11-02-09 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 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
RE: Otsego — Carron Addition
REPORT DATE: 29 October 2009
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 09.12
BACKGROUND
Ms. Jeanette Carron owns a 54.4 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Nashua
Avenue and 83rd Street. The subject site is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for
future low density residential uses and is currently zoned A-1, Agriculture Rural Service
District. The subject site is also within the Shoreland Overlay District of a natural
environment lake within the property. The property owner is requesting approval of a
Zoning Map amendment rezoning to A-2, Agriculture Long Range Urban Service
District, a CUP allowing a lot in the A-2 District with an area less than 20 acres and a
preliminary/final plat subdividing the subject site into three lots.
Fxhihits-
A. Site Location
B. Preliminary Plat
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is zoned A-1 District, which allows
development density at one dwelling unit per 40 acres and the minimum lot size for lots
established after October 2002 is 20 acres. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of
the 54.4 acre to A-2 District. The A-2 District allows for development at four dwelling
units per forty acres and subdivision of lots less than 20 acres in area by approval of a
conditional use permit consistent with the interim land use plan established by the
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site would be allowed up to five lots subject to
applicable minimum lot requirements. In order to maintain contiguous tracts of land for
future urban development, the A-2 District requires that subdivided lots conform either
to a minimum lot area of 20 acres or that all but one lot not exceed 2.5 acres in area.
The subject site is proposed to be subdivided into three lots, two of which are 20 acres
in area and a third that is less than 20 acres. Lots 2 and 3, which are the two 20 acre
parcels will be required to be deed restricted to prohibit further subdivision until such
time as urban services are available. Lot one will also require a deed restriction
prohibiting subdivision of more than two additional lots.
Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Lots within the A-2 District must have a minimum
area of 20 acres and minimum width of 450 feet. Lots 2 and 3 conform to these
requirements. Lot 1 is proposed with an area of 11.54 acres and is 524.84 feet wide to
Nashua Avenue. Section 20-52-5.H of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the creation of
lots less than 20 acres in area within the A-2 District by conditional use permit. The
approval of the CUP is to be based on compliance with the following criteria:
All other applicable requirements of Section 20-52-6 of this Chapter
are complied with.
2. A concept plan utilizing all development rights allowed by Section
20-52-6.B of this Chapter is submitted and recorded with the
subdivision.
3. Lots are to be clustered and the overall subdivision designed in
such a manner so as to provide for logical future street and utility
extensions.
4. No lot shall be less than one (1) acre in size or 150 feet in width.
5. The maximum lot size for clustered lots in the Urban Service
Reserve Area shall be two and one-half (2.5) acres except if one of
the following conditions is met:
a. Topography, soils, wetlands, or other natural features dictate
a larger minimum lot area.
b. The location of existing buildings cannot be fully
accommodated in compliance with applicable setback
requirements of Section 20-52-6. C of this Chapter.
C. One (1) development right as allowed by Section 20-52-6.B
of this Chapter is used for a dwelling located on the present
parcel outside of the residential cluster.
6. A resubdivision plan for future division of each lot with availability of
municipal sanitary sewer service is submitted and recorded on the
deed for each lot. Principal and accessory buildings shall be
2
located on each lot in conformance with all present and future
setback requirements based on the resubdivision plan.
7. A deed restriction is placed on the parcel exercising development
rights and all subdivided lots to prohibit additional subdivision
unless is conforms to applicable zoning district requirements.
8. Each lot is capable of accommodating a private well and septic
system.
9. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.F of this Chapter are considered
and satisfactorily met.
The proposed 11.54 acre area of Lot 1 complies with the condition of Section 20-52-
5.H.5.c of the Zoning Ordinance above as a remnant parcel after subdivision of the two
20 acre lot from the original 54.40 acre property. As only one lot larger than 2.5 acres is
allowed, Lots 2 and 3, will be required to be deed restricted to prohibit further
subdivision until such time as urban services are available. Lot 1 will also require a
deed restriction prohibiting subdivision of more than two additional lots remaining from
the five available development rights. Given the area of the three proposed lots, no
resubdivision plan is to be required.
Setbacks. The table below illustrates the required setbacks. The preliminary plat must
be revised to indicate the required setback from Nashua Avenue, 83rd Street and the
delineated wetland boundary. Each of the proposed lots has sufficient buildable area
within compliance with these setback requirements.
