10-17-05 PCITEM 3.1
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
_.4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners(cinacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Laurie Shives/Daniel Licht
RE: Otsego - Arbor Creek 4th Addition; Preliminary Plat
REPORT DATE: 28 September 2005 ACTION DATE: 17 October 2005
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 05.28 CITY FILE: 2005 - 50
BACKGROUND
Emmerich Development Corporation has submitted plans for Arbor Creek 4th Addition
Preliminary Plat consisting of 13 single family lots. The subject property is guided for
low density residential uses by the Comprehensive Plan within the west sanitary sewer
service district. The area within the proposed final plat includes an unplatted parcel
developed with an existing single family dwelling, Lot 1, Block 11 also developed with
an existing single family dwelling, Outlot C and Outlot D of Arbor Creek 3rd Addition.
The applicant is proposing to preliminary plat the subject development in order to
establish new urban sized lots for the two existing homes within the subject site in
preparation for their sale and to create future lots for single family homes from the
balance of the site. The undeveloped preliminary platted lots will be final platted as
outlots due to the enforcement of a 1,000 foot setback from an existing feedlot to the
north which intersects the proposed plat.
In order to accommodate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting a
rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District to R-6, Residential Townhouse, Quadraminium
and Low Density Multiple Family District. In addition, the applicant is requesting a
partial vacation of the existing public right-of-way for 78th Street within Lot 1, Block 2 of
the plat.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Site Plan
C. Preliminary Plat
D. Grading Plan
E. Utility Plan
ANALYSIS
Zoning. The subject site is currently zoned A-1 District requiring a Zoning Map
amendment to rezone the subject site to R-6 District to allow for the proposed single
family homes at urban densities, served by sanitary sewer and water utilities. The
requested Zoning Map amendment is to be evaluated based on, but not limited to, the
criteria outlined in Section 20-3-21 of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan guides the site for low density residential
uses defined as single family dwellings at a density of no more than three
dwelling units per acre. The proposed subdivision has a density of 2.2 dwelling
units per acre, which is consistent with the future land use plan for the area.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses in the area.
Comment: The table below illustrates land uses surrounding the subject site.
The site is currently surrounded by low-density single family homes, townhomes
and agricultural land. The future land use plan dictates that the current
agricultural lands will eventually become a mix of low-density single family and
townhomes as well as a concentration of commercial uses to the far west of the
site. As such, subject development will be compatible with the existing and
proposed neighboring uses.
Direction
Land Use Plan
Zoning Map
Existing Use
North
LD Residential
A-1
Agricultural
East
LD Residential
R-4 District
Urban Single Family Lots
South
LD/MD/HD
Residential
R-4, R-6
District
Urban Single Family lots &
Townhomes
West
MD/HD Residential
& Commercial
R-6, R-3 & A-1
District
Low Density Single Family
& Agriculture
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment: The proposed use shall conform to all requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering Manual upon final plat
approval.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is planned.
2
Comment: The proposed Arbor Creek 4th Addition subdivision provides for a
logical extension of urban development as anticipated by the Comprehensive
Plan.
5. The proposed uses impact on property values in the area in which it is planned.
Comment. Although no official study has been completed, the proposed use is
not anticipated to have a negative effect upon area property values.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of existing
and planned streets serving the property.
Comment: Access to the subject site will be provided via 78th Street NE, which
branches off of 77th Street NE, an east -west minor collector street that will
eventually extend from CSAH 19/La Beaux Avenue through the Arbor Creek
development to MaclverAvenue.
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.
Comment: The intensity of the proposed use is within the parameters
established by the Comprehensive Plan and the recently approved expansion of
City services has allowed for additional residential development in the area. No
negative impact to the City's service capacity is anticipated as a result of this
project.
Feedlot Setback. Section 20-27-9 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 1,000 -foot
setback for any new dwelling from a registered feedlot. The 1,000 -foot boundary from
Berning feedlot north of 801h Street overlaps all lots of the proposed 4th Addition
according to the preliminary plat. The existing home sites shown as Lot 11 and Lot 13,
Block 1 are exempt from this requirement and will be platted as lots with the remainder
of the subject site final platted as outlots.
Lot Requirements. The table below illustrates the lot requirements of the R-6 District.
The proposed lots comply with, and mostly exceed, these requirements.
Access. The subject site is located just south of 80th Street NE. All but two of the new
lots will access of off streets within Arbor Creek. Generally, the City discourages lot
3
Setbacks
Front
Side
Side
Corner
Rear
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Lot
Depth
Collector
Local
Street
Street
9,000 s.f.
60 ft.
100 ft.
65 ft.
35 ft.
10 ft.
35 ft.
20 ft.
Access. The subject site is located just south of 80th Street NE. All but two of the new
lots will access of off streets within Arbor Creek. Generally, the City discourages lot
3
accesses along major roadways such as 80th Street which serves as a collector street,
but is not designated as such by the Comprehensive Plan. In this case because the
existing homes have access along 80th Street NE we recommend that Lots 10 and 12,
Block 1 utilize driveway access off of 80th Street NE to avoid sandwiching the rear yards
of the new lots between the front yards of the existing homes. City staff does not feel
that the addition of two driveway access points along 80th Street NE will have a negative
impact on traffic and usage of the roadway.
Streets. Future construction of both Lannon Avenue and 78th Street NE will provide for
ca 60 -foot right-of-way with a five foot concrete sidewalk along the east and south side,
respectively. Construction of 79th Lane will provide for a 60 -foot right-of-way with a 28 -
foot wide street and a five foot concrete sidewalk along the southwest side. The
applicant is proposing to vacate a portion of 78th Street NE within the southwest corner
of Lot 1, Block 2 since the existing right-of-way is no longer needed for the new
proposed alignment of 78th Street NE.
Construction Plans. The applicant has submitted preliminary construction plans for
the proposed 4th Addition preliminary plat. These plans address grading, street and
utility construction and other site improvements. These plans are subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
Easements. The preliminary plat illustrates drainage and utility easements at the
perimeter of each lot as required by Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
preliminary plat also illustrates a 20 -foot drainage and utility easement centered
between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 to accommodate the proposed sanitary sewer line. All
easements are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Sewer Capacity. The west waste water treatment plant has capacity for 2,400
residential units based on the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Of this capacity all
but 270 RECs have been allocated with approximately 1,300 preliminary platted lots not
final platted. While the proposed preliminary plat would add to the supply of lots not
final platted, the 12 new lots within the subject site is an insignificant number and the
existing feedlot setback requirement ensures that these lots likely will not be developed
in the immediate future.
Park and Trail Dedication. The applicant dedicated land adjacent to the west
treatment plant as a part of the first final plat of Arbor Creek. However, this land only
partially satisfied the park and trail dedication requirements for the entire development
outlined in Section 21-7-18 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The balance of the required
park dedication is to be in the form of a cash fee in lieu of land as shown in the following
calculation with the applicable fee determined at such time as the 11 new lots can be
final platted into buildable parcels based on the cash fee in effect at that time.
