09-19-11 PCTPC3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100
Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763.231.5840
Facsimile: 763.427.0520
TPC@PlanningCo.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 14 September 2011
RE: Otsego — Transportation Plan; 85th Street EAW
TPC FILE: 101.01 — 11.0
BACKGROUND
The City of Otsego has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to
review the planned construction of a future collector roadway at 85th Street between
Nashua Avenue and Mason Avenue. The City currently has no schedule for
construction of 85th Street between Nashua Avenue and Mason Avenue. EAWs are
processed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410 — 4410.7900 and Section
38 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibits:
A. EAW
B. MN Department of Agriculture letter dated August 11, 2011
C. SHPO letter dated August 16, 2011
ANALYSIS
Transportation Plan. The planned extension of 85th Street from Nashua Avenue to
Mason Avenue has been shown on the Transportation Plan element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan since 1989. The current Transportation Plan map adopted in
2011 is included as an exhibit within the EAW. This roadway will provide a central east -
west connection across Otsego at full build -out but construction is to be phased with
development and traffic demands as well as available funding. The City has no current
schedule for construction of 85th Street between Nashua Avenue and Mason Avenue.
The EAW process was initiated by the City at this time as an advance planning tool to
allow definition of the planned right-of-way corridor. The EAW considers three
alternative corridors for the future roadway as outlined in Paragraph 31 (page 10). The
preferred alternative recommended by City staff is a direct east -west route extended
from the existing intersection of 85th Street and Nashua Avenue. This alternative allows
for restoration of the wetland divided by 83rd Street, minimizes additional wetland
impacts, effects the fewest number of existing homes without requiring removal and
proposes the shortest length of right-of-way.
Mandatory EAW. The construction of 85th Street between Nashua Avenue and Mason
Avenue requires preparation of a mandatory EAW under Minnesota Rules Section
4410.4300, Sudp. 22 for a collector or arterial street loner than one mile in length.
Processing. The EAW was prepared by the City Engineer. Our office, as Zoning
Administrator, signed the EAW and authorized distribution. The EAW was published in
the EQB Monitor on 22 August 2011 and the 30 day comment period ends 21
September 2011. Notice of the EAW being available was published in the Elk River
Star News on 13 August 2011. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
19 September 2011 to receive input from the public regarding the project and any
potential for environmental effects.
Comments. To date, comments have been relieved from the Minnesota Historical
Society — State Historic Preservation Office and Minnesota Department of Agriculture:
■ The Department of Agriculture notes the possibility that properties within the
project area may be enrolled in the Agriculture Preserves program. Enrollment
within the Agriculture Preserves program would potentially limit the City's ability
to acquire property needed for the planned right-of-way. However, no properties
within the subject area are currently enrolled in an agriculture preserves program
as set forth by Minnesota Statutes 40A and no such program is currently in place
within Otsego or Wright County.
■ SHPO recommends that a archaeological survey be completed of the project
area. The project area is currently developed rural residential lands or tilled
agricultural fields. The City has previously completed a survey of potential
historical elements and notes potential for random historical artifacts to be
discovered. However, this project is not unlike others completed within the City
that yielded no significant information. The need for an archaeological survey will
be further evaluated at such time as a construction schedule is established in
consideration of any new information regarding potential historical significant
places within the project area.
2
Criteria. As outlined in Section 20-38-3.D.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the decision on
the need for an EIS and the proposed scope of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the information gathered during the EAW process and on the comments
received on the EAW. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, in deciding whether a
project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors are to
be considered:
a. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects.
Comment: The planned roadway design reflects the minimum potential impacts
to the environment in implementing the City's adopted Transportation Plan. In
fact, the preferred alternative design for the roadway improves the quality of an
existing wetland bisected by an existing City street by allowing removal of this
street and restoration of the connected wetland.
b. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects.
Comment: The planned roadway does not have potential for cumulative potential
effects in that it is consistent with the Transportation Plan element of the City of
Otsego Comprehensive Plan to be implemented as a functional system of streets
to accommodate anticipated traffic in relation to local and regional development.
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by
ongoing public regulatory authority.
Comment: The project is proposed by the City of Otsego which will have
ongoing authority for regulation of the planned roadway and mitigation of any
environmental effects subject to Federal, State and local laws and standards.
d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a
result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the
project proposer, or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects.
Comment: Potential environmental effects related to the project have been
anticipated as part of the design process and mitigated to the extent possible and
as required for compliance with Federal, State and local laws and standards.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends adoption of findings as outlined herein that the potential for any
significant environmental effects related to the future 85th Street project have been or
will be mitigated to the extent required to comply with applicable Federal and State laws
and local ordinances, standards and practices.