Setbacks
Nashua
83r
Side
Rear
Wetland
Avenue
Street
65 ft.
35 ft.
10 ft.
50 ft.
40 ft.
Right -of -Way. The subject site abuts Nashua Avenue and 83rd Street. Nashua
Avenue is designated as a minor arterial street on the Transportation Plan and is
anticipated to be a future north -south county road. Based on the Northeast Wright
County Transportation Plan, 75 of right-of-way for the west half of Nashua Avenue will
be required. The 75 feet of right-of-way is shown on the preliminary plat and is required
to be dedicated to the City on the final plat. When Nashua Avenue was improved, the
property owner was assessed for two accesses to the street. As such, both Lots 1 and
3 may access from this roadway, although it is preferred that Lot 3 utilize 83rd Street
based on it being a local street and Nashua Avenue a minor arterial street.
Currently, 83rd Street is a gravel roadway connecting between Nashua Avenue and
Mason Avenue. It is anticipated that when urban services are available in the area and
properties abutting 83rd Street are subdivided, the roadway will be significantly realigned
or eliminated. For this reason, City staff recommends that right-of-way for 83rd Street
not be dedicated with the preliminary plat. Instead, the property owner will dedicate a
separate roadway easement for 83rd Street that may be vacated in the future. Lot 2
and potentially Lot 3 will access off of 83rd Street.
The Transportation Plan also guides extension of 85th Street a parkway street west of
Nashua Avenue through the northern portion of the subject site. City staff does not
recommend dedication of right-of-way for 85th Street at this time as the construction of
the roadway would be anticipated to coincide with availability of urban services to the
area. Requiring dedication of right-of-way for 85th Street as part of this interim rural
subdivision would be premature.
Wetland. There is a wetland within the southern portion of the property which is
classified as a natural environment lake. As noted above, a 40 foot building setback is
required from the wetland boundary. Section 20-16-9.E.4 of the Zoning Ordinance also
requires establishment of a 20 foot buffer from the edge of the wetland to be posted as
a no -encroachment area. The wetland and wetland buffer are to be overlaid by
drainage and utility easements.
Easements. In addition to the drainage and utility easement required over the
delineated wetland and wetland buffer, Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision Ordinance
requires 10 foot wide drainage and utility easements at the perimeter of the plat and
overlying common lot lines. The required drainage and utility easements are shown on
the preliminary plat and are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Park and Trail Dedication. The subdivision of the subject site from one into three lots
requires dedication of land or a cash fee in lieu of land for park and trail dedication. The
Future Park and Trail Plan anticipates that the wetland/natural environment lake within
the property will be incorporated as part of a greenway corridor extending from Nashua
Avenue southwest to the Section 30 wetland. The land for this greenway corridor
would be anticipated to be acquired when the proposed three lots are subdivided with
urban services. As such, City staff recommends that the applicant pay a cash fee in lieu
of land for the two additional lots created by the subdivision satisfying park and trail
dedication requirements due with this application.
Utilities. The proposed lots would be served by individual on site septic and well
utilities. The preliminary plat must identify primary and secondary drain field sites and
septic tank locations. The suitability of the lots to accommodate on site utilities is
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Final Plat. The application is being processed as concurrent consideration of a
preliminary and final plat for the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 21-3-
3.A of the Subdivision Ordinance. The property owner must submit a final plat for the
proposed subdivision in the form required by Section 21-6-3 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. The final plat is to be subject to review and approval by City staff.
Development Contract. There are no public improvements to be installed as part of
the preliminary/final plat. The property owner is required to enter into a development
contract with the City agreeing to record the final plat, abide by any conditions of
rd
approval and dedicate right-of-way and cash fees in lieu of land for City park and trails.
The development contract is subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.
Criteria. Consideration of the requested Zoning Map amendment and conditional use
permit applications is to be based upon, but not limited to, the criteria outlined in Section
20-3-21 and 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.
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan guides the site for interim rural land uses
until sanitary sewer and water utilities are available. The proposed rezoning will
allow for a subdivision of three lots, which is consistent with the interim land use
plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: Surrounding land uses currently consist of primarily agricultural -rural
service area uses and large lot single family uses. The surrounding area is
guided for rural land uses until such time as urban services are available. As
such, the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the existing and planned
land uses surrounding the subject site.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained within
the Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the City Code.
