02-07-96 PCXcrrrt S. RadzwiU
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Court
January 29, 1199.6
RADZWI L & COURT
Attorneys dt Law
705 Central Avenue E=t
PO Boz 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497--1930
(612) 497-2599 (Fi-X)
City of Otsego
Planning Commission
c/o Elaine.Beatty, city Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Bulow Sketch Plan
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I have reviewed Bob Kirmis' memo dated January 25, 1996 relative to
the Buiow Skj_atch Man now under consideration and would li)�e to
clarify the following:
1. Regarding alleged development rights attached to the property,
the City amended the City Zoning ordinance lest year in orderIto
deal with the situation where development rights are cl4imed
because of a preexisting plat which does not conform - to prgsent
regulations.: Based upon that amendment, the only portion..of the
property proposed for development that there is'any possibility of
preexisting development rights is -that area immediately adjacent to
CSAH 39. Therefore, any decision to support a proposed development
in the area through a PUD or otherwise wou-ld have to be primarily
based .upon factors such. as the fact that the present pro osal
merely fills in between existing developments, and appears toIbe a
comprehensive plan for the area as opposed to piecemeal plating.
2. If the City is supportive of the idea of development in Ithis
area it should be accommodated through either a PUD or expansion: of
the City's Immediate Service Area and rezoning. Rezoning may1have
potential pr6cedential effect. Depending upon the specifics of any
proposed plat, a PUD may give the City and the Developer I more
flexibility in, addressing specific concerns with the property.
3. The Developer should be aware that the property is subjectto a
fee for the proposed plat's affect upon trunk drainage 'facilities
P I
n =^,T�JnMH11'1TM?fTHA IJnN-I I„IHT.b'rn 9F+4;T-7n-7-n
20'd _"101
Letter to -Otsego Planning Commission
February 1,:1996
Page 2
within the ;City. I believe that the City Engineer has already
provided per acre fee estimates for this proposal. Whether these
fees are subj6ct to any possible deferment is an issue for th4 City
council to address.
4. It should be understood that the costs of vacatin5 the
underlying plat are to beborne by the Developer if this proposal
proceeds. The Developer should provide the City with a legal
description!of the proposed plat area as soon as possible if he
proceeds with the development so it can be ascertained 'how
difficult it will be to describe what is to be vacated. i
If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to
coAact me.1
Very.truly yours, i
t
�ew< 'Ma rthur.
RADZWILL & COQRI
cc: Bob Kiriis, NAC
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson j
Chris Bulow
i
i
i I
f
i
j
I
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
January 30, 1996
Ms. Elaine Beatty, Clerk
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: Sorenson/Bulow Sketch Plan
Dear Elaine:
D I�;UL/Ia If
�-0
222 on
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
We have reviewed the sketch plan of the Sorenson/Bulow Proposal in Section 17. We
have also reviewed the comments from NAC on this matter.
At this time we can only address the street access and stormwater drainage.
We recommend that the service road be continued across the top of the development
to access the property as has been the case easterly of this proposed development.
However, it may be necessary to review the present location of access to CSAH39
with site distance conditions in mind. The present location in the Northwest corner
of the Great River Acres 2nd Addition is in the middle of the CSAH39 curve. If site
distance meet requirements for 55 mph condition, then it should be left at the location.
This issue should be reviewed by the County Engineer. It may be necessary to move
the access to CSAH39 to the middle of Block 46 of the "Old Town Plat."
Service road constructicn details will need to be reviewed with the City Council.
A previous decision by the City Council places this area in the North Mississippi
Stormwater Taxing District. Within part of this district, new developments are charged
an impact feet of $1,000 per gross acre for future trunk stormwater facilities. This
charge applies to this development except for the properties lying in the Otsego Creek
Taxing District.
Storm drainage plans on the proposed plat must conform to the City ordinance and the
adopted stormwater drainage plan.
Provisions for future street access near the south end of the proposed development
must be considered.
FnainPPr- Landscape Architects Survevors
Elaine Beatty
Page 2
January 30, 1996
We will provide additional comment as the proposal proceeds through the review
process.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
jig
cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC
Andy MacArthur, Radzwill
Bulow, Inc.