9
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
A. Motion to recommend adopting findings that the planned future 85th Street project
from Nashua Avenue to Mason Avenue is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and does not have potential for significant environmental effects and that
preparation of an EIS is not to be required based on a review of the EAW and
other evidence received.
B. Motion to recommend adopting findings that the planned future 85th Street project
from Nashua Avenue to Mason Avenue does have potential for significant
environmental effects and that preparation of an EIS is to be required based on
a review of the submitted EAW and evidence received (Specific environmental
impacts must be cited).
C. Lori Johnson, City Administrator
Tami Loff, City Clerk
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
2
651 201 6120 11: 15:37 a.m. 08-11-2011 1 /1
651 201 6120 .
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICUIJURE
August 11, 2011
651-201-6369
Becky. balk@ state.mn.us
D. Daniel Licht, AICP
City Planning/Zoning Administrator
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Ave NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Re: 85th Street EAW
Dear Mr. Licht:
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) would like to comment on the 85th Street EAW. We
-)uld just like to mention the possibility exists that some of the farmland within the area of the
,oposed street may be enrolled in agricultural preserves under the Minnesota Agricultural Land
Preservation Program (Minn. Stat. Chap 40A). Most likely you have already looked into this matter.
If not, we would recommend that you check with the County Recorder's Office to make sure it is clear
of agricultural preserve covenants.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the document. Please feel free to contact me at if you have
any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Becky Balk, Agricultural Land Use Specialist
Agricultural Marketing & Development Division
625 Robert St. N., St. Paul, MN 55155-2538 • 651-2o1-6000 or 1-800-967-2474 • www.mda.state.mn.us
An Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider, TDD 2-800-627-3529
RECEIVED TIME AUG. 11. 12:11PM
llMinnesota
1� Historical Society
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
August 16, 2011
Mr. D. Daniel Licht, AICP
City Planning/Zoning Administrator
City of Ostego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Ostego, MN 55330
RE: Construct 85th Street from Nashua Avenue to Mason Avenue
T121 R23 S19-20, Ostego, Wright County
SHPO Number: 201 -K-Fn
Dear Mr. Licht:
c f0 !& ��
` e*
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed
pursuant to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic
Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act.
Due.to the nature,of the proposed project, we recommend that an archaeological survey be
completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any
properties that'are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have
expressed an. interest in undertaking such surveys.
If the project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, we will re-
evaluate the need for survey. Previously disturbed areas are those where the naturally occurring
post -glacial soils and sediments have been recently removed. Any previous survey work must meet
contemporary standards.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal
assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by the
responsible federal agency.
If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 259-3456.
:Si cere
y
ary Ann Heidemann
Manager, Government Programs and Compliance
Enclosure: List-6f.Consultants
cc:. Brad C. Wilkening, P.E., Hakanson Anderson
Minnesota Historical Society, 345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
651-259-3000 • 888-727-8386 • www.mnhs.org
Version 8/08rev
ENVIRONMENTALAsSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to preparers: This form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality
Board's website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The
Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for
significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its
agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer
must supply any reasonably accessible data for — but should not complete — the final worksheet. The
complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically.
Note to reviewers: Continents must be submitted to the RGU during the 30 -day comment period following
notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of
information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title 85t' Street Extension
2. Proposer
Contact person: Ronald J. Wagner
Title: City Engineer
Address: 3601 Thurston Avenue
City, state, ZIP: Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763-427-5860
Fax: 763-427-0520
E-mail: ronj@has-inc.com
3. RGU
Contact person: D. Daniel Licht., AICP
Title: City Planner/Zoning Administrator
Address: 8899 Nashua Avenue NE
City, state, ZIP: Otsego, MN 55330
Phone: 763-441-4414
Fax: 763-441-8823
E-mail: ddl@planningco.com
4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one)
_EIS scoping X Mandatory EAW _Citizen petition —RGU discretion Proposer
volunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number
and subpart naive:
4410.43 Subpart 22 —Highway Project
5. Project location County
City/Township
N'/z SE'/4 S19
Township 121
Range 23
S'/z NE 1/4 S19
Township 121
Range23
N'/z SW'/4 S20
Township 121
Range 23
S '/2 NW 114 S20
Township 121
Range 23
GPS Coordinates
N
W
Tax Parcel Number
Attach each of the following to the EAW:
• County map showing the general location of the project;
• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale snap indicating project boundaries
(photocopy acceptable);
• Site plan showing all significant project and natural features.
6. Description
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
The City of Otsego is proposing to construct 85a' Street from Nashua Avenue to Mason Avenue. This
one mile long collector street is a new municipal state aid roadway and is included in the City of Otsego
2011 Transportation Plan.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional
sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or
industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate
the timing and duration of construction activities.