Landscape Plan. A landscape plan was not submitted with the proposed preliminary
plat. As a condition of approval, the applicant must submit a landscape plan for the
proposed development including the required residential buffer yards along 801h Street
rd
NE, Lannon Avenue and 78th Street NE as outlined in Section 20-16-7.D prior to
consideration of a final plat.
Development Contract. The applicant is required to enter into a development
agreement with the City and pay all applicable fees and securities upon approval of a
final plat. The development contract is subject to review and approval of the City
Attorney.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Arbor Creek 4th Addition Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City's
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and the approved master plan for the Arbor Creek
subdivision. As such, we recommend approval of the requested preliminary plat,
subject to the conditions outlined below.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Decision 1 — Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1
District to R-6 District based on a finding that the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table.
Decision 2 — Preliminary Plat
A. Motion to approve the Arbor Creek 4th Addition Preliminary Plat, subject to the
following conditions:
Approval of the preliminary plat shall not guarantee access to sanitary
sewer service. The City shall only allocate sanitary sewer capacity to
approved final plats with signed development contracts and payment of
applicable SAC and WAC fees to assure the City of timely development.
2. Lots 1-9, Block 1, Lots 10 and 12, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall
be final platted as outlots to comply with the 1,000 foot setback from a
registered feedlot, subject to City Staff approval.
5
3. All construction plans (grading, streets, utilities, etc.) are subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer.
4. Park and trail dedication requirements shall be satisfied as a cash fee in
lieu of land based on the percentage land dedicated as part of Arbor
Creek and the cash fee in effect at the time of final plat approval for the
number of new lots established.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and pay all fees and
securities required by it, subject to review and approval of the City
Attorney.
6. Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that it is inconsistent with the
provisions of the subdivision ordinance.
Decision 3 — Vacation of 78th Street Right -of -Way
A. Motion to approve the vacation of a portion of the existing 78th Street right-of-
way subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
B. Motion to deny the vacation of a portion of the existing 78th Street right-of-way
based on a finding that it is inconsistent with the subdivision ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
John Jackels
o,
- 8 0-T H- ri b -T P.--E--E T R 1-1 . E. a
P9�'€ftTYL1E�C3.{IF M
Ld 1. Block 11, ARBOR CREEK, —&W to U. —ded Plat &Weof. Wri9M Catn(y
M.nt-ta
And
WIN C & Oullot D, ARBOR CREEK 3RD ADDITION, —ardng to the recorded pat
Hereof. Wright County, Mintesota.
And
That part of 78th Street N. E. to be vacated
And
The West 205 feet of Me East 1855 I -rd of the North 5321ee1- m —cl along the
North aW East 1— tl x" Me MM half, seceon 25, Township 121. Range 24, V.41BM
County, MnnewW
MrELOPMENT S_Uh4MA iii'
AREAS
GROSS SITE AREA 278,556 SO. FT.
LESS.TIAV 45.185 SA.FT.
NET SITE AREA 232,371 SQ. FT.
LOT 1%NMARY
NUMBER OF LOTS 15
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 15,558 SO. FT.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE 11,364 SQ. FT.
MAXIMUM LOT SIZE 22,019 So, FT.
DENSITY
PROPOSED DENSITY (GROSS AREA) 2.3 L94ITS PER ACRE
PROPOSED DENSITY (NET MEA) 2.8 UNITS PER ACRE
SETBACKS
FRONT YARD 35 FT. - (EXCEPT LOTS 10-13. BLOCK I)
REM YARD 3UFT.
SIDE YARD (HOUSE) KIFT.
SIDE YARD (GARAGE) 10 FT.
MINIMUMLOTSIZE 9.00030.FT.
DEVEWPMENTND_TES
1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT.
2_ ALL AREAS ARE ARE
TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.
3. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY.
EXISTING ZONING: R 6&A-1, AGRICULTURE RURAL SERVICE AREA
PROPOSED ZONING. R-6
am
ro rY. SII YYp 464641—alatlYrG Pb
b D. ao • a:YWat
.__—___
100
rrP1CAL IAT Kill
MDrWY SCALE W IEL1
EXHIBIT B
—V_ -_T u_ -- STREET ' 14 E
R SOD•IS'28'E y
NN'W34i 204'79 %+- 7.00
N88'38'22'E 410.00
g
III
1 it
II
it
I
II
,., Il
i}
Ij
9
I
I
i �
I I�
I I•
I I
I wwI
I
iL------_J
wl 1
I Al
11T
I I
L_--12�
a9
I I
� 1 1
1
r--------
�
g
14 �
I
H w
L--------
3
L J
r�
79TM�
5
I
_l -l9 4
II
I
70.16
sSe•38'z2'w \�
6 /
PRQ_PF_ATYPE�S $IPTl"
La 1, Block 11, ARBOR CREEK uxordrig to Ilse.—dad
Mlnneao a plat therao( Wright County,
A.
Oudot C 8 Oullot D. ARBOR CREEK 3RD ADDITION, a—dr,g to the recorded plat
_ thereof. Wright County, M i—sota
And
That part of 78th Street N. E. to be var•ated.
And
The West
t of Me Fast 1855 feet .1
North 532
ong Me
Nath andE stf Ielion —llhereol the hall, sat25,T—nshp 121l as 5 Rangel 24, Wllghl
Coo nry. Minnesota
QLWjLQPMEN.T SUMMARY
AR
GROSS SITE AREA 278,$6 SO. FT,
LLN RW 45185 SO FT.
NET SITE AREA 232,37130 FT
LOT
$lyd_ MARY
NUMBER OF LOTS 15
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 15,558 SO. FT.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE 11,364 SO. FT.
MAXIMUM LOT SIZE 22,019 SO. FT.
QMSITY
PROPOSED DENSITY (GROSS MEA) 2.3 UNITS PER ACRE
PROPOSED DENSITY NET AREA) 2.8 UNITS PER ACRE
6ETOKKS
FRONTYARD 35 FT. -(EXCEPT LOTS 10-13. BLOCK I)
REM YARD 30 FT.
SIDE YARD (HOUSE) 10 FT.
SIDE YARD (GARAGE)10 FT.
MINIMUMLOTSIZE 9.0D0S0.FT.
D�y�! oPMENT Nk1,cs
1, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT.
2. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.
3, STREET NAMES ARE SUBIECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY.