OT2148.eb
D uvL
Kill r♦huinc♦ AcCA�'IZ1tP_['� Cions It 6 S. i11C.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARK E
MEMORANDUM
T0:
Elaine Beatty
FROM:
Bob Kirmis
DATE:
25 January 1996
RE:
Otsego - Bulow Sketch Plan (Sorensen Property)
FILE NO:
176.02 - 96.03
Attached please find our review of the Bulow Inc. sketch plan.
Please distribute a copy of the memorandum to the Planning Commission for their informal
discussion of the proposal on 7 February.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
pc: Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Wayne Fingalson
Bulow Inc.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
FryA
C
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET R E S E A R C H
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
BACKGROUND
Elaine Beatty
Bob Kirmis
25 January 1996
Otsego - Bulow Sketch Plan (Sorensen Property)
176.02 - 96.03
At your request, we have conducted a brief review of the Bulow Inc. sketch plan (dated
1/23/96). The proposed 30 lot single family residential subdivision would lie upon a + 36
acre tract of land located south of County Road 39 and east of Nashua Avenue. The
subject property also overlays the "Original Townsite" plat between the Bulow Estates and
Great River Acres (2nd Addition) subdivisions.
To accommodate the proposal, the following approvals will ultimately be necessary:
1. Vacation of Original Townsite streets which underlie the subject property.
2. Rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to a
PUD, Planned Unit Development designation.
3. Replat/subdivision of the property.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - Sketch Plan
Exhibit D - Chris Bulow Letter (1/23/96)
Exhibit E - Halls Pond Watershed (District 1)
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
ISSUES
In review of the sketch plan, we offer the following comments.
Zoning. The subject property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service, which
allows a maximum residential density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres of land. To
accommodate the proposed development, one of the two following options would need to
be pursued.
Option 1: R-3 Zoning. Rezone property to R-3, Residential Immediate Urban
Service. This option would also require an expansion of the City's immediate urban
service area. While development of the subject property (and R-3 zoning) could
possibly be justified as "infill development", it is believed the expansion of the
immediate urban service area in this area of the City is, at this time, contrary to
Otsego's growth staging objectives and may set poor precedent for future
development in the area.
Option 2: PUD Zoning. In recognition of possible development rights associated
with the Original Townsite plat, the application of a PUD zoning designation could
be applied to the subject property. While accommodating the proposed residential
density, the PUD application would establish the development as a unique condition
which would not set poor development precedent in the area.
It is the opinion of our office that a PUD zoning of the property is the most effective
means of dealing with the subject site's possible existing development rights while
maintaining the integrity of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Rezoning requests are considered matters of City policy to be determined by City officials.
Street Vacation. To accommodate the proposed subdivision (replat), the formal vacation
of street rights-of-way which underlie the subject property will be necessary. Specifically,
portions of 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, A, B, and C Streets will need to be vacated. The vacation of
such streets is considered positive as they establish questionable development rights and
create parcels of land which are inconsistent with current design standards.
General Lot Layout. Generally speaking, the proposed lot layout and circulation pattern
is considered positive by responding to site design parameters (i.e., property access
limitations/opportunities, etc.).
Lot Size. While the PUD zoning application does allow for some degree of lot size
flexibility, it is contended that lots within the subdivision should be not less than one acre
in size (sufficient to accommodate sewage treatment).
K
Lots within the proposed subdivision range from ± 50,000 square feet (in central area) to
+ 40,000 square feet (in southeastern area). As a condition of future subdivision approval,
all lots should be not less than one acre (43,560 square feet) in size.
Lot Width. Within R-3 Zoning Districts, a minimum lot width of 150 feet is required
(measured at front yard setback). Of the total 30 lots being proposed, seven lots along the
subject property's southern border provide insufficient width. As a condition of future
subdivision approval, all lots should measure not less than 150 feet in width.
Lot Depth. All lots have been found to exceed minimum 100 foot lot depth requirements
(imposed in R-3 Districts). While the configuration of the centrally located lots (and
provided depths) is considered somewhat unconventional, the proposed layout is
considered conducive to future resubdivision.
Setbacks. All proposed lots hold an ability to satisfy the following R-3 District setbacks:
Front Yard
35 feet
Side Yard
15 feet
Rear Yard
20 feet
To be specifically noted is that a 65 foot structure setback will be imposed along County
Road 39. Thus, the ability to resubdivide those lots abutting the said roadway is
questionable.