Background
The City of Otsego has developed an overall Transportation Plan which includes this roadway segment
as part of an overall east west collector system. The complete 85`x' Street collector roadway will connect
to County State Aid Highway 42 and County State Aid Highway 19.
Proposed Project
This one mile long segment of new roadway is designed as parkway, which includes a 16 -foot grass
median, two 12 -foot driving lanes and two 6 -foot shoulders. The entire roadway is an urban section
with curb and gutter, a 5 -foot sidewalk north of the roadway and a 10 -foot bike path south of the
roadway.
This is an extension of the existing 85fl' Street, which begins at the intersection of Nashua Avenue and
ends at the intersection of Mason Avenue.
The proposed roadway alignment has been selected to minimize impacts to wetlands and to minimize
grading and earthmoving operations because of the rolling terrain.
Construction of 85a' Street will require purchasing a 100 -foot wide right-of-way corridor along with
temporary slope easements in various locations. The total right-of-way to be purchased is 13.46 acres
and 1.63 acres of temporary easement.
Construction methods will include the use of heavy equipment for earthwork, storm sewer installation,
aggregate base and paving operations. Improvements will be accomplished using typical construction
practices and materials, under the supervision of the City Engineer.
Dewatering of groundwater for construction may be necessary at the easterly end of the project where
there are wetland impacts.
Grading of the roadway will not result in a large excess or deficit of dirt. Roadway base and paving
materials will be imported to the site from local pits. Concrete materials and bituminous pavement will
ultimately be brought to the site from existing suppliers.
Stormwater generated from the 85"' Street project will be conveyed by storm sewer to proposed storage
and sedimentation basins prior to release into natural water bodies. The proposed basins will provide
rate control and water quality benefit.
Construction access to the project will be provided by Nashua Avenue at the east end and Mason
Avenue at the west end.
Erosion control measures will be provided as required by the City of Otsego Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. Erosion Control
Measures may include silt fence, rock entrances, catch basin protection, erosion control blanket, seeding
and mulch.
c. Explairi the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need
for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The purpose of this project is to provide an east -west corridor through the City of Otsego, which will
ultimately link County State Aid Highway 42 and County State Aid Highway 19. The beneficiaries of
the project are the current and future landowners in the City of Otsego, the property owners will be
enabled to develop along with property owners who will benefit from reduced traffic on surrounding
roadways.
d. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely
to happen? X Yes No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
The project may be completed in phases with initial construction of rural section, two lane MSA
roadway. Subsequent expansion of the roadway to the planned parkway section would occur as traffic
volume increases and funding is available.
01 Street is planned to extend westerly for an additional 2.5 miles in the future. Environmental
reviews will be conducted on future projects as required. .
e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _Yes X No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
7. Project magnitude data
Total project acreage 15.09
Number of residential units: unattached 0 attached 0 maximum units per building
Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet 0
Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet):
Manufacturing 0
Office 0
Retail 0 Other industrial 0
Warehouse 0 Institutional 0
Light industrial 0 Agricultural 0
Other commercial (specify) 0
Building height If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings
8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and
financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review
of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax
Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate
environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of government Type of application Status
MPCA
National Pollution Discharge
To Be Obtained
Elimination System (NPDES) -
General Stormwater Construction Permit
City of Otsego
Wetland Conservation Act Permit
To Be Obtained
Mn/DOT
State Aid Plan Review
To Be Obtained
Mn/DOT
State Aid Funding
To Be Obtained
Mn/DNR
Public Waters Permit
To Be Obtained
Corps of Engineers
Clean Water 404 Permit
To Be Obtained
9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands.
Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential
conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site
uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or
gas pipelines.
The area adjacent to the project is rural in character with agricultural fields and scattered rural
residential housing sites. The character of the area will not change until such time as sanitary sewer
and water utilities are extended to allow for urban development of low density residential uses as guided
by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands will be impacted on the easterly end of the project at the
intersection with Nashua Avenue, along with other isolated wetlands. No other environmental hazards
are anticipated to be encountered as part of the project.
10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after
development:
Before After
Types 1-8 wetlands
2.55
1.35
Lawn/landscaping
Wooded/forest
0
0
Impervious surfaces
Brush/Grassland
.85
.34
Stormwater Pond
Cropland
10.59
0.95
Other (describe)
TOTAL.
If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why:
Before After
1.1 4.55
0 7.10
0 0.8
15.09 15.09
11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources
a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be
affected by the project. Describe any measures to betaken to minimize or avoid impacts.
Infonnation regarding rare plant or animal species has been requested form the DNR Natural Heritage
and Non -game Research Program.
b. Are any state -listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or
other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? _Yes No
If yes, describe the resource and how it Would be affected by the project. Describe any measures that
will be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Provide the license agreement number (LA-__)
and/or Division of Ecological Resources contact number (ERDB ) from which the data
were obtained and attach the response letter from the DNR Division of Ecological Resources .
