) de.`.ignation hass be --712 PTOPOsed. Su .h Jesignation may
accommodate the proposed residential density, wiihoar ;eopaidizing the ,ritent of the
^oTnprehensi�: e Plan. at su. h time =��her tfie pplic:am property b&comes utig-uous with R-3
one acre residential de%,ek--, rro'nt. a r�:'Ol�.i'�' of the `)p�.rtu' .10 an 3 si ; do c dual
P � �.ro R-.� designation � ;
Rezouing Judgement C'riteri:.. Accord;-ag ;o Secuan of tlhe Lo,iin- Ordirl:trce, the
City ��ourci1 and Planning Conun-Jss!o.-r sI'iatt cnnsidcr pcs=l ie ad%ersc, e��fec:ts ,f the propose�.I
:unf.tndmUnit. Tud e.'ile:'t :ustbsed uCr.- (hit L-ot limited ro) the factors:
4
1. The proposed ,action's consistency with the specie policies :and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
I;le subject property lies within the City's Icng ru�tge urban service area in which a
residential density of `our dwell ng units per forty acres of land is re: om.rawnded. WliilO
the proposed residential, density is not; at this time, :orlsistent with such reconimendatian,
the possible developinent rights currently afforded the slbjeCt property ca.uiot be ignored
and must be dealt with.
Speck Comprehynsive Plan poy;:ies which tend tc uppo:t the subje t rKTIest are as
follows:
o Establish and =_bitain an ta-< situation and pursue a
strengtheued and sound tax base.
o All development proposals sliall be aua1,•-c_d on an individual basis Froin a
physical, eclononiic m,,d social standpoLnt to de-, tMline the most appropriate u_cs
within the context of the community as a whole.
0 Once established, geographic Iand use designations and related ZorlLng
classifcatiens shall be change., only wllcll it is in the best i.ilterest of the
conlinur&y on a long te=1 Pei' peCti1'_- aiid such changes xi� pro,,:ote lalld use
compatibility and pre -determined goals and policies of the Conlprelleasi� .Plan.
c Imnlediaze, short range market potential and demands for activities which are not
suggested for a site or area by the Cornpr:h,�nsiva Planor allowed 5y the Zoning
Ordinance shall not be the sale justirication f:Or a cha.7ge isi activity.
2.
The proposed use's coinpatibi ity with present and futt_re 12nd ',:,i?s of the area.
The City's lard use Ilan suggests long ream ion= densit;' residenti,,_l use 0` the subject
property. ve le c., 1patible with i.iteild_d `.;�Ljre land -uses
T,luS, til.' pr�7�`!ised 1� ...1JpII di1 `s �.tl
in the area. WE12 the pun's immediate dirccdve itf <3 7naxiinuni f,;ur p .r forty den -sit-
is not being acl-dcved; nuineretis Slligl fariih, resid=ntiu uses uv^ :�is1 ul Ile 31"c3.
3. The proposed rise's conformity With all ser fl,rtr.611c� �t.�nda. ds contained bevel.>�
(i.e., parking, load-ing, noise, etc.).
All ,otS r o. --M sldb.�i` iszion 11 14 � llli'f� iii i�Iftl Or e\"C he star da id
wi�1Ln the prop, 1 _ will :eq._
unposed upon typical ont acre lot suigla f-1nilysubdivi ion,;.
5
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Provided various conditions of subdivision approval are upheld (i.e., access restrictions,
etc.), the proposed use will not adversely impact the area in which it is proposed.
5. The proposed use's impactupon property values of the area in which it i.i proposed.
The proposed use is not anticipated to negatively impact area property values.
S. Traffic generation of ?he proposed use in relation to capahWties of streets serving
the property.
While the seven additional d.'elling units being introduced to the area will result in an
increase in +:.-affic generation, spe ific measures are being taken to ensure area safety.Such measures entail:
a. Internal access for Lots 3 and 4, Block l and Lots 1 and 2, EloCk 2.
b. Dirt .ct lot access to Nashua Avenue from Lot ?, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 is
to be a?iowed only on an interim basis and is to be terminated ellen lased east of
the subject property is developed.
i. The proposed use's impact upein ekistLug public services and facilities including
parks, schools, streets, utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service
capacity.