Street Access. As shown on Exhibit C, the subject site is to be accessed by an eastward
extension of 94th Street (former 6th Street) and via County Road 39 from the north. While
the extension of 94th Street is considered positive, the following should be considered in
regard to the County Road 39 access:
• A westward shift of access to allow interior access opportunity for the property
exception.
• An eastward shift of access to align with anticipated future intersection location.
• A westward extension of frontage/service road to provide property access.
As shown on Exhibit E, it appears that an isolated, triangular shaped area of land lies
directly south of the subject property which may not be accessible from the south or west
due to the existence of a wetland. In this regard, access may only realistically be provided
from the north. If such area of land is determined to be "buildable", it is recommended that
the proposed subdivision be modified to provide public street access to the referenced
property.
3
Access related issues should be subject to additional comment by the City Engineer.
As a condition of final plat approval, direct lot access to County Road 39 shall be
prohibited.
County Road 39. While no additional right-of-way need be dedicated for County Road
39, future access to the roadway will require a permit from the Wright County Highway
Department. Such permit issuance may require the installation of turn lanes (at the
applicant's expense).
Design Standards. All proposed streets have been provided 60 foot right-of-way widths
consistent with applicable requirements of the City Subdivision Ordinance.
Resubdivision. As a condition of future subdivision approval, a resubdivision plan should
be prepared which demonstrates a manner in which lots may be resubdivided in the future.
Easements. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, drainage and utility easements,
a minimum of 10 feet in width must be centered on rear and other lot lines. This item will
be addressed further as part of the preliminary plat submission.
Grading Plan. In association with the preliminary plat application, a grading and drainage
plan must be submitted. Such plan should include wetland delineations, if applicable, and
will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer.
Park Dedication. The subject subdivision will be subject to comment/recommendation
by the City's Park and Recreation Committee.
Development Agreement. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be
required to enter into a development agreement with the City.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call.
pc: Otsego Planning Commission
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Wayne Fingalson
Bulow Inc.
N
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATIO
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
V-- 15
9 101112
85 3a ma
8 7 6 5
8 4 ' �i 83 #a o„ 4141400
82
1 12 3 4 i > �, 81
!{.��nl 30 I 13800-30
d ST. N.E. I 96th ST.
130 75
OF
110
'�
x
8 7
77
17
8
2345
z
76 ,1
OTSEGO � ",a� '� `'"�'
7s N 79 �' 80
t no --30 ,>nH30 17764-30
w N.E. 95th ST. N0. 39
Ath
9 8 7 6 #o.ao,o ...+., .. #oor„o
,o,o N 49 = , i .. 47 v~i 46 v~i 45 o.L OTS E
(� #Iola +, ro
2 3 4 5 Z ro 134 3o +001010 loo,o,o In *-m
,3a,T-w
350 CE
#00,0,0 1
�i i
5th I Z " ' ST. O.L B #1030 1�' 13m -.3o
-_
9 8 7 8 50 i 4 -- -- ----- ,J110� -
,a,
40 = Q 42 m 43 Q ` pow Q 9 #to" 1=
V �. #oo,o,o #oo,o,o #oo,o,o
2 3 4 5 1 8
#o "do O.L C 5
- ---------
#016
weow 11,615
2R I6 5 '-' �� 5 ioo,o,o ioo,o,o #ooloto
,a 5 '(; _ ;, 25 24 23 0.L D 1 fit! '�'-3a 10
a I
I /,070 p„o
7th ; - ST. w
...� ala .L E 7 c
#o,.osa Z #co.o,o j #oo,o,o /ooto,o !� 63ca-3o
Y
y; 22 i,0021
18 <7 TSEG
9
#000t0 Z
I 8 —�s32o--3o
12
ST
#ooac,o #x.Oto I w
_...•.•�,:'': i0o,o,o #oo,o,o
6 5 I i 3 2 1 9 m.-30 13
.L G V'
------------------ -------------- ---------
I -
J -
I \
I
11233-3a #, t u
I
1 19 nib uru�o
I
I 14
til I
9 I
I
i
-'
1
400 Q
9115-30
I
Z�
1
I
I
I
1
I
8,73--3a
ill.a
18
.,76-30
{174300 NORTH �r�,
iL21-JO
G 17 3a
8020-30 1" = 400' P. +2150
16
2 15
o i ;;I IK
4174301
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION
n76 i
P NORTH
t _c
r33uA
'SC' -
i
� (kms l -t t` �: � i�l J �/f� ;r �_1 •'•
(i ►6�: �SULOW I L
ESTATES
' 6'177 ST. _ _.....