Indicate if any additional survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration
— dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impounchnent — of any surface
waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? X Yes _No
If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s) if the
water resources affected are on the PWI: Describe alternatives considered and proposed
mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
See section 31 for alternatives considered.
The wetlands on the east side of the project are designated as natural environment lakes — placement of
streets within the Shoreland Overlay District is subject to Section 20-92-11.13 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Wetland impacts will be mitigated by purchasing wetland bank credits, which will be reviewed and
approved by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The TEP includes the City of Otsego, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers.
13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or
changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including
dewatering)? X Yes No
If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be
made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any
appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify
any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology
used to determine.
Dewatering of groundwater may be necessary for roadway construction. No long term groundwater
impact is expected.
Dewatering of groundwater may necessary dining construction, particularly the east end of the site.
Dewatering will be directed to sedimentation ponds before it is released to wetlands. Adjacent homes
have individual wells and are not expected to be affected by the project.
14. Water -related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland
zoning district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river
land use district? _Yes X No
If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district Iand use restrictions.
15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body?
_Yes X No
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or
conflicts with other uses.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to
be moved: 15.0 acres; 80,000 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and
identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used
during and after project construction.
This project will disturb 15 acres of land. The majority of the property is agricultural fields.
This project will require a NPDES General Stonnwater Pen -nit for construction activity since the
- project will disturb more than one acre of land. This permit will require temporary and permanent
erosion and sediment control measures to reduce and eliminate erosion and keep sediments on-site
during and after construction. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will also be required.
The SWPPP will address erosion and sediment control within the project site prior to construction until
final stabilization or turf is established on the site.
17. Water quality: surface water runoff
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent
controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans.
Stormwater from 8561 Street will be collected by curb and gutter to stoma sewer. The stonn sewer will
outlet to treatment/detention basins prior to discharging to wetlands.
b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water
bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving
waters.
Stonnwater and surface water generally travels west to east in this area, ultimately making its way to
the Crow River and the Mississippi River.
18. Water quality: wastewaters
a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater
produced or treated at the site.
None
b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition
after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies (identifying any
impaired waters), and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project
involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems.
None
c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe
any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of
wastes, identifying any improvements necessary.
None
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: minimum 0" average; 30"
to bedrock: N/A miniinum average.
Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site
snap: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or
minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
None
b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil texture and
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils.
Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.
Soil types: Cordova loam, Angus loam, Lester loam and Angus -Cordova complex. Groundwater
contamination is not anticipated to be an issue.
20. Solid wastes,_ hazardous wastes, storage tanks
a. Describe types, amounts and coinpositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal
manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of
disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan;
describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if
there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.
Municipal household waste will be produced during construction, which will be collected by licensed
haulers and deposited at a pennitted facility.
b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be
used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will
lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or
eliminate the waste, discharge or emission.
Construction machinery will be on site for all phases of this project. Equipment will be maintained by
the Contractor, along with fueling operations and cleaning up any spills that may occur.
c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum
products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans.
No permanent storage tanks will be part of this project.
21. Traffic. Parking spaces added: 0
Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 0
Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 0
Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence: 0
Indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates.
If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic
impact study nsust be prepared as part of the EAff! Using the format and procedures described in the
Minnesota Department of Transportation's Traffic Impact Study Guidance (available at:
h_Q 11ivww oim dot state mn us/access/pdfVChapter%205. pdfl or a similar local guidance, provide an
estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements
necessary. The analysis must discuss the project's impact on the regional transportation system.
Traffic
Construction of 85`x' Street will not generate new traffic, except during construction, however it will
cause a redistribution of existing traffic.
Exiting traffic within this area is currently using Mason Avenue and Nashua Avenue to travel north
and south. The nearest east and west roadway is 83rd Street which is /4 mile to the south and has a
gravel surface.
Minimal traffic information is available in this area; however Mn/DOT has indicated that 85`x' Street
has 1,050 vehicles per day (vpd) east of the project location. Nashua Avenue has 840 vpd north of 85`''
Street and 160 vpd south of 85d' Street. Traffic congestion is not an issue with adjacent roadways.
During construction, construction traffic will use local roads. Materials will be delivered to the site by
the most efficient route chosen by the Contractor.
Future traffic in the project area will likely increase with residential and commercial development.
The local School District has discussed locating a high school in the area of this project; however that
is in the planning stages and depends on student numbers within the City of Otsego and the
surrounding areas.