Comment: The proposed subdivision conforms to all requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering Manual.
4. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to generate traffic that will
overwhelm the capabilities of the streets serving the property.
5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and
facilities and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Comment: The proposed subdivision can be accommodated by the City's
existing service capacity.
RECOMMENDATION
Our office recommends approval of the applications as set forth 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 A-2 District based on a Comment that the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a Comment that the request is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table.
Decision 2 — Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat
A. Motion to approve a conditional use permit and preliminary/final plat for the
Carron Addition, subject to the following conditions:
Deed restrictions shall be recorded with Lots 2 and 3 prohibiting further
subdivision unless the lots are rezoned.
2. A deed restriction shall be recorded with Lot 1 prohibiting further
subdivision of more than two (2) lots unless the lot is rezoned.
3. The preliminary plat must be revised to indicate the required setback from
Nashua Avenue, 83rd Street and the delineated wetland boundary.
4. The delineated wetland and wetland buffer required by Section 20-16-
9.E.4 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be overlaid by drainage and utility
easement; all drainage and utility easements are subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
5. The applicant shall pay a cash fee in lieu of land of $6,160.00 to satisfy
park and trail dedication requirements applicable to the current subdivision
application.
6. The ability of the proposed lots to accommodate on site septic and well
utilities shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
7. The applicant shall submit a final plat in the form required by Section 21-6-
3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to review and approval by City
staff.
8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City, subject
to review and approval by the City Attorney.
on
9. The comments of the Engineering Memorandum dated October 26, 2009
are addressed, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a Comment that the request is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision
Ordinance.
C. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Tami Loff, City Clerk
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Denise McAlpine, applicant
7
Carron Addition
Exhibit A
Date Created: 10129/2009
Map Scale: 1 in = 789 ft
ew
parcels
:Ity: Township
_Imlts
toads
;SANCL
:TYCL
MUNfCL
>RNATCCL
rWPCL
nterriate
Plate IlAy
JS Hwy
PREPARED FCt
�jo1S'fr*C�RNPxE
sr. ulwATt, uN. xsaTe
r�nae LAV sauerfraRs
PRELIMINARY AND F7NAL PLAT OF-.• CARRON ADDITION
ZONED: A-1
. o Sa4W: I MY — XG FEET em
Ixnoics
S w�op ua.Aon rouro
NOMILOIT SEr � C.PPm W¢ 1a2J]
LEGAL GESM"CH
A. OuslQi M�aMb�i 24 T"mMb f21, euep� 2l. Mq t fnun y1 YNm.wla
lyon�p pW or� a m a]a.ta_Ml N we soixA� �.n a�av a wle�xan�
r�eL'�p�: m4d-iiid , n"mIN awsi r..l l..
.w. M x max°�� w'„ oe°7' a as M
tai..�."d .r v ..i
. da°°Nx wo;.
l aa,"tiQ pr .
BEARNG ORENTATION : >� Ewar uc or >Ni savnrnsr a.ATm m txE xaxlArm
2CrI0N 34 tOwrsf in. rt.r¢4�6 �asAAA
wst.
o om�us orru��asnan wnM
TOTAL PLAT AREA Ma Aam
Bl1WNG SETBACKS ��.u°Bo'EXET
Vkhnity Alap
I I
I I
I I
�I
xo rpa
91E I
I
I I
I I
SwU. 20, T.—h%. 121. Raeq. 23
onuru¢ Aro unutt Asarmx� p>& slaw rHus
BFleq ! pEET w 'MO1H, OMFS OIXBMSE Hat.lm, NO AO.i0IMN0 LOT
IIIET, ♦x0 10 iFET x w�1H Nio ALWMWp SmfFT urlF3 A¢ 9f0.N pl
f1Ai.
erg a mem ur o]mE'�'m smnMsw woo tnn] I w aLr°�Pnm�L>rm
wo a.ralaA um ]�c u >� m,¢ ar wWemu
Hakanson Anoka, MN 55303 0
IIIAnderson hon Thurston Avenue,
p„S�Cy�nC. Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax: 763/427-0520
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
CC: Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Tami Loff, City Clerk
Dan Licht, AICP, City Planner
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ronald Wagner, P.E. City Engineer
Jeanette Carron, Property Owner
Dennis Taylor, Taylor Land Surveyors, Inc.