� i� J d
BULOVT
N
j. .,'s
ESTATES
9Yr.y• _
1" = 200' 1/23/96 .,r. -EXHIBIT C - SKETCH PLAT
2.
bj/b'L/lyyb btu:hal DULuw III-
Bulow, Inc.
P. 0. Box 506
Elk River, MN 55330
January 23, 1996
To: City of Otsego:
Council Members
Planning Commission Members
Staff
Bulow, Inc. is planning to replat a parcel of land owned by Gary Sorensen. We
hope this can be accomplished.
We will vacate all streets necessary and abandon all old lots and blocks currently
existing in the Old Townsite Plat, and brim the plat up to currant platting guidelines.
Our Plan is to create 30-35 new building sites which will all be, not less than, 1
acre each. With development on both the east and west sides already existing, this would
be an infill situation. I believe this can be accomplished by zoning it P.U.D., which would
not set a precedence for other development in the area.
Attached is a rough sketch of our preliminary layout. Actual lot lines may very,
but this is our basic idea.
If you have any questions or if I can be of any help regarding this plan please call
me at (612)-441-2229.
Thanks,
Chris Bulow
Pres. Bulow, Inc.
EXHIBIT D - CHRIS BULOW LETTER
�
.7 7, OTSEGO 79 � so78:
I
49 48 47 46 45 1 OTSEGO
CEMETERY
1'. I 44
42 43 Q I
i 40 I 41
N h 1
�
26 �5 24 23 LiJ
I ;
Q.e
j pEG 2+, 22
T > I i
� . I 1
i
5 4 3 I
I
iCO SIDER PROVISION
F STREET ACCESS .—r5
CIA)
s \5 0 •
I
1
C I
EXHIBIT E — HALLS POND WATERSHED
Bulow, Inc.
P. O. Box 506
Elk River, MN 55330
January 23, 1996
To: City of Otsego:
Council Members
Planning Commission Members
Staff
Bulow, Inc. is planning to replat a parcel of land owned by Gary Sorensen. We
hope this can be accomplished.
We will vacate all streets necessary and abandon all old lots and blocks currently
wisting in the Old Townsite Plat, and bring the plat up to currant platting guidelines.
Our Plan is to create 30-35 new building sites which wail all be, not less than, 1
acre each. With development on both the east and west sides already existing, this would
be an infill situation. I believe this can be accomplished by zoning it RU A, which would
not set a precedence for other development in the area.
Attached is a rough sketch of our preUminary layout. Actual lot lines may very,
but this is our basic idea.
If you have any questions or if I can be of any help regarding this plan please call
me at (612)-441-2229.
Thanks,
Cbzis Bulow
Pres. Bulow, Inc.
03/02/1996 00:19 6124412229 BULOW INC. PAGE 02
PKE
Lin
IN,
{ X10
77 8 0 . .
1 1 2
;^ -• -- -- — -- e — "" •7,:40 — �_...:..._.._:.... ',`"! _.,,; t, n. .._ � ,� •NE" r •. .. .
r i• -�
I . El; V t.Q
��tj, ;
:9ULOW
f 1 � h.s �.oy % !.� .. - � �}� � � � kms• � � •
TATES
... .. _.r ...._. .... O
f euLow !
71
�;}+ X111) _ _•—, •.'i f• �- ... ._ .. .... .. g
Lj
c
J
'•/1.41. —1 � ..—..��. __� .. .
1 1
�ESTATE5IV
1,�
.off^' �,:lJ:: ,-�• ,y :.:' +•!'I.14.+;`�,�•j. �'J.� ^'�I �. �rI�r�''-•(iW
tkll
1:1•: .,'t,, ss r ;:i,�r�•Fi xi.; :•ir1', .:.c, �t i..',�`ii '`• J: � •",5...•y,' ,•:
a, a:. 1- yb. ,g.:, ,2fJs• �,.\• .,,,,y ,•r. ry,i,,',��,// ,�•:k:.t ::r•i�'!d:% !:
'e. `.',:�''�., .;1•. .l' .'�•.$.. .j}q, i•l ..�+•'• yji. .1., ,�" '!'1'��: .., J:•y'• ,'44'!'rl.j :;!•,
,Y
S ..