EXISTING ZONING: RS 6 A-1, AGRICULTURE RURAL SERVICE AREA
PROPOSED ZONING: R.6
y�
J w —JLs —LN
HMG 5 fFEi M TDM, tNInky. KKTkp. AD A1a1111G .1 ler Inky. wlp 10
rH1 w TDIx. uKcss pn4awH Ta.ukG.
rrD .o.alrrlG MMl-a ... w s
TYPICAL DRAINAGE &NO TITI tTY BMEMFNT$
0 R.RA
TAq R
AOD ON Ss
q R. Rq YAR ffRlq
— _ 101 NIEIt
—tTMaw Fq
— S rt a40 YWMX
mTr�
SCALE IH IkEI
XHIBIT Q
aR�
I
I
'1V
@R
"
Fd4'J
FA i9
—
II
l
R_NIN
duly l a ..a Pnleuanat EngMm
M
• •Surveying
ARBOR CREET 4TH ADDITION
�40�e"[y
MIR �qx�F��
g� R b p„ q R•
��'F�3,pFg` ippx $Mph
9i,1?�Q A6R E R�°$pa8 [ggb [9¢R, R gp'ggi$
a�LSREaR,�RFR fit �a N RH @� � R 999. s e $y: �I
aNgig sI ap-
�R Gg Rja E b k$Rq Si 2xiE91 A
a WAX
A,? of WIN N
paGggqq g �x p R a
�gg�Eg
lQ Lq F Rq �• Q�j
A.
A gg AyCb q p�iG^l pqqp` GY ^ N
A F �• c aR�£�� �� i9_F� ? 9y
(�
Ro aAppi� A
hMWY cwU Y Nat th" o ,gym pnppr.p
a ala my an c auoarvl.wn me enm
nb
Engineering Planning
duly l a ..a Pnleuanat EngMm
Baan E,!
• •Surveying
ARBOR CREET 4TH ADDITION
anay �. lav of tM Stale of MI-..M'FRA
oat. anaYas
t.eoo
Y
a D
Slmotun4'6owro
OwLtl RII
SSH>
u+s J/,1b-6010
�, l�i,>s-BS.0
oisEco, uR
Oh W, LLC
Ram.: na.a Ita.�
oma: a/m/M Uc 021SM
ba'0^a a+
A-�
GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
wid A iun AWNIAMNd
O„ 'M40
NW '093510
N01110ab Hit >133HO x088
LLTr-a[%r9[ +.s aNNRf am*
r»sr =+sewn 'w,bu✓
rma_.rr./rsr .r.ue r adw
pI+ aunt •enw,r war cnrn
6 rf�+r�s . Bu+uuald • BuuaamBu3
'+I•a ate°
Q
o y
(�
y
dl U
MIZ rw•nyl/G • 0
�r
xa www
p G •I0
�Y�o...r!n
n�o�
p Holt •u� � •.n� •ul wpun
ui6u3 ;puw,wyoy a • rl Alro o u,p
oW� p erwwa• I» Ip Aw upon p •w Aq
oa.a w. uep •IW IoW AIIWn <w+V �
iT wpp
p•• , 0•[U•0
.r ,. e
yypw�ppa
_W
WIV
rc
�m
K
+j 4c
Nilr *,
r i 7 i F kr "b !ea a
.11 AA
i Ryy
■� � � � y �� is �n r�e� ~ Y 7
Dg
aE $9 ig Wii�
CD52
rN�g8ga3
< r JI
uj
NINI'e E
Z 58W 5
;j
E a
t
a�
------ — r------ a:' esti:
I 11 II II �I
� I II II 11 I
I ❑i I�I I�I I
I I i u I I I I Y ji'_I
pp I I F,I L-------�
II it Ij ❑ I ''. i
_J
— V, aWs
R
it
a .i4 y €
CIA
'fi r-------- / I IN
�� I N $rJ Iasi ��Y"Y
a d�
I is .�.i I f
IEl N 1 � m �r8 .ge�
L ----
ct l c i I j I I I ❑ I �� x �G i -XI J!
'N
p fits
aGi 5G
I1'3 a
! D14, Y 1.
Review No. 1
ENGINEERING REVIEW
Hakanson Residential Subdivision
Anderson for the City of Otsego
Assoc., Inc. by
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator
Judy Hudson, City Clerk
Dan Licht, City Planner
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
John Jackels, Emmerich Development Corp.
Dave Nash, P.E., McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Reviewed by: Ronald J. Wagner, P.E.
Shane M. Nelson, P.E.
Joseph J. MacPherson, E.I.T.
Date: October 13, 2005
Proposed
Development: Arbor Creek 4th Addition
Street Location
of Property: A portion of the N '/2, of the NE '/4, of Section 25, T121, R24,
south of 80th Street NE and west of Maciver Avenue NE.
Applicant: Emmerich Development Corp.
Developer: Emmerich Development Corp.
Owners of Record: N/A
Purpose: Arbor Creek 4th Addition is a proposed residential development in
the City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota. The proposed
development will be served with municipal water, sanitary sewer,
storm sewer and public streets typical of an urban setting.
Jurisdictional
Agencies: City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota Department of
(but not limited to) Health, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
Permits Required: NPDES
(but not limited to)
Page 1
\\Ha01\shared docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx\2310\ot2310RVW1.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
STREETS
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT
TRAFFIC/ACCESS ISSUE
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
WETLANDS
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
4ilk Dll tiW1i f�Ir_\I
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SUMMARY AND/OR RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
\\Ha01\shared docs\MunicipalWotsego23xx\2310\ot2310RVW1.doc
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Existing Conditions of Arbor Creek 4" Addition, 8/16/05, by MFRA
Preliminary Site Plan of Arbor Creek 4th Addition, revised 9/12/05, by MFRA
Preliminary Plat of Arbor Creek 4th Addition, revised 9/12/05, by MFRA
Preliminary Grading Plan for Arbor Creek 4th Addition, revised 9/12/05, by MFRA
Preliminary Utility Plan for Arbor Creek 4th Addition, revised 9/12/05, by MFRA
Final Plat of Arbor Creek by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Final Plat of Arbor Creek 3rd Addition by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
City of Otsego Engineering Manual
Trunk Stormwater Facilities Study for Portions of the Otsego Creek Watershed, February
2003
City of Otsego Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, October 14, 2002
National Wetland Inventory Map, 1991
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 — EAW Requirement
Page 3
Ma01\shared docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx\2310\ot2310RVW1.doc
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Existing zoning classifications for land in and abutting the subdivision must be shown.
(21-6-2.B.2)
2. Boundary lines of adjoining subdivided and unsubdivided land, within 150' of the plat,
shall be shown. (21-6-2.B.6)
3. Adjoining land shall be identified by ownership. (21-6-2.B.6)
4. Existing 100 -year flood elevations shall be provided. (21-6-2.B.9)
5. The 1000' radius setback from the registered feedlot shall be shown on the plans.
STREETS
1. Local to collector street intersections shall be rounded by a 30' radius (i.e.
intersection of Larabee Avenue NE and 80th Street NE.)
2. Lannon Avenue NE shall be renamed Larabee Avenue NE.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
1. Lannon Avenue NE shall be renamed Larabee Avenue NE.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. Label section lines and 1/2 section lines on the plan. (21-6-2.A.2)
2. Streets shall be named in accordance with County grid system (i.e. Lannon Avenue
NE shall be renamed Larabee Avenue NE.)