Recognizing the potential rights due tele subject property (as part of thit
Original Townsite Flat), a PTJD zoning designation has been requested. Such zoning will
allow the applicant to develop the propel -ty but only in a manner outlined xithin a PLT
development_ agreement. Via compliance with such provisions, an assurance will he
nlade that the proposed ,use wM not overbarden the City's service capacity.
Street Vacation
'1 c accommodate the proposed subdivision t'eC�lut), %lie for -mal vacation of stre:;t Inghts-of-'x'a V
llicll Lirderlie the ut ect prop rty will be necessary. Specifically, portions of nth, 7th, 8th,
alld iW Streets will l:gid to be vacat-_J. WIndle the segment of Lith Stzeet. w bic ; underlies 11he
property will remain. it should be renamed in accorda.lcr
with the v ty's street naminb pl�:ri.
The- vacation o` the afurem�nticned streets Tx ill ` e, rnad a con"Jon of roto final plat approval.
Ill prtvlolls discussll-in-s" the City Council bas t�) 7vhedler illevacztloll'.A all T(.)Wn:j1te
Plat streets �llcluld be pursued Mud not Just those wfuch the plat. III
'OI:S!drr2l:0� Of tlll;s Issue, t^ C:tV �`stC' Tt�'Y has e nr-- Sed h: opLriion th:a tllt' vai:alion �7f C
rr.
entire original Townsite Plat cannot be required as a condition of pre?lininary plat approval. The
City does, however, hold the authority to va::ate whatever portion of the Townsite is desired via
resolution and hearing.
Subdivision -
Lot Size. While the pT,JD zoning applic tion does a2ow for same degree of �ot size fle ibiJity,
it is staff's contention that lots within the subject subdivision be of such a size anti ,;paced i,I the
area and sufficient to safety accommodate private sewage- treatment. In this regard, a r.}inimurr,
one acre lot size requirement l,R-3 District standards? is considered appropriate.
The seven lots within the proposed sab:iivision range in size from 1. i to 4.99 acres and are
judged to be ac. eptable.
Lot Width. Consistent with standard R-3 District 'ot riidih requirements, all r,oposed 'Cts
exceed 150 feet in width.
Streets.
94th Street. AL shown on Exhibit D, a 315 foot seg-ment of 9 -4th Street is p.-Oposed to
be constructed. Such stre.,et is to overlay existing 5th Street of she nnyMal Townsite
Plat. Consistent with Ordinance requirements, a tempoi-ary cul-de-sac has been proposed
at the street's eastern terminus. at such time when 94+11 Street is extended, the acreage
covered by the turn-F.round botindanies shall :evert in ownership to the property owner
fronting the cul-de-sac.
Tie_ proposed 60 foot right-of-way width provided for 94,h Street is also consistent With
the City's minimum right-of-way dedication. -equirerrents f'br local street classifications,
Specific street constnuction standards shouldbt- subject to the recommendation of The Cit;-
Engineer.
Nashua Avenue. As noted previously, Nashua A..y;t is; hi r11: loll- tI?i:, plaimled to
be converted to a county road. The stre.-t is currently classulul as a tr,inor arterial upon
the City's Transpon tion Plan and is expected to incur cignificart traffic Lnereases in th
future. Recognizi*ig dhe street's long term furctic;n, a need for a.ddinonal rislst-of-w-a ,
may be necessary. The City Enelne.,r should j rovid; i e .fie reCo T;,"~.cI c! :t.on in regard
to right-of-way dedication requirements.