:'r•,. :!fir.:, ...• •: 1
••�^fir .
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
From: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
Date: February 1, 1996
RE: Otsego - Island View Estates Second Addition - Preliminary
and Final Plat
File No: 176.02 - 95.02
SUMMARY:
Background
Mr. Wayne German has already been through the process to receive the
following:
1. A Variance Approval from Section 20-53-6A.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which stipulates that lots within R-1 Zoning Districts shall
have an area of not less than 2-1/2 Acres (2.1 acre lot proposed)
2. A Variance approval to allow a Variance from the City's R-1 Zoning
District lot width requirements from Section 20-53-6.A.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which stipulates that lots within R-1 Zoning Districts shall
have a width of not less than 200 ft. (142 foot width proposed).
3. Rezoning Approval to Rezone PID #118-800-142100 in Section 14,
Twp 121, R24 from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service Area to R-1,
Residential, Long Range Urban Service District.
The three items above were all approved at the March 13, 1995 City
Council Meeting and are waiting to be recorded with the final plat.
PLANNING REPORT FOR ISLAND VIEW ESTATES SECOND
ADDITION PAGE 2 -
We now have before us a Preliminary and Final Plat of Island View
Estates Second Addition.
All of the issues that were brought forward and approved on March 13,
1996, including drainage pond easement, drainage and utility easements
and the requirement to deed restrict Lots 1, 2, 3, Block One of Island
View Estates Second Addition so no building is allowed and they must
stay with their Island View Estate Lot, have been met.
The Staff Recommendation:
Is to approve the Island View Estates Second Addition Preliminary- and
Final Plat.
See attached information as to site.
/141
Laine Beatty, City Clerk/Zonin& Adm.
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATIOP
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION
1
1
1
1
1
,
,
' W
1
,
I
' 0 U
O «
' Zo
I
,
'
g
Lli
of W
1
W
cr-
j Z
O U
I
I
�
1
n
1
y r I
z � '
1
I
'
O
1
I
Z
_ _
_'
----------�
_- -----
Ln
{ eNye
n f
ay
Ito
p i too,
Ln.....I
'
WIN 3*N
I
o
f1
2 , �
oolca I
N '
Lq
I
�
I
-o ----
--------- ---- 31 If 21--- ---- - -
.
3 AV 2l3lHV)1
^3
f
o I N
uj
a
40 a
Li
e g
1., , Z
>>
t o
Z
1
4 « 1
LU
In1
a _
e
Vol
■
i �
W
ix
!
%-
I
_
y
m I
11 i n
i 5
rn
e
i N
W
d '°
rn
O i
_
T
1
i O
a � z
I
�
.....;
IT-----
U')
? S
; a
;
a
i 3
1
1
, �
O
1
Y �
�
1
1
1
1
t
i
; a
' U
1
'
I
1
I
I
, �
1
1
O
,
a
'
-
-
1 �
I
' 3
1
'
1
---`-----------
3nN3AV NTIOPI1 '3'N I.------------------------------------------+-----
S
'
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION
CIS
Li
1/I MN 3N1 A ./{
Q — t/I MN 3W !D P/i 3N 31
r�
V J
W
f
1
1
�.i
1 G
O
OI
z (
N
/
l lJ
QI
�
c�
J I
n re
V J
1
�
Q
—
H1
J
�
Z
IY
�a
w
• io
H
J
1�
1
f
f
1
1
�.i
1 G
O
z (
N
/
l lJ
QI
�
c�
J I
n re
V J
1
�
Q
—
— — — -
oa•zcs
IY
�a
• io
a�
341 1S"
DD•[C 1513 3N1 40 3Nn MA
1 s31r153 M3Ie (M—ml A 3NI1 l�ld 1S3M
V
�1
Q
w
z
W
i
'—
W
O
t/I M 3N1 A P/I 3" WL A 3KI L53M
EXHIBIT C - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN
I�J�-/--II W -
99th STRF-ET
(PLATTED AS Rib'ER LANE,
IV i vv 6
• tml Mxw+r rasa
N PC Ir Il IWI A
Ala MIMIm "I llms
I"MIM agvTlr7O1
M"'IKP M"1/"PM
P g"I" 11 M. 121. M. rl
"[MIK .1 Sam r-s'o' far
I
4
I I 2
I i 4
3
III
AA
IgiM lM P M I !/" P M K 1/I P
M .B1fOI rl/. .