FROM: Brent Larson, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
DATE: October 29, 2009
RE: Carron Addition — Preliminary/Final Plat Review
We have reviewed the Preliminary and Final Plat for Carron, dated 10/13/09, for the above referenced
subdivision. The submitted plat is to be considered for preliminary and final acceptance and therefore must
meet all requirements pertaining to preliminary and final submittals. With this in consideration and
recognizing that this is a lot split only, and no public improvements are proposed at this time, we would
offer the following comments:
Preliminary Plat
1. The plat received is titled Preliminary and Final Plat of: Carron Addition. Due to the different
requirements of preliminary and final plats they should be separate documents.
2. Since this plat is a lot split and no public or private improvements are proposed (i.e. no streets or
utilities) at this time the location, size, and elevations of existing utilities within 150' of the site
boundaries are not required.
3. The boundary lines of the adjoining properties must be shown.
4. A statement certifying the environmental conditions of the site is required.
5. The setback lines are not depicted along all property lines.
C:\Documents and Settings\Tami\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\34LCM6NH\ot2500 Carron
Addition rvw2.doc
Final Plat
The exception portion of the description identifies points A, B, & C and then never refers back to
these identified points. It may be possible to simplify the description.
2. The 75' of Right -of -Way (ROW) along Nashua Avenue NE shall be dedicated to the City of
Otsego.
3. The 20.00 acres includes the 75' of right of way which is to be dedicated to the City and the
removal of this area will essentially reduce the platted lot areas to below the required 20.00 acres.
The areas shown should be reduced to reflect the loss of this ROW.
4. Additional drainage and utility easement is required along the eastern property line of Lot 2, Block
1 near the midpoint of the wetland.
5. The platted wetland edges shall be based on the actual wetland delineated edges.
6. 83`d Street NE is mislabeled NW.
7. The solid dark line extending the property line between Lot 2 and Lot 3 to the south boundary and
from the 75' ROW to the south boundary should be removed.
8. It is unclear why irons are approx. 110' feet from the plat boundary (-33 ft from the proposed west
ROW line of Nashua Avenue) in Lot 1, Block 1.
Summary and/or Recommendation
Please revise and resubmit.
Hakanson
Anderson
CADocuments and Settings\Tami\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OutlookAssoc., Inc.
Addition rvw2.doc
I-FEM 3.2
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
RE: Otsego — Martin Farms; Lennar Corp. PUD -CUP
REPORT DATE: 29 October 2009 ACTION DATE: 12 December 2009
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 09.11
BACKGROUND
Lennar Corporation is evaluating the purchase of 54 of the vacant platted lots within the
Martin Farms development. The lots are all clustered within Blocks 7-13 and 15 of
Martin Farms east of MacIver Avenue and north of 70th Street. Martin Farms was
developed by Insignia Development but has since gone into foreclosure and is now
owned by Wells Fargo. Lennar would propose to build a house ranging from 50 feet to
55 feet wide upon the proposed lots with the option of third stall attached garages. In
order to maximize the potential number of their house plans could be built on these lots,
Lennar is requesting flexibility under a PUD -CUP from the standard side yard setbacks
required in either the R-4, Single Family Residential District or R-6, Medium Density
Residential District applied to these lots.
Exhibits:
A. Site Plan
ANALYSIS
Zoning. As shown on Exhibit A, the subject lots are divided between 31 lots in the R-4
District and 23 lots in the R-6 District. Both zoning districts allow for single family lots
as a permitted use.
Lot Requirements. The minimum requirements for single family lots within the R-4 and
R-6 District are shown below:
Min. Lot Area Min. Lot Width Min. Lot Width
Corner Interior
R-4 12,OOOsf. 100ft. 75ft.
R-6 9,OOOsf. 90ft. 60ft.