Access. As shown o:i The prelLnina.q plat, proposed 9yth ,St,:eet , illrovide ac^css To 'ruts 3
and 4 of Block 1 and u7ts l and _ of Block 2. A_ a . ondiri()n of sinal ph., approval, di-rect
,ash a Avenu.- «coos; to Ti -t -,, B.o,.,. I ::.rd Lor.. _, Block .. 'xu be .tric tly
7
Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 of the plat would, oil an interim basis, be provided direct lot
access to Nashua Avenue. At such time wl en the adjacent easterly property develops, all
alternative lot access from the east will be provided and a'cc: ss to Nashua Avenue will
stlbscqseatly be ter-nirated. To ensure area safety in the interim, it is r cn-nimended that the
driveway for Lot 2, Block 1 be situated as far south as possible (away fror,-, County Road
39iNashua Avenue intersection). This issue will be. specfma.iiv addressed within a PUD
development agreement applicable to the subject property. -
Setbacks. In recognition of the proposed un;, plus acre lot sizes. The followil:g setbacks in.pose'd
in the R-3 Zoning District are applicable to the subject site:
Front Yard
35 feet
Side Yard
15 feet
Rear Yard
20 feet
:o be specifcally noted in retard to setbacks, however, is the proposed long term convcrsien
of Nashua Avenue to a county roadway, In tEs regard, it is recommended that a 65 foot setback
be imposed along Nashua Avenue. Such setback :hcLlu }ub_e eent'y he Mustratetl tlpon tI►c
plat.
Rcsubdivision. According to Sect or 21-6-2.B of the Subdivision Oiuu-ianc•e, wh: re structures
are to placed on large or excessively deep lots which are subject to potential rerlat, the
preliminary plat must indicate a logical way the lots could possibly be .reszbdv,,-idrd in the Purure.
While, the ; roposed lots provide ample width for potential resubdivision, a specific resiubdivi is n
plan should be superimposed on the preliminary plat.
Area Development Plan. In consideration of the propo_zd subdivision, rut assurance should be
male that ;he development will not '.unit the dev,-�lopabilit; of the adjacent easterly p -zcel of
l:.rid. In fact. Section 2i -6-2.x:..4 ,-)f the Subdivision nr::i,nance specifca.11y sta-zes:
Where the applicant o« -ns pil2l?rty adjacent to Lalli is iJel:lU prop` sedl for
the subdivision, it shall be required that the applicant Libmit a sketch i la1, cif the
remainder of the property so as ro show die, possible reiati�jnshi 7s bet';ve—en the
proposed sulAivision :-L1 the fuvure subdi\,isior:• If, an; ';vent, all stubdivisiors
shallbe rNu]redt0 r�l1tZ 'a'eil rill i. J5C1Il� Gr Wit+ nt.lai ad,sjC�tlt Stil,dl': 1 10115 altG'
land uses.
w`lun]e [}le City Cannot I'q -1-p fi,+`1}LJ'ic.c:-.5 10 the -'flit },- Ind
n r tit F , id } �� �1•
dl:�::G il?� S��3rate �w„er51?kJ -� the ;a�s,e-, :pure.:o p.cti i:�e ` iCl) 3 l_n t_ l; GzT mate
co;�sid .rt d by th:; City a: a u:tor in plat aj p,"oval r :ii;af l roe ai• :f ar, r^� d, thy I '.'
cry rt:Z. 1L a`: F' T .1 j/r:� r ? „� `'' 1- r' !;�w'.iLr •-r•:•; r�`•'�,•ii_l11 ',1 rh,a S�,�v.>1 ':Y n�
rt twill p!" P,:all;' a�.L. _'s rhe':4c.C5, ssu;t `�lj a Il4lalS Ll1 .!. L.
that access iS only 1-or'ditional1V
n
O
In June of 1993, our office prepared a conceptual subdivision design for that portion of the
Original Townsite Plat 'located south of County Road 39 and east of Nashua Avenue (see
attached Exhibit C). The concept plan overlays both il)e applicant's property and adjacent
property to the east.
WEe tt;e proposed prelunimary plat is considered aene:a]ly consistent with the referenced
concept plan, its validity is lessened as the concept plan retains C Street, a portion of which has
been proposed for vacation by the applicant. To fully address this issue. we Suggest that the
applicant demonstrate a rneans by which Lot 2, Block I and I,ot 3, Block'Zl may achieve future
street access from the east.