22. Vehicle -related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality,
including carbon inonoxidelevels. Discuss the effect of traffic illnprovements-or other mitigation
measures on air quality impacts.
Vehicle emissions associated with the project will not have a significant effect on air quality.
Residential and other development enabled by the construction of 85"' Street may result in measurable
but not significant impacts.
23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust
sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any
greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals
(chloro -fluorocarbons, hydrofluoro carbons, perfluorocarbon or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe
any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the
impacts on air quality.
The project will not generate stationary source air emissions.
24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during
operation? X Yes _No
If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to
mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on
them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by
operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.)
Construction noise and dust will be controlled by hours of operations and watering requirements
imposed as part of the City Engineering Manual. Enforcement of these regulations will be provided by
an on site construction observer. Construction of this project is not anticipated to involve any process
or materials that would generate any.odors.
25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _Yes X No
Prune or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _Yes X No
Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _Yes X No
Scenic views and vistas? _Yes X No
Other unique resources? _Yes X No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any project -related impacts on the resource. Describe any
measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such
as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes fi-om cooling
towers or exhaust stacks? _Yes X No
If yes, explain.
27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local
comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource
management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? X Yes — No.
If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will
be resolved. If no, explain.
The City of Otsego has adopted a Comprehensive Plan that includes land use plan and a transportation
plan which includes 011 Street between Mason Avenue and Nashua Avenue as a parkway collector
street. This street will serve as a primary east -west connection across the City providing access
between neighborhoods, local business areas as well as connections to regional arterial roadways for
travel to/from communities beyond Otsego.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other
infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? _Yes X o.
If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is
a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for
details.)
The 85t' Street project is considered a public project. This project will not require any other projects
or utilities to be constructed. 85t1i Street may be extended to the west in the future, as indicated on the
2011 Transportation Plan for the City of Otsego.
Water and sewer utilities are not included in this project. This area of Otsego is rural in character with
agricultural fields and scattered rural residential housing sites with individual wells and septic systems.
The character of the area will not change until such time as sanitary sewer and water are extended to
allow for urban development, as guided by the City's Comprehensive Plan.,
29. Cumulative potential effects. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the
RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when
determining the need for an environmental impact statement.
Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project
described in this EAW in such away as to cause cumulative potential effects. (Such future projects
would be those that are actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid.)
Describe the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information
relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these
cumulative effects (or discuss each cumulative potential effect under appropriate items) elsewhere on
this form).
The construction of 85`i' Street is included in the City of Otsego 2011Transportation Plan as a parkway.
Mn/DOT will designate this roadway as a rural collector. The purpose of this new roadway alignment
is to provide a more efficient east -west route through the center of the City of Otsego.
Providing an east -west corridor through the center of Otsego will promote commercial and residential
development along with improving efficiency for the traveling public. Current traffic is required to
travel north to County Road 39 or south to County Road 37, unless the driver chooses to take local
roads, some of which are gravel surfaced and receive a lower level of maintenance.
85t" Street is proposed to extend to the west another 2.5 miles where it will connect with Kadler
Avenue and continue onto'another existing segment of 851' Street. Enviromnental reviews will be
conducted when required on the future segments of 85`x' Street prior to construction.
Full development of the planned urbanized areas of the City of Otsego as guided by the City's
Comprehensive Plan will result in the permanent displacement of some wildlife habitat. Surrounding
rural property and wetland areas will continue to exist as sanctuary. Full development should not
result in traffic congestion due to proactive planning measures on behalf of the City and County. Air
quality issues should not arise from this roadway construction. Water quality issues will be addressed
by the use of sedimentation and detention ponds to ensure proper discharge at existing rates.
30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts
not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss thein here, along with any proposed mitigation.
31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead,
address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EA W.
List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the
project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered
for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions.
Three roadway alignments alternatives were considered during the development of this project, which
are attached at the end of this document. A number of factors and impacts were considered as the
project progressed, such as:
• Length of new roadway alignment.
• Right-of-way needed.
• Wetland impacts.
• Quantity of earthwork.
• Number of homes to purchase and remove.
• Number of homes impacted by roadway location.
• Length of existing roadway to reconstruct.
• Length of roadway to demolish.
Alternative #1
The preferred alternative for the extension of 85`x' Street is a direct east -west route beginning at the
existing intersection of 85t" Street and Nashua Avenue and ending at Mason Avenue. This route
requires the least amount of right-of-way and has the least impact on the surrounding homes. The
alignment will have an estimated wetland impact of 1.2 acres, however this alternative includes
the removal of approximately 1,250 lineal feet of 83rd Street. By removing this portion of
roadway, particularly through the DNR wetland, approximately 0.46 acres of wetland can be
restored. Restoration of this DNR wetland will join together two larger wetlands that were
historically connected making it better habitat for wild life and the flow of water from south to
north.
