Loading...
08-15-11 PCITEM 3-1 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763.231 .5840 Facsimile: 763.427.0520 TPCTPCCWPlanningCo.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 10 August 2011 RE: Otsego — Sunray Farms 3rd Addition TPC FILE: 101.01 BACKGROUND The City of Otsego has initiated a preliminary and final plat of Lot 1, Block 1 Pleasant Creek Farms on which the West Waste Water Treatment Facility (W-WWTF). The purpose of the subdivision is to convey nine outlots measuring 31.34 feet by 70 feet to abutting Lots 19-28, Block 1 Sunray Farms along the south line of the property. A tenth outlot measuring 31.34 feet by 32.60 feet will be created to be conveyed to Lot 29, Block 1 Sunray Farms. These proposed outlots are located outside of the fence encircling the W-WWTF and include a berm, existing trees and vegetation and stormwater ponding areas. Maintaining this area is problematic for the City and adjacent property owners have encroached onto the City's property at several locations. To resolve these issues, the City Council directed that the area be subdivided into outlots and conveyed to the abutting property owners essentially extending the rear lot line of the lots within Sunray Farms. City staff sent letters to the 13 owners of Lots 17- 29, Block 1 Sunray Farms requesting their agreement to convey the property. The City received consent from Lot 17, Block 1 as well as Lots 20-29. An outlot abutting Lot 17, Block 1 is not included in the proposed plat as conveying an outlot would have resulted in an irregular property line between the W-WWTF property and Lots 18 and 19, Block 1. The W-WWTF property is zoned INS, Institutional District, whereas the lots in Sunray Farms are zoned R-6, Residential Medium Density Residential District. A Zoning Map amendment is being processed concurrent an application for preliminary/final plat approval to rezone the outlots to R-6 District consistent with the single family lots. A PUD -CUP is also being processed to establish the single family lot and abutting outlot as a zoning lot for the purposes of measuring setbacks. A Public Hearing has been noticed for 15 August 2011 to consider the applications. Exhibits: A. Site Location B. Preliminary/Final Plat ANALYSIS Zoning. The W-WWTF property is zoned INS District whereas the single family lots are zoned R-6 District. In that the proposed outlots are to be used in relation to the single family lots, an amendment to the zoning map rezoning the outlots to R-6 District is proposed. Single family dwellings and accessory uses are allowed within the R-6 District. Lot Requirements. Lots within the R-6 District are required to have a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet and minimum width of 70 feet measured at the front setback line from a public street. As the parcels being conveyed have an area less than the minimum required in the R-6 District and do not abut a public street they are being platted as outlots. The outlots are not being platted as a single parcel with the abutting lot as doing so would require consent from the property owner and also their mortgage company (if any). The lot an outlot will be recorded with Wright County as a single tax parcel and separation of the lot and outlot ownership would require approval by the City. Setbacks. The setbacks applicable within the R-6 District are shown in the table below: Front Side Rear Wetland 35 ft. 7 ft. 20 ft. 40 ft. No structure can be located within the outlots being conveyed pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance as well as the parcels being overlaid entirely by drainage and utility easement. However, the addition of the outlot parcel does extend the effective rear lot line an additional 31.34 feet to the north. City staff is recommending approval of a PUD -CUP to establish the lot an outlot together as a zoning lot for the purposes of meeting applicable lot requirements. This approach will allow the rear yard setback of 20 feet to be measured from the north line of the outlot expanding the buildable area of each lot. The setbacks applicable to Lot 1, Block 1 Pleasant Creek Farms for the W-WWTF include a 100 foot setback from the south property line. The W-WWTF conforms to this setback currently and the existing structures will also conform following detachment of the property proposed on the preliminary/final plat. Grading and Drainage. Grading and drainage plans were approved previously for both the W-WWTF site and Sunray Farms subdivisions. These plans are not proposed to be modified as