Building Orientation. In anticipation of nature easterly access to Lot 2, Block l and Lot 3,
Block 2, it is important that buildinc sites are positioned accordingly (particularly in regard to
garage orientation). As a condition of subdivision and PuD approval, hon)ls upon such lots
should be oriented in a manner which will be conduc:v- to future lot access from the east.
Easements. In conformance with Ciry Subdivision Ordinance rtquirementzs, 14 foot utility and
drainage easements have been ustramd along proposed iot i.iines. Additionally, a tempora-;
cul-de-sac easement has he --,,i provided at th; eastern terL.i nls of 94th Street and over a portion
of tI)e property's wetland. The City Engi.Lnee.r should provide comtment/r:.commendation in
regard to the acceptabi;ity of the Croposed easements.
Wetland. As shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland-u--nently exists in the southern portion
of Lot 3, Block 2. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant must provide proof that
such delineation was performed by a person quaLte-d for such work.
Water Supply/Sewage DisposaI. According to the City's Subdivision Ordinance, pre-Hrninary
plat submissions must identify/iliustnate to 'location and size of both water supply and sewage
disposal system:. As a condition of prelirnitmr: plat approN al, proposed well and drain field
locations should be illustrated. This issue should be subjcct ,o flarher con)n:e t by the Citv
Engineer.
Grading and Drainage. Section 21-6-2.C.13 of ;iia Subdivisior, O;dinalice stipulates that a
gradir.D plan must }be provider as part of preliminan -Mar_ submissions. `I'll le the prelinii,- uz".
plat ,does _llust to existing contours acrd p' posed housLr: pad elegy ations, a s ec_f:c graUin7 plan
has noz been subsnittt'.d. 1.1 _ (7itymoi)-Lrieer Should r rO1' ide t olrii?�':lure':4'Iln'idr'a' �itici? as to the
need for additional grading/drainage information.
rarh Dedication. In pr__iminary staff Jisc-issi.on, the applicmit has expressed an interest in
dedicz.t1ng a unspec:fi� arrlount of property dill -UTI a•zst :?f !he- subject .site (%+iiUSs *v2sl'illa
Ave u,_,,) as park land. filch di,. i -cation Jl ly be acce1'if ibl or even eycc,: d Cly land
s '^
aed.cat2or) retluirerr�c__^.t5, ilk 1S$LF; 'illCtil .0 L7,' sul};I.ci `:FJG iY�'� FC it( G:]l�:t�(�ii t�'�` lli� .t":li%t�
and R�.- reanon _ &VIsor; Committee.
9
Street Lighting. For safety purposes, some consideration should be given as to the need for
a street light at the proposed 94th Street/N.Tashua Avenue intersection. According to the City's
adopted street lighting policies, any new residential development must liare a street lighting plan
prepared by a developer and submitted as pL--t of the development plan. Exceptions to this
submission requirement may be allowed at the Council's direction. This item and the specific
reed for a street light shouid be subject to specific recommendation by the City Engineer.
Development Agreement. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required
to enter vito a PUD develop-ment afire; ment with the City.
One key issue which wit] need to be addressed within the. agreement relates to the ftt� re
provision cf an easterly street access to 'sot ?, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2. Of specific issue
is that the burden of providing such street access rests wish the adjacent easterly property owner.
Because the propos-,d subdivision would receive benefit from such street, an assurance should
be made that a "fair share" of such street constn:ction costs are absorbed by property owners
within the proposed plat. In this regard, the PLS Agreement should contaL language indicating
that the applicant acknowledges that any such road would benefit property within: the plat. and
that the applicant or its successors will nct take the positi. n that their property has recei,,---d no
benefit from construction of such a road.
CONCLUSION
In.:onsideration of possible development rights due thy, subject property and the property's
exclusion from [h,-- immediate urban service area; the application of a PUD zoning designation
neon the property is considered the most effe�tiye means of achieving the City's development
objectives in the are,: whale rraLritaining the integrity of the City's Ccmprel;wi:sive Plan.
Rezonin4s are, however, maters of City policy to be deterrnined by City Offlicials.