The Zoning Ordinance was amended on March 13, 2006 to establish increased
minimum lot widths for corner lots in the R-4 and R-6 District. The increase in minimum
lot width was seen as necessary to ensure that there is an adequate building envelope
on corner lots subject to a 35 foot setback on side lot line abutting a public street. The
Martin Farms preliminary plat was approved on 28 July 2003 predating this change to
the Zoning Ordinance. As such all of the lots in Martin Farms are subject only to the
minimum lot width requirements applicable to interior lots for the respective zoning
district.
Setbacks. The table below outlines the required setbacks in the R-4 and R-6 Districts
as well as those proposed by Lennar to apply to the subject lots:
Based on the minimum lot width requirements and setback requirements, the minimum
building pad for a R-4 District lot is 55 feet and for a R-6 District lot is 46 feet. Note that
the minimum lot width is measured at the front setback line and that the width of the lot
may become narrower deeper into the lot.
Lennar is proposing to build four house plans on the subject lots ranging in width from
50 to 55 feet. The four house plans each have four different potential fagades,
increasing to 16 the variety of the home styles that may be made available on these
lots. To accommodate this range of housing product, Lennar is seeking a reduction in
the side yard setback from an attached garage of five feet for R-4 District lots and two
feet for R-6 District lots. Lennar is also requesting a five foot reduction in the setback
required for the side yard abutting a public street.
The City has approved "10/5" setbacks for subdivisions controlled by developer/builders
given these companies ability to control the housing design and construction process.
Although not the developer, Lennar would be buying all of the vacant lots within the
subject blocks providing similar control in implementing the changed setback
requirements. The primary concern with allowing this flexibility in side yard setbacks is
the effect on the grading along side lot lines. Reducing the side yard setback by five or
three feet has potential to affect the slopes between lots, especially abutting those with
existing homes. For this reason, a revised grading plan for each individual lot must be
2
Front
Side-
Side- Side-
Rear
Corner
Interior Interior
Principal Attached
Building Garage
Required
R-4
35ft.
35ft.
10ft. 10ft.
20ft.
R-6
7ft. 7ft.
Proposed
35 ft
30 ft.
10 ft. 5 ft.
20 ft.
Based on the minimum lot width requirements and setback requirements, the minimum
building pad for a R-4 District lot is 55 feet and for a R-6 District lot is 46 feet. Note that
the minimum lot width is measured at the front setback line and that the width of the lot
may become narrower deeper into the lot.
Lennar is proposing to build four house plans on the subject lots ranging in width from
50 to 55 feet. The four house plans each have four different potential fagades,
increasing to 16 the variety of the home styles that may be made available on these
lots. To accommodate this range of housing product, Lennar is seeking a reduction in
the side yard setback from an attached garage of five feet for R-4 District lots and two
feet for R-6 District lots. Lennar is also requesting a five foot reduction in the setback
required for the side yard abutting a public street.
The City has approved "10/5" setbacks for subdivisions controlled by developer/builders
given these companies ability to control the housing design and construction process.
Although not the developer, Lennar would be buying all of the vacant lots within the
subject blocks providing similar control in implementing the changed setback
requirements. The primary concern with allowing this flexibility in side yard setbacks is
the effect on the grading along side lot lines. Reducing the side yard setback by five or
three feet has potential to affect the slopes between lots, especially abutting those with
existing homes. For this reason, a revised grading plan for each individual lot must be
2
prepared at the time of building permit application indicating changes to the grading
plan required by the reduced setbacks. One other potential issue with the proposed
setbacks is the location of exterior mechanical equipment. The five foot wide side yard
does not have space for such equipment due to in-place drainage and utility easements.
Locating mechanical equipment in the side yard with a 10 foot setback reduces the
width of the side yard that may be needed for access to the rear yard. As such, City
staff would recommend a condition that all exterior mechanical equipment must be
located in the rear yard.
The City has not previously approved flexibility from the setback requirement for side
yards abutting public right-of-ways different from that required for the front yard. The
intent of requiring the same setback abutting public right-of-way for front and side yards
is to maintain a consistent building line along a street for aesthetic and traffic visibility
reasons. As noted above however, Martin Farms was preliminary platted before the
minimum lot requirements for corner lots were increased after it was recognized that
many of the corner lots that had been developed had constrained building sites.
Providing five feet of flexibility on the setback requirement from the side lot line abutting
the public street would be consistent with the intent of the minimum lot width increase
and would also not cause a significant visual effect. If the Planning Commission
concurs, we would recommend a requirement that houses on corner lots be constructed
to the minimum interior setback line to maximize the width of the side yard abutting the
public street.