-A"--KD-0
I
s I/r P rM!
9 r R a "ffI
I l
P LM" P M " N P M K,/1T 7M MI"
N
N r1LI LJKP M ""Y/M!� ln[ P' MIM
I I I
M
M" I/1 TN[ MMI/M
114 O P
j •4 P mwrm 1{ w. 1"L 1M[.
rur P rare IM UTAM.
,
cl
ISLAND VIEW ESTATES SECOND ADDITION
b•
Vv
a
I� � rwltrw[ sla vrntn ueern Mr aoM trsa
i I I
I I I
CITY OF
TSEGO
.899 Nashua Avenue N.E. ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD (612) 441-4414
Elk River, MN 55330 Fax: (612) 441-8823
January 23, 1996
MEMO TO: Planning Commission & City Council
From: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Adm
The attached map is for your information and shows a better view of the land that is
being requested to be changed to Med Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment being requested by Neal Perlich, to be used for a golf course and housing.
This map was requested by the Planning Commission so they could get a better idea of
exactly where the land is.
Also, please note that there is a 10 Acre parcel to be split off and retained by Milton and
Larraine Shelquist as indicated on the map.
I hope this information helps.
Elaine
i
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C0MJMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
W0
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Bob Kirmis/David Licht
15 January 1996
Otsego - Roden CUP (1 per 40 Density Transfer)
176.02 - 96.02
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Mr. Floyd Roden has requested a conditional use permit to allow a "one per forty" transfer
of development rights. Specifically, Mr.Roden wishes to transfer development rights
available form a 40 acre tract of land located south of 67th Street N.E. and west of
McAllister Avenue to a 5 acre tract (to be created) which lies north of the density transfer
source. It is the intent of the applicant to ultimately construct a new single family dwelling
upon the 5 acre lot to be created.
According to applicable A-1 District provisions, density transfers to property under the
same ownership are allowed via conditional use permit.
In addition to the requested density transfer, approval of a conditional use permit is also
necessary to allow the creation of a lot greater than 2'/2 acres in size in an A-1 Zoning
District.
r XA1-.__,- MI. -4 - c,,;►„ CCC . C i , ..;c- D-7,rL KANi Cr -11 iF, . (r, 19) riU..F-9837
Attached for refe-eence
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - Soil Survey
Exhibit D - Conceptual Subdivision Plan
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of a conditional use permit
to allow:
A. A one per forty density transfer within an A-1 Zoning District. L
B. The creation of a residential lot size larger than 2'/z acres in an A-1 Zoning District.
Approval of the aforementioned is, however, recommended to be contingent upon the
fulfillment of the following conditions:
1. The properties involved in the development rights transfer are under the same
ownership.
2. The applicant pursue subdivision of the property in a manner substantially similar
to that illustrated upon Exhibit D. Such subdivision (administrative) shall be subject
to approval by the Zoning Administrator.
3. A deed restriction is placed upon the parcel from which the development rights have
been transferred to prohibit additional development.
4. Findings are made that the subject site is capable of accommodating a private well
and septic system.
5. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to drainage and
utility easement establishment.
6. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to site access.
7, The proposed subdivision is subject to park dedication requirements as determined
by the Park and Recreation Committee.
8. Comments from other City staff.
2
ISSUES ANALYSIS
DENSITY TRANSFER
CUP Review Criteria. The City Zoning Ordinance stipulates that a one per forty transfer
of development rights is a conditionally permitted use in the A-1 Zoning District. According
to Section 4.2.F of the Zoning Ordinance, such conditional uses may only be granted
provided that:
1. The proposed actions consistency with the specific policies and provisions
of the official Comprehensive Plan.
The City's Comprehensive Plan allows for density transfers under the conditions
outlined in the planning report. F,
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the
area.
Land uses in this area of the City are primarily agricultural. The proposal to
construct a single family home on a 5 acre lot is compatible with surrounding land
uses and also protects existing farming activities in the area.
3. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
The single family residence should have no negative effect within the area it is
proposed.