a result of the preliminary and final plat. The City did recently complete 2 installation of a drain pipe through the berm within the area of property to be conveyed so that stormwater may discharge north towards the W-WWTF and Otsego Creek. Utilities. There are no utilities proposed to be installed with the preliminary and final plat. Easements. The proposed outlots will be overlaid entirely by drainage and utility easement to protect established drainage through the area to be conveyed to the abutting lots. As outlots and with drainage and utility easements over these parcels, no structures may be place within this area but the property owners are otherwise free to utilize the property so long as drainage is not obstructed. Park and Trail Dedication. The proposed preliminary/final plat is a conveyance between established lots and no new lots are created. As such, park and trail dedication requirements do not apply. Criteria. Zoning map amendments and PUD-CUPs are to be evaluated based on (but not limited to) the criteria set forth in Sections 20-3-21 and 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance, respectively: The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the Otsego Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan states that City facilities are to be adequately screened, landscaped and buffered to enhance the area in which they are located. The area proposed to be conveyed was retained by the City as a buffer area between the W-WWTF and planned residential uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed preliminary/final plat will allow for this buffer area to continue to be maintained in the future by the abutting property owners who have consented to this responsibility. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Comment: The area of the preliminary/final plat is an established buffer between planned and existing single family dwellings and the W-WWTF. The conveyance of the outlots will allow property owners to utilize and maintain the buffer area in consideration of their preferences for screening the W-WWTF from view. 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 preliminary/final plat conforms to all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and City Code. 9 4. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Comment: The proposed preliminary/final plat will not result in any additional traffic generation. 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 preliminary/final plat does not create a need for any additional public services or facilities. In fact, the proposed subdivision will lessen the City's maintenance work at the W-WWTF. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the applications as presented subject to the conditions outlined below. POSSIBLE ACTIONS Decision 1 — Zoning Map Amendment A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning land within Sunray Farms 3rd Addition from INS District to R-6 District based on a finding that the action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Motion to table. Decision 2 — Preliminary/Final Plat and PUD -CUP A. Motion to approve a preliminary/final plat and PUD -CUP for Sunray Farms 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Outlots A to I shall be conveyed to the abutting property owner with the lot and outlot combined as a single tax parcel with Wright County; Ownership of the lot and outlot shall not be separated unless approved by the City Council. 2. The combined lot/outlot shall be deemed a zoning lot for the purposes of determining compliance with applicable lot area, width, setback and/or lot coverage requirements. CI 3. Placement of any permanent structure within the outlots shall be prohibited. C. Lori Johnson, City Administrator Tami Loff, City Clerk Ron Wagner, City Engineer Andy MacArthur, City Attorney 5 Sunray Farms 3rd Addition City of Otseg Date Created: 8/10/2011 Limits Owners: City of Otsego, Minnesota Designer, Engineer, Hokonson Anderson Assoclates, Ina & Surveyor. 3601 Thurston Avenue North Anaka, Mlnneeoto. 55303 Developer. City of Otsego, Minnesota Telephone: 763 427-5860 Fax 763 427-0520 _ Total Acreage: 851,431 sq. R. - 20.00 acres Setbacks: Front: Lot Summary. 1 LOT & 10 OUTLOTS Rear. Side: Ezbting Zoning: INS Instltutional District Corner R-6 Residential Medium Density District Proposed Utilities: Proposed Zoning: R-6 Residential WNon . None Medium Density District PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 1, PLEASANT CREEK FARMS, Wright County, Minnesota. N NOTES: I. In proNding this prol[nlnary plat no attempt has been made t obtain or, show data eoneeming azlMenee, size, tlepth, a 1p I n, capacity or location of any utility existing on the alta whether privets. municipal or public owned. 