Criteria. PUD -CUP applications are to be evaluated by based on (but not limited to)
the criteria outlined in Section 2-4-25 of the Zoning Ordinance:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
Otsego Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan establishes policies to provide for a
diversity of single family dwellings to be the primary type of housing in Otsego.
The City has approved amendments to the lot requirements within the Zoning
Ordinance after the approval of the Martin Farms preliminary plat and previously
granted PUD -CUP flexibility to developer/builders to allow flexibility in house
design within specific developments consistent with this policy. The requested
PUD -CUP is consistent with previous City actions in this regard.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: The requested side yard setbacks would to be contingent upon City
Engineer approval of a revised grading plan to ensure no negative impacts to the
approved drainage pattern between lots. The proposed setbacks are otherwise
considered to be a negligible change that will be compatible with adjacent lots,
including those with existing homes.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained within
the Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the City Code.
Comment: The subject lots will be subject to all applicable requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance except as specifically modified by the PUD -CUP.
4. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving
the property.
Comment: The requested PUD -CUP will have no effect on traffic.
5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and
facilities and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Comment: The proposed PUD -CUP will have no effect on public services or
facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
The City has previously allowed flexibility in side yard setbacks for developer/builders
controlling the design and location of house plans within a subdivision. The same type
of control would exist if Lennar buys the subject lots and the requested setback flexibility
allows for a greater potential variety of home styles to be built on these lots. For these
reasons, City staff recommends approval of the application as outlined below.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
A. Motion to approve a PUD -CUP subject to the following conditions:
The following setbacks shall apply to the subject lots:
Front
Side-
Side-
Side-
Rear
Corner
Interior
Interior
Principal
Attached
Building
Garage
35 ft
30 ft.
10 ft.
5 ft.
20 ft.
2. For corner lots, the principal building and attached garage must be built to
the minimum interior side yard setback.
3. Exterior mechanical equipment shall be located only in rear yards.
4. A revised grading plan for each individual lot shall be submitted at the time
of building permit application reflecting the revised setback requirements,
which shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding the request is inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
4
C. Motion to table.
C. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Tami Loff, City Clerk
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Carol Toohey, Lennar Corporation
s
�' I 6L/4�--------------
9 M .ZQZFo69 N %
"xaow
it
i aar 8 1c •rm'» • Wpr •
-- - • rosr< R � R
14
rfa �
`� • d ' �.y)"I' �\° I%�jg'>~'• "•�_ ,. of a p, .. \ � a ' I � ,
fy`:'.
IL
Fm
r.ovvr•K e7 ° -dad � � •4 'p u
^o•� 4''�. gl x:rr G I
o a£ , r �l t 9- k -"• � r..o ra s. 3.0-
10.09",
vyacrper.
1 \1 \ •i / •f
lu .41
3L lw.mp ow IF
��:``/ a Icl a � ��._�_,t .� •EIS/ < �_ -__1 a—�. �_I� �:I x
R 'd•d:,Er j3+_'.tic...
w 1 It err •;l'y fS 1 r[GG A qq ,'iv'...''.L•: 2a�C
ai nppW
sw.0 CL
LU
sr
f6'LZfI M ,Cf,CZa 68 N �* ❑ z s -
ly
I I 4 oEw €�Kg
rc`8€ ��``o bFrvz
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 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Parks and Recreation Commission
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 28 October 2009
RE: Otsego — Subdivision Ordinance; Park and Trail Dedication
NAC FILE: 176.08
BACKGROUND
The City Council has directed City staff to annually review the park and trail dedication
requirements in Section 21-7-18 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which must be
established by 1 January of each year. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate
that there is a nexus between the cash fee in lieu of land accepted by the City for park
and trail acquisition and development purposes is representative of the costs incurred
as required by Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subd. 2c and case law from Dolan v.
Tigard.
The City completed a detailed study in 2003 of park and trail development costs
including land acquisition, land preparation and construction, the relationship between
housing density and park land needs, community facility needs and fees for commercial
and industrial development. Since that initial 2003 study, the City has annually adjusted
the park and trail dedication fee paid in lieu of land dedication to account for changes in
land value or construction costs.