83rd Avenue will be disconnected from Nashua Avenue and a cul-de-sac will be constructed west
of the DNR wetland. A future connection to 85th Street is shown, which will rely on future
development patterns.
A meeting was held with the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) which included the City Wetland
Official, the MN/DNR, Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The TEP preferred this alternative because of the minimization of wetland impacts, the wetland
restoration and the historical connection of the two wetlands.
Three existing homes will be impacted by the proximity of the proposed roadway. Relocation will
not be required for any existing homes along the project.
A summary of Alternative #1 includes:
Length of New Roadway Alignment
5,300 LF
Right-of-way Required
13.46 Acres
Wetland Impacts
1.20 Acres
Wetland Restoration
0.46 Acres
Number of Homes Impacted by Location
3 Homes
Existing Roadway Demolition
1,300 LF
Alternative 42
This roadway alignment begins approximately 2,000 feet east of Nashua Avenue. The easterly
portion of 85th Street is routed north of wetlands and two existing homes. This alternative has less
wetland impacts, however it does not include the removal of 831 Street through the wetland. A
small wetland east of Nashua Avenue is also impacted along with three additional homes.
This alternative requires significantly more grading because of the rolling terrain and steep grades.
five homes would be affected by the location of the roadway and three of the homes will require
constructing new driveways because of elevation issues with 85th Street. None of the existing
homes will need to be relocated. 800 LF of existing roadway will be removed for the relocated
intersection with Nashua Avenue.
The 83rd Avenue Roadway removal, and associated wetland restoration is not included because it
is necessary to keep the connection to Nashua Avenue. The future connection of 83rd Street to 85th
Street is not practical with this alternative because of existing wetlands.
A summary of Alternative 2 includes:
Length of New Roadway Aligmnent
7,300 LF
Right-of-way Required
17.20 Acres
Wetland Impacts
0.92 Acres
Number of Homes Affected by Location
5 Homes
Existing Roadway Demolition
800 LF
Existing Roadway to Reconstruct
1,200 LF
Alternative # 3
This roadway alignment is an improvement of 83rd rather than extending 85th Street. The existing
85th Street would be connected to 83i4 Street with a reverse curve. 3,520 LF of Nashua Avenue
will need to be realigned to provide an appropriate intersection. 831d Street will be improved to a
parkway, which will require additional right-of-way.
There are a number of homes which would be significantly impacted by the new alignment. One
home at the comer of 85th Street and Nashua Avenue will need to be removed for construction.
Four existing homes will be significantly closer to the proposed right-of-way, which may need to
be relocated because of setback requirements. The existing topography will require large grading
operations with large cuts and fills to achieve the necessary design speed.
This alternative requires construction of significantly more roadway, along with impacting more
homes.
A summary of Alternative 3 includes:
Length of New Roadway Alignment
5,700 LF
Right-of-way Required
14.1 Acres
Wetland Impacts
2.1 Acres
Number of Homes to Remove
1 Home
Number of Homes Affected by Location
6 Homes
Existing Roadway Demolition
4,500 LF
Existing Roadway to Reconstruct
6,900 LF
RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental
Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.)
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
• The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components
other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected
actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60,
respectively.
• Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature Date
D. Daniel Licht, AICP
City Planning/Zoning Administrator
Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at
the Minnesota Department of Administration, Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis. For
additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658
Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-201-2492, or hLtp://www.eqb.state.imi.us
m
Li
right C o u la,
m
N
----------- LJ
10
�j-
x
L
'� I .f
q 17
rj
r2
�; ; L -
L
Elvi
Hennepin County
�i j I
J1
McLeod County �:f� A r
Carver I County
Hakanson
Anderson — — —T J-
85TH STREET NE
�oTSE�o
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD LOCATION MAP
L
Sherburne C o u n ty
rah
4—LO
m
N
----------- LJ
10
�j-
x
L
'� I .f
q 17
rj
r2
�; ; L -
L
Elvi
Hennepin County
�i j I
J1
McLeod County �:f� A r
Carver I County
Hakanson
Anderson — — —T J-
85TH STREET NE
�oTSE�o
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD LOCATION MAP
9 902 V B88 1
�J • . 0W °
C p ���_'�"'-� ." _� �`� � � i\_ � §off••--�.�i` _ � � II I
3 � I � I �._-- � �'�. '� S ERBLTRN ''->✓� -�--- _
o¢ I soo9�
• 918 •:I I° •
° 17
I
9tio O Q I - -- --- - -----f-B�a¢eI:P .--------- • -•----
o0 D
930 I I
TION
go -
Gra I r(,
.---- I 5 ) \ F3,4*
i¢
(I _I
-- - J 923 'I 936 i 9
OL
30
G ((
-- _ 943 --- -- -- - 3
m CD
. OI 950to
a�iSEGQ
ON "- GREAT RRTR ROAD
USG$
LOCATION MAP
9-2
o Q Q o
d° I to to
Io oo °I I tz
Rpm
dle
❑ 1 1
0
0
� chi
J
II °
1
IIz e
1 1;
I lm
Z
0
Cl)
w
11 t<
I Ija� W
W*b
cr-
1 I ui
In-
co
ao a
1
gool,_ 1
a 1
I I
3
14P
I �
~- --- 3" NOSYW