3. All cross drainage shall be covered by a drainage and utility easement (i.e. Lots 2-8,
Block 1.) (21-7-15.B)
4. Additional easement is required for the watermain between Lots 7 & 8, and 3 & 10,
Block 1. (21-7-15.A)
5. A minimum 10' easement is required along all rear lot lines, and a minimum 5'
easement is required along all side lot lines (i.e. the rear lot lines of Lots 1, 5, 6, 8, 9,
and 10, Block 1.)
Page 4
\\Ha01\shared docs\MunicipalWotsego23xx\2310\ot2310RVW1.doc
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
A minimum slope of 2% is required for overland flow (i.e. the rear yards of Lots 5, 6
and 8 have contours that depict slopes with less than 2% grade. Please revise.
2. It appears there is a septic mound in the rear yard of Lot 13, Block 1; the septic
mound shall be removed after said lot has been connected to the City Sewer System.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
Please provide runoff coefficient calculations for all times of concentration greater
than 10 minutes. Also, please submit inlet spread calculations.
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
No comments.
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
1a. The watermain running along the rear lot lines of Lots 2 & 3, Block 1 shall be
extended along the rear lot lines of Lots 3 & 10, and side lot lines of Lots 7 & 8, Block
1, and tie into the 8" watermain along Larabee Avenue, "Lannon Avenue." An 8" gate
valve shall be installed at this connection point along Larabee Avenue. Also, in order
to provide adequate hydrant coverage to all lots within the plat, a hydrant lead shall
be run along the lot line between Lots 11 & 12 north to 80th Street N.E., and a hydrant
shall be added along Larabee Avenue between Lots 6 & 7.
1 b. Another option would be to run the watermain along the north lot lines of Lots 9-13
and the west lot lines of Lots 1 & 13; with hydrants located at the south east corner of
Lot 1, the north property corner between Lots 12 & 13, the midpoint of the north lot
line of Lot 9 and along Larabee Avenue between Lots 6 & 7.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Benchmarks need to be shown on each sheet. Benchmarks shall be based upon the
NGVD 1929 ADJ datum and shall be in agreement with the City benchmark system.
SUMMARY AND/OR RECOMMENDATION
We recommend approval contingent upon the completion of said comments.
Page 5
\\Ha01\shared docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx\2310\ot2310RVW1.doc
ITEM 3-2
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
48003 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden `Malley, MN 55422
Tc�li Ephnne: 76,3,2-112-555) Facsimile: 763.231.2581 FSI ruler:�<irta>yyldrlrlit�y_C,UrY�
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Laurie Shives/Daniel Licht
DATE: 28 September 2005
RE: Otsego — Otsego Auto Sales CUP
BACKGROUND
Otsego Auto Sales and Collins Brothers Towing, Inc. are requesting approval of a
Planned Unit Development - Conditional Use Permit (PUD -CUP) amendment to allow
for an outdoor car sales lot and an outdoor storage impound lot on the existing Elk River
Collision Center property located at 16401 60th Street NE. A PUD -CUP was approved
for Elk River Collision in 1998 to allow multiple buildings and uses on the subject site.
At that time, the applicant did not apply for a CUP to allow for outdoor sales. The site is
zoned 1-1, Limited Industrial District and accessory outdoor sales and storage uses are
an allowed conditional use.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Site Plan
C. Proposed Building Rendering
ANALYSIS
Zoning. The subject site is zoned 1-1, Limited Industrial District and per Section 20-85-
6.A, outdoor auto sales are an allowed use upon approval of a conditional use permit.
In addition to the requirements for approval of a conditional use permit as outlined in
Section 20-4-25 the following conditions must be met in order to allow outdoor
sales/storage within the 1-1 District:
Outside service areas are fenced and screened from view of the public right-of-
way, neighboring residential uses, or an abutting residential district in compliance
with Section 16 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Comment: The applicant is not proposing to add additional service areas and the
subject site does not directly abut a residential district. This criteria is not
applicable to the outdoor sales use and the outdoor storage of impounded
vehicles will occur within an existing enclosed area.
2. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in
compliance with Section 16 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Comment: The submitted site plan does not indicate the location of any existing
or proposed lighting. If site lighting is proposed, it must comply with Section 20-
16-10 which requires that it is hooded and directed away from adjacent
properties and public streets.
3. The use does not take up parking spaces as required for conformity to this
Chapter.
Comment: With the added auto sales use and according to Section 20-21-9. T,
the required parking would be equivalent to eight (8) spaces plus one (1)
additional space for each 500 square feet of storage area. The existing building,
which will house the proposed auto dealer's office, is approximately 5,350 square
feet. The proposed auto dealer's office is proposed to occupy roughly 300
square feet leaving 5,050 square feet of devoted to the existing storage,
warehouse and industrial uses. Therefore, the subject site would need to provide
18 off street parking stalls to accommodate the existing uses as well as the
proposed auto sales use. The applicant has not provided parking detail and will
be required to provide proof of adequate parking to support the existing and
proposed uses as a condition of approval.
5. The provisions of Section 20-4-25 of the Zoning Ordinance are considered and
determined to be satisfied.
Comment: The following section of this memorandum will outline discuss the
applicant's compliance with the provisions of Section 20-4-2.F.
CUP Criteria. In addition to the regulations discussed in Section 20-85-6.A of the
Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall consider the applications compliance
with the following CUP criteria as outline in Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
2
Comment: The subject site is zoned VI, Limited Industrial District and outdoor
auto sales is an allowed conditional use. The City's Land Use plan as stated in
the Comprehensive Plan designates the site for continued industrial uses.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: The proposed use is a compatible use within the PI District. The
proposed use will be compatible with the existing auto repair uses on site. The
future land use plans guides the subject site and the areas immediately adjacent
to it for industrial uses and as such, the proposed use will be compatible with
abutting future land uses.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment: The design of the proposed auto sales lot and impound lot shall
conform to all applicable Zoning Ordinance and Engineering Manual
performance standards.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative effect upon
the area as the immediately abutting property is also an industrial zoned area
and is proposed to be developed with compatible uses.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is
proposed.
Comment: Although no study has been completed, the proposed expansion is
not anticipated to negatively impact area property values.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The proposed use will likely generate some additional traffic to the
site, however, the site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac on 60th Street and the
additional traffic is within the capacity of streets accessing the property and not
anticipated to be disruptive to the surround properties and the nearby residential
neighborhood.
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.
3
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the
City's ability to service its residents as it will utilize the existing utilities and
services in place at the subject site.
Auto Sales. The applicant is proposing two additional areas for parking of the
automobiles that will be offered for sale on the subject site. These parking areas are
located on either side of the parking lot entrance off of 60th Street. In addition to the
parking provisions discussed in earlier sections of this report, the parking areas must be
surfaced with an approved material such as asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving
brick. Additionally, the parking surfaces must be located at least 15 feet from the
property line.