ANALYSIS
Current Fee. The City's current residential park and trail fee in lieu of land for
residential development was adopted to be effective 1 January 2009. The fee is based
on the following cumulative factors stated on a per residential unit basis:
Land acquisition: $1,280.00
Neighborhood park development: $ 860.00
Community Facilities: $ 880.00
Future trails construction: $ 60.00
TOTAL $3,080.00
For 2009, park and trail dedication fees in lieu of land for commercial and industrial
subdivisions were established at $7,000.00 and $3,500.00 per gross acre, respectively,
based on 2003 land values.
Land Cost. The land values component of the City's current park and trail fee is based
on an estimated cost of approximately $32,000 per gross acre established by Wright
County Assessor for 2009. As of this date, Wright County is not proposing to adjust
their estimated land value for developable residential properties for 2010. Based on this
information, no adjustment to the land value component of the City's park and trail fee is
required:
Estimated
Required
Per Acre
Single Family
Per Unit Cash
Raw Land
10% Land
Cash
Density
Dedication in
Value Per
Dedication
Contribution
Lieu of Land
Acre
$32,000
x
10%
_
$3,200.00
/
2.5
$1,280
The current cash fee in lieu of land for commercial and industrial is reflective of land
values equal to $70,000 an acre for commercial property and $35,000 an acre for
industrial property. Land sales and appraisals done as part of the TH 101 and CSAH 42
improvement projects suggests minimum commercial property values of approximately
$350,000 per acre for commercial land and approximately $100,000 per acre for
industrial land. The City could justify an increase in the commercial and industrial cash
fee in lieu of land for park and trail dedication. However, from an economic
development standpoint, City staff recommends that the commercial and industrial cash
fees in lieu of land for park and trail dedication not be changed.
Construction Cost. The City undertook construction of three new neighborhood parks
in 2006 and a conceptual design for a park within Wildflower Meadows based on
facilities and site designs intended to define a typical neighborhood park. The adjusted
average cost for these parks in 2009 was $690,318.00 based on construction inflation
information published by the Engineering News -Record Construction Cost Index.
There was no significant statistical increase in the ENR Construction Cost Index from
2008 to 2009 that would justify an increase in the estimated construction cost of a
neighborhood park.
Each neighborhood park guided by the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to serve an
approximate one square mile area. Assuming an average density of 2.5 dwelling units
per acre within residential areas of the City based on existing development and
established development regulations, there are approximately 804 households per
square mile. As such, the cost per dwelling unit for neighborhood park construction
2
based on the current typical park facility design and construction costs is recommended
to remain at $859.00 for 2010.
Community Facilities. Funds collected for community facilities may be used to
develop a future community center building as well as acquire land and develop the two
additional community parks shown on the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Future Parks and
Trails Plan map and/or continue development of remaining facilities shown on the
Prairie Park master plan. The community facilities portion of the cash fee in lieu of land
is based upon acquisition and development of land and/or buildings for future
community facilities in relation to projected population. With no change to the cost of
land value or construction costs for 2010, City staff recommends that the community
facilities portion of the park and trail dedication fee be maintained at $880.00.
Trails. The trails yet to be constructed as per the 2004 Comprehensive Plan Future
Parks and Trails Plan map measure approximately 73,990 feet. The 2010 cost estimate
for the construction of trails as part of street projects or stand-alone construction is
$17.41 a linear foot and is unchanged from 2009. To determine a cost factor for future
trail construction the following equation is used:
72,01 Oft. x $17.41/ft. / 21,079 households = $59.48 / dwelling unit
RECOMMENDATION
Our office recommends that the park and trail cash fee in lieu of land for residential
subdivisions paid on a per dwelling unit basis as set forth by Section 21-7-18.1 of the
Subdivision Ordinance not be adjusted from $3,080.00 for 2010. The Parks and
Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council may also consider
maintaining the current commercial and industrial cash fees in lieu of land. This
recommendation reflects current information indicating stable land values and
construction costs related to park land acquisition and development going into 2010.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
A. Motion to recommend no change in park and trail dedication fees for 2010.
B. Motion to not recommend the proposed park and trail dedication fees.
C. Motion to table.
C. Mike Robertson
Tami Loff
Brad Belair
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
3