4. The proposed use's effect upon property values of the area in which it is
proposed.
While a detailed analysis has not been conducted, similar situations have
demonstrated no negative impact upon area property values.
5, Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Traffic generated by the proposed single family dwelling will be minimal and will be
within the capabilities of 67th Street which serves the subject property.
7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities
including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden
the City's service capacity.
3
The proposed single family dwelling unit will not overburden the City's service
capacity.
Property Ownership. According to the Zoning Ordinance, residential development rights
may be transferred to property under the same ownership. As a condition of CUP
approval, an assurance should be made that such transfer is under the same ownership.
Lot Area Requirements. It is the intent of the applicant to subdivide an existing 10 acre
residential parcel into two five acre parcels (transferred development right to be applied
to eastern 5 acre parcel).
As shown below, the proposed lot would exceed A-1 District lot requirements:
Required
Proposed
Lot Area 1 acre
5 acres
Lot Width 150 feet
250 feet
Lot Depth 150 feet
840 feet
While the proposed lot exceeds minimum A-1 District requirements, the creation of a
residential lot larger than 2'/z acres in an A-1 District requires approval of a conditional
use permit. Specific issues pertaining to this CUP request will be addressed in a later
section of this report.
Setbacks. Based on information provided by the applicant division of the existing 10 acre
parcel into two 5 acre lots will allow conformance to the following A-1 District setback
requirements:
Front Yard
35 feet
Side Yard
30 feet
Rear Yard
50 feet
Clustering. According to the Zoning Ordinance, parcels involved in development right
transfers should be clustered in a contiguous fashion, except in cases where such clusters
may disrupt agricultural activities. The proposed placement of a new residence directly
adjacent to an existing home (located on western one-half of 10 acre parcel) is believed
to satisfy the intent of the Ordinance by retaining a large contiguous parcel of land for
agricultural purposes.
El
Subdivision. As -a condition of CUP approval, formal subdivision of the property will be
necessary (minor subdivision). Thus, approval of the density transfer will be conditioned
upon subdivision approval by the City Zoning Administrator.
Well/Sewage Treatment. As a condition of CUP approval, a determination must be made
that the proposed development site is capable of sustaining a private well and septic
system. This item should be subject to comment by the City Engineer.
Easements. As part of property subdivision, 10 foot wide utility and drainage easements
must be provided along all lot lines. The City Engineer should provide
comment/recommendation in regard to easement establishment.
Property Access. 67th Street which would serve the newly created lot is classified as a
"local street" by both the City and County Transportation Plans. In recognition of such F
street classification, direct single lot access to the property is considered generally
acceptable. This item should, however, be subject to further comment by the City
Engineer.
Soils. As a condition of CUP approval, findings should be made that the proposed density
transfer will result in the preservation of productive farmland. According to the Wright
County Soils Survey (see Attached Exhibit C), the northern portion of the proposed
development site (eastern one-half of existing 10 acre parcel) holds Hayden loam soil
types (6 to 12 percent slopes, moderately eroded) While such soil type is considered
good for crops, erosion control practices are necessary.
The southern portion of the site holds a Hayden loam soil type with 12 to 18 percent
slopes. According to the soil survey this soil type has severe erosion hazards and limited
suitability for crops.
Deed Restriction. As a condition of CUP approval, a deed restriction must be placed
upon the quarter -quarter section from which the development rights have been transferred
to prohibit additional development.
Park Dedication. As a condition of subsequent subdivision approval (administrative) the
newly created lot should be subject to park dedication requirements as determined by the
Park and Recreation Committee.
Lot Size Conditional Use Permit
It is the applicant's intent to apply the transferred development right to a five acre parcel
of land south of 67th Street. The five acre parcel would be created via the subdivision
(splitting) of an existing 10 acre residential parcel. According to Section 20-51-5.G of the
5
Zoning Ordinance, the creation of a residential lot size larger than 2 '/z acres in an A-1
Zoning District are allowed as a conditional use provided that:
1. A minimum of 150 feet of street frontage is provided.
2. The lot size expansion is the result of:
a. Existing buildings occupying an area larger than the lot size minimum, or
b. The land involved in the subdivision is non -tillable and marginal for use in
agricultural production.