2. The profeaelonal surveyor has made no Inwetlgotian or march arch far e menta of record, encumbrance, reetricaw covenants, o erehlp tit].e eNdenoa, or any other facts that an accurate and current title search may dlac oea. 3.Outlota A through J are to be completly encumbered by a drainage and utilityJ0 o ao eo easement. scut In rttr Nw_Mw �_7EIIA.- 2 I eA�j ��R Y'.C'v111 �y� •Tf �aw�iJ a _ n A^ ..«n / / I 1 1 I \\ / / •�I L kl"'Ivnl `J..1'' y L_L_I \ _�� i /"'tl \I \IVI.:---ti3e__-----___-- I AF)^/l-) j 1 ----' Y BLOK t- ' L ---- -------- 7DTi--- ------ - - --er — -----'^.,r--- -- ; _-..•� haw I j I 1 I I / ___Y_ M.,. ,ate,,,, ;� - - '°e•_iTmnemis -- ��� 1=s�'- w: ' m•J/' onaomw / / ,.I w / / • L 1 I \t � : i', ---------` _____��� "_ ----_ ---- "-_-set-L--�,T '�"" SAG, saF`w I wi _ \ \_ice__________________.-�..--_____•r+•=�"a63 ___ _ � _... w o I xof r y y Il-- nE o-I•.w,.' '°,�_Oi,w .ee E-7C'��o W� - ic") .OtfiLOT A 1! 0 ,w / yx y,s, h�_T __ ,a •4- _ \ -> _ _ ---_ x o Y` E _ r- t --1008.]4 �'ui • I - - / _ V/o __/ r- . o -� 1f ° _ I'(-=�-_______til r_-_ _____JI III / 1` III N.onnt Cnsk imm• 1 j III III - •r•� ,gyp'' 1 �'4' _____Y also Me I 1 -'ee,-__1'1'1 - L Il' 1^--- � NaMws�l Qy III -'�7 it 1 _© IWI 2 1 1 I II Jt' III / iWal 25. To,m. tRl. ItFg:'71 �'-rs.--�1 I I 25 11 I •moo i 1 - I A l l - 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 2j l I «To' _ // T I •«•« f l l { I ew•w I I / 11 . n; 111111f �e.._I vv i...., ., 20 1 1 1 1 1 \ I '' ' I I / I I� w.a+ / .«w 4 I:LI. •1°0 «e 1- 9 brL 1 1 1 ` big . I { �6 III 1 1 1 "b III b l l ary a mato 1� 111 111 � 111 « � 111 b 111 a 111 111 1 I I'I ,Melrewm ,.Ia 111 sew s°.....wwl I I '«'° I t" 1' e b "O 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 1 nNr« 1 1 1 •novom ua I I 1 I I III I II b III III ,pply� III III sox,. r°Ow°6 III III III I II®4o III III III ° III III III III III III III. 11 Ixux+.¢ I I • III 1 1 1 � III 11 1 III III III III III III I I 11 1 III �. III v�.i! III , 111 III III 1 1 II III III 111 III III III 1 II 111 III 111 III III III III i II 111 111 111 111 • 111 111 111 111 111 I II � III 111 III 111 III III III III 11 III III LI1 111 111 I I III III I I I r- Kl' )A A 11 1 A I ALI ITI/1N I 'I IN ) in \/ Ill III I I I III I I III 1 1 1 .� 1 11 I /1"'{IT\IVI III III -_---. I I III III .- lJ I V `l A� I I 1 I I I _ I I---------------------- _______ IL_________JIL_________J1L_________JI L_________JIL_________J L_________JI L_______ ^ __________ I -----'- ---- 1 ' I --------------- Cz � .' i�a G w 0 yp w7 U a z qQq Ow d 048 � 4) e7 t t V+ m W A a ITEM 3-2 TPC3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763.231 .5840 Facsimile: 763.427.0520 TPC(LD Plan ni ngCo. com MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 10 August 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 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 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. Regardless of the change regarding variances in Minnesota Statutes, 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 for variance in the 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. 2 RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends the Planning Commission set a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance reflecting the change in State Statutes for variances. POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Motion to set a public hearing for September 19, 2011 at 7:00 PM to consider amendment of the Zoning Ordinance regarding variances. B. Motion to table. G. Lori Johnson, City Administrator Tami Loff, City Clerk Andy MacArthur, City Attorney 3 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: —pecessa and 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: Review Criteria: noes May nQf him Cnitaill 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. 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. Mmiz�,Mwl-- - 34. The Plannina Commission. in the case of a maior 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. The City Council shall in granting anv 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. Section 4. Section 20-6-3.2.a of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: a. Cases where hafdship 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 , E CITY OF OTSEGO BY: Jessica L. Stockamp, Mayor ATTEST: Tami Loff, City Clerk