Shc.ild the City approve the requested rez ring, our office recorr_mends apprm,al of the Bul-c
Estates preliminary plat Subject to t11e condirions listed in the E.,.ccutive Summary of tivs report.
PC: Elaine Beatry
Andy ?MacArthur
Larry Koshak
r
Cns Bulow
to
f
f !I
r
i ' I
i
I` 11111
+,�il.�"'��['
Wi
11 112
7,7rtii
I � _. ;; � Y. � `f .. 1 .. I t � � � I I � 1 \ r 'e••Y-'� : j %: l• t� 1 :a�
-
�\
� ~ �� � i ...E j
,, t
1 J
.SrF.
SCALE IN FEET
0 2000 4000 6000
DECEMBER 1991
2.7
31 tJ -
f ` -�- ` _ � 3�
�,rrw �r wr��r �.�►r.�uo[rlriliY���sM�.���w�..�.1.� a..��arr• ' � ; '
Fuse Mair by:
Ha pa n so n
A r1.1E7 i1-18
1 .s-wc
7.D. T EGO
OW Tfflr, GRMT MVFR ROAM}
ol
i I
'lijl
I i
f
f !I
r
i ' I
i
I` 11111
+,�il.�"'��['
Wi
11 112
7,7rtii
I � _. ;; � Y. � `f .. 1 .. I t � � � I I � 1 \ r 'e••Y-'� : j %: l• t� 1 :a�
-
�\
� ~ �� � i ...E j
,, t
1 J
.SrF.
SCALE IN FEET
0 2000 4000 6000
DECEMBER 1991
2.7
31 tJ -
f ` -�- ` _ � 3�
�,rrw �r wr��r �.�►r.�uo[rlriliY���sM�.���w�..�.1.� a..��arr• ' � ; '
Fuse Mair by:
Ha pa n so n
A r1.1E7 i1-18
1 .s-wc
7.D. T EGO
OW Tfflr, GRMT MVFR ROAM}
i l fLCd'2
r • I � •.1 7 I • i i � � � s � " � t�.:�:^1---=•� L:1�_ - i I f, _ �� _ � _ � _ ._�..� �-�:.L..' ` � �w
-,-Y_'•, f" _— i ,�---- -!. Imo; f . —� r'�----�.-....j �
71 +
lit
NOTE: PLAT DATE NOT SPECIFIED
NORTH
J -0'a
OF
4,-
V
42 44
z
6
7
7
WETLAh D
D R A) N,4 G :ASEMENTI CON CT19N,
--------- ---- -----------
qS 17
2
FUTURE 2/1
STREET
EXHHCl!T C IJAC AREA CONCEPT PLAN (JUNE 19'
4 X10 11112,
85
biz
61'51
S.
4
83
'
41
82
( &jF
1 12 113
q
ST.
-7 -Go
C F
ko7SF
'cl
-14
4,-
V
42 44
z
6
7
7
WETLAh D
D R A) N,4 G :ASEMENTI CON CT19N,
--------- ---- -----------
qS 17
2
FUTURE 2/1
STREET
EXHHCl!T C IJAC AREA CONCEPT PLAN (JUNE 19'
10
95Tf-f-
SOu1M R/W UNE
N. LINE Or S.W.1/4
SEC. 17, TWP.21, FRKC.:3
TEMPOWY Ct��OE—SAC
EASEMEN`
•�eyy y
41�—
4
CEN7EALNC 0W C STREET
♦ 1
. rma
0 100 200 )CC
5"c IK f!L[T
v0. Ltirf OF I.w i/4 •7F 51-'/4
7. .121. F A-L5O
SO. Jr< OF PLAT
A
4,
EXHIBIT D - °RS: -aI
WW KLUS REALTY INC.
W. W. Mus Realty, Inc.
Retail Rea! Estate SpedaWts
Suite 112 • 5100 Edea Avenue • Minneapolis, MN 55436 • (612) 922-2$60 • FAX (612) 922-2927
. +'. ��YPi. S,'k'?d%i"�.i'a°iM.;S''Asf •,nC:,
March 15, 1995
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue N.E.