1p� Wb 8f�1f�8 llpZ/fl/9 t^P'1Y1N3WNptl1AN3 98f10\BroP\48£10\ltldl�INfIW\S1J3fONd\bus p°a\:H
— PROPERTY AFFECTED BY NEW AUGMENT
ROADWAY DEMOLITION 85TH STREET EXTENSION fm em Hakanson
aw o
ALTERNATIVE #2 IAItAnderson
_ PROPERTY AFFECTED BY NEW ALIGNMENT
ROADWAY DEMOLRION
® RELOCATION REQUIRED
P
85TH STREET EXTENSION
ALTERNATIVE #3
ITEM 3-2
TPC3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100
Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763.231.5840
Facsimile: 763.427.0520
TPC(?PPlanningCo.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 13 September 2011
RE: Otsego — Zoning Ordinance; Variances
TPC FILE: 101.01
BACKGROUND
State Statute 462.357 has been amended to revise the criteria upon which variance
applications are to be considered. This action requires amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance to be consistent with the updated statutory language.
Exhibits:
A. Draft Zoning Ordinance amendment
B. Ordinance 2011 -XX
ANALYSIS
Minnesota Statute previously allowed cities to approve variances, or deviations from the
strict language of the Zoning Ordinance for individual properties, based on a finding that
"undue hardships" exist. Undue hardship was defined by Minnesota Statute 462.357,
Subd. 6 as when "the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used
under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality". Over time, cities used
discretion as to how undue hardship was defined with some adopting a lenient
approach and approving variances in situations where a reasonable use of the property
existing under the zoning regulation.
In 2010 the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned a variance approval in the City of
Minnetonka finding that the City had misapplied the "undue hardship" criteria in granting
a setback variance to allow construction of a larger attached garage. The effect of this
decision was to require cities to consider approval of a variance only when compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance would prohibit any reasonable use of a property allowed by
the Zoning Ordinance. In the Minnetonka case, the undue hardship criteria was not met
for while the Zoning Ordinance did not allow a garage of a size desired by the property
owner, a single family dwelling and garage was allowed and developed providing for
reasonable use of the property. Our office would note that the interpretation of the
variance criteria established by the Minnesota Supreme Court decision is consistent
with the use of a variance to relieve what would otherwise be considered a government
taking of property due to inability to use a property under the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. It is also consistent with the past recommendations of the Planning
Commission and City Council decisions in Otsego regarding variance applications.
In response to the Minnesota Supreme Court decision, Minnesota Statutes 462.357
Subd. 6 was amended in 2011 to change the criteria for approval of a variance from
"undue hardship" to "practical difficulties" meaning:
"...that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner not permitted by an official control; the plight of the landowner is
due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical
difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate
access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems."
Although still subject to interpretation, the revised language is believed by City Planners
and City Attorneys to lessen the threshold for approval of variance application.
Regardless of a city's policy regarding approval of variances, the change to Minnesota
Statutes 462.357, Subd. 6 necessitates an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to
make the language consistent with the new Statutory language. Our office has drafted
a proposed amendment to Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance for consideration by the
Planning Commission. The proposed amendment removes references to undue
hardship and existing criteria for evaluation of variance requests and installs new
language consistent with the amended State Statute.
Our office would not recommend a change in City policy regarding approval of variance
applications. A fundamental principal of zoning regulations is to treat like properties
under like conditions equally. Very rarely is approval of a variance necessary for a
property to be put to reasonable use allowed by the Zoning Ordinance where the
variance is not simply a convenience for the property owner such as in the case of
wanting to have a three stall garage versus only two stalls when limited by a side yard
setback. If the City encounters situations where relief from a provision of the Zoning
Ordinance seems reasonable and would apply to multiple properties in similar
situations, then the appropriate action is to either amend the provision to address the
issue or provide the option of relief by administrative permit, conditional use permit or
interim use permit whereby criteria can be established for when such requests should
be approved or conditions of approval imposed. Continuing to approach applications
2
for variance in this manner will ensure that such requests are only approved when the
action would be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends amendments to the Zoning Ordinance reflecting the change in
State Statutes for variances as attached hereto.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