Impound Lot. The proposed impound lot use is to occur in conjunction with the auto
repair business. The impounded vehicles would be stored within the existing fenced
area that is between the two principal buildings. The only additional stipulation City
staff would recommend as part of the PUD -CUP amendment allowing the impound lot to
utilize the existing outdoor storage area is that the fencing surrounding the storage area
be replaced with a taller fence that is more opaque to provide better screening as
outlined in Sections 20-16-6.K.2 and 20-16-7.A.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Building Exterior. As a part of this request, the applicant is proposing to update the
exterior of the existing Elk River Collision building adding a new awning sign and adding
stone face or brick along the bottom half of the building's front fagade. As stated in
Section 20-17-4.13.2, all buildings in the 1-1 Districts shall be faced with brick, rock face,
glass, stone, stucco or pre -cast concrete panels on wall surfaces abutting a public right-
of-way, residential use or public use.
Landscaping The applicant is not proposing any additional landscaping for the site.
Signs. No signage plans have been submitted. All signs must conform to Section 37 of
the Zoning Ordinance and require issuance of a sign permit prior to placement on the
property.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has submitted necessary information for the proposed PUD -CUP
amendment to allow for an accessory auto sales lot and an accessory auto impound lot
to locate on the property. We recommend approval of the PUD amendment and CUP
application as outlined below.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
A. Motion to approve a PUD -CUP allowing an accessory impound lot and a auto sales
area on property located at 16401 60th Street NE, subject to the following conditions:
E
The applicant must provided parking detail to show proof of adequate parking
to support the existing and proposed uses.
2. Any proposed additional exterior lighting must comply with Section 20-16-10
of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to City staff approval.
3. Proposed display areas for the auto sales area must be surfaced with an
approved material such as asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick and
the parking surfaces must be located at least 15 feet from the property line.
4. The site plan shall be revised to illustrate required parking stalls in
compliance with Section 21 of the Zoning Ordinance, including striping of the
parking areas.
5. The applicant must replace the existing screening fence with a taller, more
opaque structure, subject to City staff approval.
6. All signs shall conform to Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. Comments of other City staff.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
C. Motion to table.
PC. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Judy Hudson, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Jason Apps, Otsego Auto Sales; 5536 Perry Ave N, Crystal, MN 55429
Phil Collins, Collins Brothers Towing, Inc.; 16234 Jarvis St NW, Elk River, MN 5330
A", , 4
EXHIBIT 1
7-1 .
-
.
.
,,.v..
. .
....�.
ITEM 3-3
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 pian ners;g,nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 12 October 2005
RE: Otsego — Featherwind Farms; Revised Preliminary Plat
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 05.23
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission had considered the applications related to the proposed
Featherwind Farms development on 15 August 2005. Following a public hearing and
discussion, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that
the project be approved. The City Council first considered the application at their
meeting on 22 August 2005. The City Council discussed issues similar to those raised
by the Planning Commission, particularly with respect to the appearance of the project
from CSAH 39. The City Council tabled the application directing the Developer to
submit revised plans addressing this and other issues.
Revised plans were presented by the Developer at the 26 September 2005 City Council
meeting. The layout of the project was revised to minimize the number of lots backing
up to CSAH 39 and the Developer provided cross-section illustrations to demonstrate
the visibility of the proposed home sites from CSAH 39. The changes to the project
resulting from the direction of the City Council mean that the number of proposed lots
has been reduced from 117 to 115 lots. Due to the changes in the proposed
development and the need to make findings supporting the proposed density of the
project, the City Council again tabled the application to refer the requests back to the
Planning Commission for another review.
The Planning Commission is to discuss the application again at their meeting on 17
October 2005. The Developer is preparing a more extensive presentation of the project
highlighting the rationale for the design of the subdivision, its integration with the natural
elements of the site and amenity features they are proposing to add to the
neighborhood.
Exhibits:
A. Revised Site Plan
B. Revised Site Plan w/ Topography
C. Cross -Section Perspectives
ANALYSIS
Revised Site Plan. The major change between the original site plan and the revised
submission is that 16 lots have been shifted away from areas immediately adjacent to or
visible from CSAH 39. The overall number of lots has changed from 117 on the original
plan to 115 lots based on previous comments. These changes effect the number of lots
able to accommodate the keeping of horses, which is down to 11 lots from the original
18 lots. That said, our office believes that the revised plan is still true to the design
principals of the initial submission to promote the rural equestrian character of the
development entering the neighborhood from CSAH 39 at "Featherwind Parkway".
The critical aspect of the revised plans is the visibility of the development from CSAH
39. The developer has provided cross section drawings illustrating the line -of -sight view
of a passenger vehicle from three locations along CSAH 39. From View A, the homes
will be setback 475 feet from CSAH 39 and screened by a landscaped berm close to
CSAH 39 and trees planted on both sides of the cul-de-sac street accessing the nine
lots within the "Plum Creek" neighborhood. Perspective B shows a view of the western
edge of the property where the proposed home sites will be 500 feet back from CSAH
39 and 200 feet beyond an existing ridgeline. Existing trees south of the ridgeline and
proposed trees on both sides of streets within the development will be adequate to
screen the view of homes in this area. Perspective C is slightly east of the B section
drawing at the low point of the ridgeline north of CSAH 39. Again, the closest home
sites will be 425 feet back from CSAH 39 and this is a side view of that lot. The
developer proposes to install trees within the open space outlot south of the proposed
homes to provide the necessary visual buffer. In our opinion, the changes to the site
plan will minimize the visibility of the development from CSAH 39. Revised landscape
plans must be submitted to correspond with the changes to the site plan.
Density. The Comprehensive Plan establishes a base density of one dwelling unit per
10 acres for parcels within the Rural Residential Preserve area. The Comprehensive
Plan also encourages rural cluster subdivisions with opportunities for density bonuses.
The Comprehensive Plan does not establish an upward limit for these density bonuses.
Section 20-60-6 of the Zoning Ordinance sets 12 dwelling units per 40 acres as the
maximum allowed density within the R -C District. The WS District is actually less
restrictive and would allow for up to 16 dwelling units per 40 acres to be developed.
The structure for the density bonuses within the Zoning Ordinance is intentional to allow
the Planning Commission and City Council the flexibility to allow for projects with
densities greater than 12 dwelling units per 40 acres through use of a PUD -CUP where
they deem appropriate.
With 115 lots on 325 acres, the density of the proposed subdivision is 14.2 dwelling
units per 40 acres. The City Council is seeking specific feedback from the Planning
Commission as to a basis for approving the additional 18 lots that are above the
standard density of 12 dwelling units per 40 acres. We provide reference to the stated
objectives of the R -C District outlined in Section 20-60-1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
A. Preservation of contiguous common open spaces for scenic
enjoyment, recreational use, and rural identity.
B. Creation of cohesive neighborhoods in order to establish local
identity and community interaction.
C. Physical integration of neighborhoods, open spaces, and places of
destination in order to establish municipal identity and community
interaction.
