Loading...
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