A. Motion to recommend approval of an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding variances as presented.
B. Motion to table.
C. Lori Johnson, City Administrator
Tami Loff, City Clerk
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
3
ORDINANCE NO.: 2011 -DRAFT
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
OTSEGO REGARDING VARIANCES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 20-2-2.V of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended revise
the definition of variance:
Variance:ng E)rdin@A--
to the pwbli-- i-te-re-st and where -wing to
nnnr10f*nnc ininp in thin
A modification of or variation from the
provisions of this Chapter consistent with the Minnesota Statues 462.357 as
applied to a specific property and _granted pursuant to the standards and
procedures of this Chapter, except that a variance shall not be used for
modification of the allowable uses within a district and shall not allow uses that
are prohibited.
Section 2. Section 20-6-1 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read
as follows:
20-6-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to provide for deviations from
the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hard practical difficulties because of
physical circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated
that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter
and the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3. Section 20-6-2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Review Criteria:
Ineation when the lot qualifies as a
A variance request (major or minor) shall not be approved unless a finding
is made by the City Council that failure to grant the variance_ will result in
practical difficulties.
1. "Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to
use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter and include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to
direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
2. The applicant for variance shall also demonstrate that the request
satisfies the following criteria:
a That the variance would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
b That the variance would be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of this Chapter.
Q That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner.
d. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic
consideration.
e That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is
located.
f. That the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the practical difficulty.
3. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed
under this Chapter for property in the Zoning District where the
land is located.
�.
justified m;akg reasomable --s;
34. The Plannina Commission, in the case of a major variance, and
based upon a report and recommendation by the City staff, shall
have the power to advise and recommend such conditions related
to the variance regarding the location, _structure, or use as it may
deem advisable in the interest of the intent and purpose of this
Chapter.
f may deem arlWcelble in the- inte—re-s-I.- of the int
The City Council shall in arantina anv
variance under the provisions of this Section designate anv
conditions in connection therewith as will in its opinion secure
substantially the objectives of the regulations or provisions to which
the variance is aranted, as to light, air, and the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience and general welfare.
Section 4. Section 20-6-3.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to
read as follows:
a. Cases where practical difficulties to existing
buildings or platted property are created as a result of public
action or change in City Code standards (exception:
floodplain, shoreland, wetland, and/or wild and scenic river
regulations).
Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
ALL IN FAVOR:
THOSE OPPOSED:
2011.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Otsego this day of ,
5
CITY OF OTSEGO
BY:
Jessica L. Stockamp, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tami Loff, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.: 2011 -
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
OTSEGO REGARDING VARIANCES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 20-2-2.V of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended revise
the definition of variance:
Variance: A modification of or variation from the provisions of this Chapter
consistent with the Minnesota Statues 462.357 as applied to a specific property
and granted pursuant to the standards and procedures of this Chapter, except
that a variance shall not be used for modification of the allowable uses within a
district and shall not allow uses that are prohibited.
Section 2. Section 20-6-1 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read
as follows:
20-6-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Section is to provide for deviations from
the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of physical
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and
to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will
be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 3. Section 20-6-2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read
as follows:
B. Review Criteria: A variance request (major or minor) shall not be
approved unless a finding is made by the City Council that failure to grant
the variance will result in practical difficulties.
1. "Practical difficulties" means that the property owner proposes to
use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
1
Chapter and include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to
direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
2. The applicant for variance shall also demonstrate that the request
satisfies the following criteria:
a. That the variance would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. That the variance would be in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of this Chapter.
C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner.
d. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic
consideration.
e. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is
located.
f. That the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the practical difficulty.
3. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed
under this Chapter for property in the Zoning District where the
land is located.
4. The Planning Commission, in the case of a major variance, and
based upon a report and recommendation by the City staff, shall
have the power to advise and recommend such conditions related
to the variance regarding the location, structure, or use as it may
deem advisable in the interest of the intent and purpose of this
Chapter.
5. The City Council shall in granting any variance under the provisions
of this Section designate any conditions in connection therewith as
will, in its opinion, secure substantially the objectives of the
regulations or provisions to which the variance is granted, as to
light, air, and the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and
general welfare.
2
Section 4. Section 20-6-3.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to
read as follows:
a. Cases where practical difficulties to existing buildings or
platted property are created as a result of public action or
change in City Code standards (exception: floodplain,
shoreland, wetland, and/or wild and scenic river regulations).
Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
ALL IN FAVOR:
THOSE OPPOSED:
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Otsego this 26th day of
September, 2011.
ATTEST:
Tami Loff, City Clerk
3
CITY OF OTSEGO
BY:
Jessica L. Stockamp, Mayor