D. The diagrams are provided to demonstrate graphically the purpose
of the R -C District, its performance standards and strategies by
which the internal development pattern described in this Section
may be achieved.
E. Creative application of this section is encouraged while preserving
its purpose and intent.
Development within the R -C District has been intended to be a more much subjective
process than the City's other zoning districts due to the unique design elements
encouraged for open spaces and neighborhood clusters. While the minimum required
open space and lot requirements are basic standards, the arrangement of the uses
within a subdivision is not. Application of these design criteria within the Rural
Residential Preserve area differs from project to project due to the varied natural
features and conditions of existing properties. It is for this reason that the Planning
Commission and City Council may approve the proposed development if they are
subjectively satisfied with the project design and amenities.
Open Space. Section 20-60-7 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth requirements for
permanent open space to be established within R -C District developments. A minimum
of 50 percent of the buildable area within a proposed subdivision must be platted as
outlots restricted as permanent open space. The net buildable area of the subject site
is 294.95 acres making the required open space 147.48 acres. The revised site plan
identifies 164.47 acres of permanent open space, of which 38.48 acres is to be
dedicated to the City for a major segment of the Northwest Creek Greenway identified
on the Future Parks and Trails Plan. The proposed open space is compared with the
open space established by other R -C District developments below:
3
Development
Gross
Area
Net
Area
Open Space
Area % of Gross
% of Net
Grenins Mississippi Hills
83ac.
83ac.
56ac.
67.4%
67.4%
Mississippi Pines
245ac.
224ac.
125ac.
51.0%
56.8%
Forest Hills
51 ac.
50ac.
25ac.
49.0%
50.0%
Norin Landing
61 ac.
56ac.
31 ac.
50.8%
55.3%
Mississippi Cove
64ac.
54ac.
26ac.
40.6%
48.1%
Featherwind Farms
325ac.
295 ac.
164ac.
50.1%
55.6%
The percentage of the proposed open space for Featherwind Farms is similar with that
of Mississippi Pines and Norin Landing. Mississippi Pines exceeds the required open
space in part because the homestead of the two existing property owners were
separated from the balance of the property and not included as part of the net figure.
Grenins Mississippi Hills exceeded the open space requirement by arranging the new
homes to access off of existing streets at the perimeter of the site, eliminating the need
for consumption of land by rights-of-way within the development.
Streets. The City Council also raised three issues related to the streets within the
development. The first issue is that the Millway Run, Rosewater Trail and Plum Creek
Trail cut -de -sacs all exceed 500 feet in length. City staff believes that the length of
these cul-de-sacs is justified based on the fact that steep slopes, wetlands and
significant tree stands block extension of the roadways as through streets. Within a
standard subdivision, these factors would be a reasonable basis for approval of a
variance.
The second issue raised by the City Council is that the Dancing Branch neighborhood
has only one entrance point. Again, the extension of streets into this area of the
property is defined by steep slopes and wetlands. To ensure that adequate access can
be maintained, the revised site plan shows the street into the Dancing Branch
neighborhood having a divided section with a center median. The revised street section
is acceptable to City staff, although its specific design must be subject to further review
and approval.
The final issue related to streets concerns whether concrete curb is to be required along
the public streets. Based on the City's experience with Mississippi Pines, the City
Engineer has recommended that concrete curb be installed at least in front of the single
family lots within R -C District developments to provide for better street maintenance and
ensure proper stormwater management. The Developer objects to the provision of
concrete curb within the development as being counter to the neighborhood's intended
rural character. As an alternate, the Developer has proposed increased front yard
setbacks, crushed limestone shoulders and less obtrusive design for over -land
stormwater management.
4
RECOMMENDATION
Our office believes that the revised site plan is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and R -C District for development in this area. The proposed
density of the project is appropriate based on the specific natural elements of the
property and the proposed site design and amenities being developed that will result in
a unique, rural character neighborhood.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Decision 1 — Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1
District to R -C District based on a finding that the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the request based on a finding that the application is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table the application.
Decision 2 — Preliminary Plat/PUD-CUP
A. Motion to approve the preliminary plat and PUD -CUP for Featherwind Farms,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The submitted plans shall be modified in accordance with the site plan
presented to the Planning Commission on 17 October 2005, subject to
City staff review and approval.
2. The number of allowed dwelling units shall not exceed the number
identified on the submitted preliminary plat and compliance with any and
all conditions that result in a decrease in the number of lots.
3. The developer shall identify the net area of the parcels set aside as
permanent open space. These areas shall be restricted by conservation
easement as permanent open space to be regulated by Section 20-60-7 of
the Zoning Ordinance and subordinate to City drainage and utility
easement rights.
4. The developer shall construct a 10 foot wide trail utilizing asphalt material
through the greenway corridor dedicated to the City. Those trails
constructed to be maintained by the homeowners association shall be at
least six feet wide utilizing asphalt material.
E
5. The keeping of horses shall be an allowed accessory use of lots with a
minimum area of two acres within the "Dancing Branch" area subject to
the following conditions:
a The density of horses does not exceed one (1) horse per acre.
b. A shelter or stable facility shall provide a minimum of one hundred
(100) square feet of enclosed area per horse.
C. Detached accessory buildings used to shelter or stable horses shall
conform to the accessory building limits of the R -C District, except
that such buildings are not required to be within 150 feet of the
principal building on the same lot.
d. A manure management plan to be implemented by the HOA to
include provisions addressing horses within outlots deeded to the
City and compliance with Chapter 27 of the Zoning Ordinance shall
be submitted.
6. The outlot conveyed to the owner of the abutting exception property at the
north line of the plat shall be overlaid by an ingress/egress easement in
favor of the Featherwind Farms HOA.
7. All public street designs shall be subject to approval by City staff.
8. Street names illustrated on the preliminary plat shall be revised to conform
to the Wright County grid.
9. A determination as to full satisfaction of park dedication and trail
improvement requirements shall be made prior to final plat approval.
10. Drainage and utility easements shall be established over all open space
outlots.
11. All easements, grading plans and utility plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
B. Motion to deny the request based on a finding that the application is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.
C. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Judy Hudson, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Lucinda Gardner, Shadow Creek Corporation
Mike Gair, MFRA
Kathleen O'Connell, MFRA
Brian Johnson, Westwood Professional Services
6
J
t.
I 1
1
,L�ll
rW
e 'g
0
v
d
-a
t
Review No. 1
ENGINEERING REVIEW
Hakanson Residential Subdivision
Anderson for the City of Otsego
Assoc., Inc.
by
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
cc: Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Judy Hudson, City Clerk,
Dan Licht, City Planner
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Lucinda Gardner, Shadow Creek Corp.
Brian Johnson, P.E. Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Reviewed by:
Ronald J. Wagner, P.E.
Shane M. Nelson, P.E.
Joseph J. MacPherson, E.I.T.