Elk River, MN 55330
Attention: Elaine Beatty
_Coa=ted Letter re: Date Of Meeting
Clerk/Zoning Administrator
Re: Lot 1, Block 1, MRD Commercial Park, 2nd Addition
Dear Elaine,
We want to thank you for arranging the meeting this morning with
the staff. It appears that we resolved a number of issues that will
keep our application process moving along. This type of interchange
of information is just what we had suggested some time ago. it
makes it easier of both the staff and the applicant.
Following your suggestion, we hereby request a continuance of
the Public Hearing with the Planning Commission until the
meeting on April 19, 1995 . This will allow us time for amending
the documents we discussed and also allow time for the staff review.
Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum that contains information that
we referred to. l think that you will find it interesting, In that no
such memorandum has yet been received.
Sincerely,
--� 4�
m s W. Ladner
cl
Klus Realty, Inc.
cc: M Dare
,l'22
MAMONA
post -It- brand tax transmittal Memo7671°t Pag" 0' (
FA►►:)
" 64 't I- 9A %3
M
t -A bo"
KLk> &�r�'r
" gU16-'.�-SGea
8899 Nashua Avenue N.E.
Elk River, MN 55330
March 29, 1995
CITY OF
Fli"SE"GO
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
Richard Nichols Re: Planning Commission
13371 77th Street NE
Elk River MN 55330
Dear Richard:
(612) 441-4414
Fax: (612) 441-8823
This letter is to inform you that the City Council has appointed you the position as
Alternate with the Planning Commission at the City Council Meeting of March 27, 1995.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
CITY OF OTSEGO
Elaine Beatty
Clerk/Zoning Adm.
cc: Mayor and Council
File
EB:co
CITY OF
S EG 0
8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD (612) 441-4414
Elk River, MN 55330 Fax: (612) 441-8823
March 29, 1995
Arleen Nagel
9102 Needham Avenue NE
Elk River MN 55330
Dear Arleen:
Re: Planning Commission
This letter is to inform you that the City Council has appointed you to a position with the
Planning Commission at the City Council Meeting of March 27, 1995.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
CITY OF OTSEGO
Elaine Beatty
Clerk/Zoning Adm.
cc: Mayor and Council
File
EB:co
CITY OF OTSEGO, INDUSTRIAL SITE, SELECTION COMMITTEE
MINUTES,NOVEMBER 17,1994
LARRY FOURNIER CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Luverne Klinkner, Bruce Rask, Mark Wallace, Larry Fournier
DISCUSSION OF CHAIR AND SECRETARY
Mark Wallace was elected chair and Larry Fournier will be secretary.
DISCUSSION OF PURPOSE OF COMMITTEE -
All members agreed that the purpose of this committee is to designate an area for
business who want low visibility and less expensive land.
Easily accessibly
Future sewer and water
fairly flat contour
low visibility
DISCUSSION OF MEETING TIMES:
Thursday, December 8 and December 22 at TPM.
DISCUSSION OF SITE INSPECTION:
There will be general inspection of the City for industrial sites on November 26,1994 at
2:PM.
Minutes by Larry Fournier, Secretary ,/
Otsego Industrial Site Selection Committee
CITY OF OTSEGO, INDUSTRIAL SITE, SELECTION COMMITTEE
MINUTES, JANUARY 12,1995
ROLL CALL: Luvern Klinkner, Mark Wallace, Rudy Thibodeau, Larry
Fournier
CHAIR MARK WALLACE CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 7
PM
Luverne Klinkner moved to approve the minutes of November 17,1994. Rudy Thibodeau seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
A discussion of industrial sites took place. The conclusion was that the committee wanted to take
ANOTHER look and video tape what the saw. January 14, 1995 at 2pm was the time and date
selected for a sight inspection.
Next regular meeting was selected to be February 2, at 7pm.
Luverne Klinker motioned to adjourn the meeting, Larry Fournier seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
Minutes by Larry Fournier, Secretary
Otsego Industrial Site Selection Committee