Date:
August 10, 2005
Proposed
Development:
Featherwind Farms
Street Location
A 325 acre portion of the northwest'/4 of Section 18, T121 N,
of Property:
R23W, and the north '/2 of Section 13, T121 N, R24W,
north of CSAH 39, and south of the Mississippi River.
Applicant:
Lucinda Gardner
Shadow Creek Corporation
172 Hamel Road
Hamel, MN 55340
Developer:
Shadow Creek Corporation
Owners of Record: Vernon C. Kolles & Sons
Purpose: Featherwind Farms is a 117 unit single-family residential
open space cluster development on approximately 325 acres
in the City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota. The
proposed development will be served with private septic
systems, private wells, storm sewer, and public streets typical
of a rural setting.
Jurisdictional Agencies: City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota Department of
(but not limited to) Health, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Wright Soil and Water
Conservation District.
Permits Required: NPDES, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(but not limited to)
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
NATURAL FEATURES AND SURVEY
SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
STREETS
TRAFFIC/ACCESS ISSUES
WETLANDS
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SUMMARY AND/OR RECOMMENDATION
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Natural Features and Survey, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Site Plan, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Preliminary Plat, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services,
I nc.
Preliminary Landscape Plan, revised 8/01/05, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet Draft, 7/12/05, by Westwood Professional Services,
Inc.
Wetland Delineation Report, July 2005, by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Flood Insurance Rate Map, 9/30/92, by Federal Emergency Management Agency
City of Otsego Engineering Manual
City of Otsego Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, 10/14/02
National Wetland Inventory Map, 1991
Trunk Stormwater Facilities Study for Portions of the Otsego Creek Watershed, February
2003.
NATURAL FEATURES AND SURVEY (SHEET C-2)
1. Existing zoning classifications for land in and abutting the subdivision shall be shown on
the plan (Section 21-6-2.B.2).
2. Existing 100 -year flood elevations shall be shown on the plan (Section 21-6-2.B.9).
3. Location, size, and elevations of existing storm sewer and culverts, or any other
underground facility within 150 feet of the proposed plat, shall be shown on the plan
(Section 21-6-2.B.5).
4. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land need to be identified by
name and ownership (Section 21-6-2.B.6).
5. The flood fringe zones shall be shown on the plans.
6. The limits of the Shoreland Overlay District shall be shown on the plan.
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc
SITE PLAN (SHEET C-3 TO SHEET CA
The ROW width for Featherwind Parkway at stations 12+30 (sheet C-3) and 3+33
(sheet C-4) is depicted incorrectly. The ROW width at these locations is 90'.
2. The typical section for the private drives shall depict a bituminous width of 24' per City
of Otsego Standard Plate No. 100.
3. Lot 1, Block 34 requires a 35' building setback along both streets.
4. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed 500 feet in length (Section 21-7-6.A).
5. Blocks shall not exceed 1200 feet in length (Section 21-7-33).
6. The septic system, drain field locations are shown on the plans; however, they shall be
labeled as primary and secondary.
PRELIMINARY PLAT (SHEET C-5 TO SHEET C-6)
The easement and ROW shall be rounded at intersections parallel to back of curb to
allow for utility installation (111.13.).
2. Featherwind Parkway shall be renamed Lamont Parkway NE, Highmark Trail shall be
renamed 98th Street NE, Millway Run shall be renamed 96th Street NE, Rosewater Trail
shall be renamed 97th Court NE, Thistledown Curve (southern most stretch between
Featherwind Parkway and Rosewater Trail) shall be renamed 96th Street NE, Legacy
Turn shall be renamed 96th Circle NE, Ashdon Court shall be renamed Mackenzie Court
NE, Thistledown Curve (northern most section between Featherwind Parkway and
Rosewater Trail) shall be renamed 99th Street NE, Deepwater Curve shall be renamed
99th Circle NE, Burning Rock Road shall be renamed 99th Court NE and Plum Creek
Trail shall be renamed 96th Court NE.
3. Location, dimensions, and purpose of all proposed easements shall be shown on the
plans (21-6-2.C.5.).
4. Locations and widths of pedestrian ways shall be shown on plans (Section 21-6-2.C.2.).
5. Lots abutting collector streets shall have an additional 10' of width or depth to be
overlaid with a drainage and utility easement for a landscape buffer yard (20-16-7-D).
PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL (SHEET C-
7 TO SHEET C-8)
It appears that not all lots are to be custom graded. All proposed grading shall be
shown on the plans. More detail is required to determine locations of post construction
drainage swales, cross drainage between lots and lot grades.
2. The invert elevations, pipe sizes and pipe lengths shall be depicted on the plans.
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\MunicipalWotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc
3. The 100 year water elevation of the Mississippi River shall be shown on the plans.
4. The inside slope along rural streets shall be 4:1 or flatter per City of Otsego Standard
Plate No. 100.
5. Soil boring locations shall be shown on plans. Also, the soil boring and perculation test
results shall be submitted for review.
6. Normal water elevations and 100 -year peak elevations shall be labeled for all ponding
areas. Also, 2 -year and 10 -year peak elevations shall be labeled for each of the
stormwater ponds (6.0.B.).
7. Runoff water shall be diverted to a sedimentation basin before it is allowed to enter the
natural drainage system (Section 21-7-16.F.).
8. An earth berm at least four feet in height shall be installed in all designated buffer yards
(20-16-7-D.3.b.).
9. It appears that the 100 -year water elevation of the Mississippi River will directly affect
the septic system drain fields of Lots 1-4, Block 32, and the lowest opening elevations of
Lots 3 and 4, Block 32. Also, it appears that a section of Thistledown Curve between
stations 31 +00 and 34+00 are within one foot of the 100 -year flood elevation of the
Mississippi River.
10. The 100 -year elevation of the creek which runs through the development shall be
shown on the plans. At this time, the City has not completed a study of said creek. The
developer will be responsible for determining the 100 -year water elevation. The City will
review this report.
STREETS
1. The bituminous, base and subbase thicknesses shall be shown in the typical sections
on plans.
2. A detail shall be included in the plans for the walking path and horse trail.
TRAFFIC/ACCESS ISSUES
1. The County will have to evaluate the necessity for right turn lanes, by-pass lanes and
left turn lanes along CSAH 39.
WETLANDS
1. Avoidance of wetlands must be attempted. If wetlands must be disturbed or filled they
must be mitigated as per WCA requirements (Section 20-16-9.E.2).
2. A protective buffer of natural vegetation at least 20' wide from the delineated edge shall
surround all wetlands. A principal building setback of 40' from the delineated edge of all
wetlands or 20' from the protective buffer easement, whichever is greater, shall be
provided. Some proposed structures do not meet this setback (Section 20-16-9.E).
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc
3. The normal and 100 year water levels of the wetlands shall be shown on the plans.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
1. A complete stormwater drainage report shall be submitted as outlined in the City of
Otsego Engineering Guidelines, Appendix C, Policy on Stormwater Drainage Submittal
Requirements for Developer.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been completed. It has been submitted
for publication in the EQB Monitor and is going through the 30 -day comment period.
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
It appears that the proposed location of the sanitary drain fields for Lots 4 and 5, Block
2, and Lot 2, Block 3, may conflict with the driveway. Please verify.
2. All sanitary drain fields shall be located a minimum of 10' away from all property lines
(Chapter 7080).
3. The soil boring and perculation test results for the septic system areas need to be
submitted for review. Also, the locations of said tests shall be shown on the plans.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Geotechnical data shall be submitted for review. Also, the geotechnical report shall
include pavement recommendations (Section 21-6-2.13.11).
SUMMARY AND/OR RECOMMENDATION
Revise and resubmit for City review/approval.
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\Aotsego23xx\2307\ot2307RVW1.doc
ITEM 3-4
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners(anacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Laurie Shives/Daniel Licht
DATE: 11 October 2005
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Chickens in Residential Districts
FILE: 176.08 — 05.07
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission discussed the notion of allowing the keeping of chickens in
residential zoning districts at their meeting on 19 September 2005. Generally, the
Planning Commissioners were in favor of allowing chickens in residential districts. The
resident who had received the Administrative Notice for violating the City Code
regarding keeping chickens in a residential district was present. The resident
expressed his concerns with the proposed amendment drafted by staff and discussed
his personal situation with raising chickens in the R-3 District. Following that
discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a memorandum outlining a
proposed code amendment allowing chickens in all residential districts by Administrative
Permit among other revisions.
ANALYSIS
Zoning. Currently, chickens and other farm animals are only allowed in Agricultural
Districts of the City as a permitted use and in the R -C District as a conditional use. The
limitation on keeping farm animals is directly related to compatibility issues for noise,
odor, insects, and rodents and typically the size of farm animals and the structures
required to house them.
Administrative Permit. The Planning Commission directed that chickens should be
allowed in residential districts upon approval of an administrative permit. The
Commissioners felt that residents who wish to raise chickens on their property should
be able to do so without going through the extensive and costly process of applying for
an interim use permit. An administrative permit is issued by the City's Zoning
Administrator and the application is review and either approved or denied within a
period of 30 days. The information that is required to be submitted with an application
for an administrative permit includes a letter of intent, a site plan, certification that all
property taxes, special assessments and utility bills have been paid and proof of
insurance.
As part of the Administrative Permit review process, notice may be required to be sent
to abutting property owners to solicit any comments. However, we have not included
such language as part of the draft text to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The solicitation
of comments from abutting property owners would require City staff to adjudicate
potentially subjective issues. Administrative permits are typically based on standardized
objective requirements that a request either complies with or does not. Application for
an administrative permit costs $200.00 and the approval typically runs without
expiration.
Density Allowed. The number of chickens allowed per resident should be regulated
based on an animal unit per acre basis, similar to how farm animals are regulated for
rural farm and non-farm properties. A chicken has a defined animal unit value of 0.01.
Within the Agricultural Districts, a property owner is allowed to have up to 50 chickens
per one acre of land. We recommend a ratio of 0.1 animal units per acre for the
allowance of chickens in residential districts, equivalent to 10 chickens per acre. For
example, if a resident has a 12,000 square foot lot they would be allowed to keep 2
chickens on their property upon approval of an Administrative Permit.
Accessory Building. Discussion at the Planning Commission meeting on 19
September 2005 concluded that either an attached or detached an accessory building
would be adequate for the housing the chickens. The size of the accessory building will
still be subject to the accessory building standards for each district. We recommend
that the building which houses the chickens be located within a rear yard and that the
side yard setbacks applicable to the structure be at least double those required of the
principal building.
Other Communities. The Planning Commission requested that staff contact the Cities
of Minneapolis and St. Paul as those cities allow chickens and other small animals in
residential districts with the approval of a small animal permit, which is similar to the City
of Otsego's administrative permit process. If a Minneapolis resident desires to raise
chickens on their residential property, they must apply for a small animal permit which is
issued by the commissioner of health. In addition, the applicant is required to obtain the
written consent of 80 percent of the neighboring property owners within 100 feet of the
subject property. An inspection of the premises is also required prior to the approval of
the small animal permit. Specific conditions may be prescribed by the commission of
2
health which are particular to the type of animal and/or location where the animal will be
kept. The commissioner may at any time revoke the permit if it is determined that any of
the conditions set forth in the permit have been violated or if the animal becomes a
public nuisance. The permits cost $10.00 and must be renewed annually.
In the City of St. Paul, chickens are permitted in all districts, provided the property
owner obtains a permit. However, one (1) chicken, turkey, duck, goose, pigeon or
similar small bird is allowed without a permit. A person who desires to keep more than
one chicken or similar small bird must submit an application to the City's environmental
health officer containing a description of the property where the animals are to be kept,
a statement that the applicant will at all times keep the animals in accordance with
applicable ordinances and conditions prescribed by the environmental health officer.
Additionally, the applicant must obtain written consent of 75 percent of the
owners/occupants of property located within 150 feet of the applicant's property.
Permits cost $66.00 and are valid for one year from the date of approval. Permits may
be renewed annually for an additional $25.00.
Revised draft amendment. Based on the issues set forth above, we have drafted the
following language that could be considered for further discussion to allow the keeping
of chickens within residential districts of the City:
20-26-4: FARM ANIMALS:
G. The keeping and maintaining of hen chickens. Pheasants, doves,
and pigeons shall be allowed by administrative permit in all
residential districts, provided
1. The number of chickens allowed per nroperty shall be
equivalent to 0.1 animal units per acre.
2. The keeping of roosters shall be prohibited.
3. The chickens must be housed within an enclosed accessory
building and fenced outdoor vard that conforms to the
accessory building provisions applicable to the district in
which they are kept.
4. The accessory building containing the animals must be
within a rear yard and shall be subject to the required
setbacks for principal buildings within the respective zoning
district with the additional stipulation that the side yard
setbacks must be double those required for principal
buildings.
5. The keeping and care of chickens I's _provided as regulated
by the City Code.
3
6. The owner/keeper of the chickens shall submit a manure
management plan with the application for the administrative permit
compliant with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards.
Manure shall not be deposited in household trash bins.
7. If eggs are harvested, they shall not be offered for sale from the
premises.
8. The administrative permit shall apply only to the named applicant,
shall not run with the land, and may not be transferred. It shall
automatically terminate upon the vacation of the property by the
as ply
CONCLUSION
Following discussion at the Planning Commission meeting and testimony by an Otsego
resident who currently keeps chickens on his property within the R-3 District on 19
September 2005, the Planning Commission has recommended that the keeping of
chickens within residential districts be permissible by administrative permit. The
preceding memorandum outlines these recommendations and shall be discussed
further at the Planning Commission meeting on 17 October 2005. Upon review by the
Planning Commission, the next step in the process would be to set a public hearing to
formally consider the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
C. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Timothy and Peggy Boyle
2