3. In no case shall the lot size exceed ten (10) acres.
4
4. The provisions of Section 4.2.17 of the Ordinance (CUP evaluation criteria) are
considered and determined to be satisfied.
As previously noted, the proposed five acre lot would overlay the eastern one-half of an
existing 10 acre lot. This condition results in a unique situation where, regardless of
whether the land is tillable, the proposed subdivision would result in the retention of
contiguous farmlands.
In this regard, the proposed splitting of the 10 acre parcel is viewed as preferable to simply
creating a new one acre residential parcel and allowing the continuance of the existing 10
acre residential lot.
Review of site soil types has further revealed that the proposed building site is considered
marginal in terms of agricultural production.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of a conditional use
permit to allow:
1. A one per forty density transfer within an A-1 Zoning District.
2. The creation of a residential lot size larger than 2'/z acres in an A-1 Zoning District.
C:1
Approval of the aforementioned conditional use permit should, however, be contingent
upon the fulfillment of the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report.
pc: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Floyd Roden
7
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATIC
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIO
EXHIBIT C - SOIL SURVE�
ter
u
i
t3 -p
ILl'
Tn n k
i
I �=
i
i
! i I
I �
� I
i
11 'y - dl,)6) -,3 / � y 0 0
%0 l+
EXHIBIT D - CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN
Mayor Norman F. Freske
Otsego City Hall
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Dear Mayor Freske & Otsego City Council Members;
CSL O V R
.JAN 3 11CC6
January 29, 1996
This letter has to deal with the future development of an eighteen hole golf course and
approximately two hundred single family residential homesites in the city of Otsego.
Our initial interest in bringing this development to Otsego began in July of 1995.
Since that time we have been involved with City officials, staff meetings, Park & Rec.
meetings, MPCA negotiations, Engineers and golf course design people. Riverwood
Conference Center has also been involved with participation by their administrative
people.
We are currently scheduled on the agenda of the Otsego Planning Commission
meeting February 7, 1996 at 8:00 PM, seeking a Comp Plan Amendment.
Because of the magnitude of the proposed development, it will be imperative that a
utility package including a sewage treatment plant, water & storm sewer, be designed and
constructed to satisfy the proposed 335 acre development. In addition, discussion has
suggested that such a utility package be designed to accommodate a larger area than just
335 acres.
It now appears the City will not be providing funds for this utility package. The
message has been, that the developers should plan on private ownership and maintenance
of the proposed plant. If we are to undertake this responsibility and provide private
ownership of the entire plant, we must, at this time secure an agreement from the City, in
writing, that clearly states that the City will grant us a "franchise" to design, construct,
maintain and operate such a utility package. This "franchise" would be privately owned
by ourselves or others.
_:��� '�� :_ :: --. - •-. ill �..a:.:,
i
D
Without having this in writing, as a formal agreement, our position would be not to
proceed any further with our proposed project. We cannot afford to continue unless this
matter is resolved now. Once we have an agreement to this, we will become engaged in
securing cost projections. First, we must know the City is willing to grant us the
"franchise" in writing.
We realize that in no way does this assure us the project will be approved for other
reasons, or that we are also able to abort the project if costs become to great or other
complications should evolve.
I hope this will clarify our position and I am hopeful that this matter may be resolved
by mid February.
Thanks to you and all members of the Council for your prompt attention regarding this
matter.
Sincerely,
Neal A. Perlich
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE.-
RE:
ATE:RE:
FILE NO:
Elaine Beatty
Bob Kirmis
10 January 1996
Otsego - Riverwood Golf Course Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
176.02 - 96.01
Attached please find our review of the Riverwood Golf Course Comprehensive Plan
amendment request. Please distribute copies of the report to the Planning Commission
and City Council.
As you are aware, this item is scheduled for public hearing on 17 January.
We have mailed copies of the report to Andy, Larry and the applicant.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
pc: Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Neal Perlich
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Daniel Licht / David Licht
10 January 1996
Otsego - Riverwood Golf Course -
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
176.02 - 96.01
Mr. Neal Perlich, on behalf of Neal Perlich Realty Inc., has expressed a desire to establish
a low/medium density residential development in conjunction with an 18 hole golf course
which would be served by a "package" type common septic system upon a ± 335 acre tract
of land located directly south of the Island View Estates subdivision between Kadler and
Kahler Avenues. This request is prompted by documented septic system problems at the
nearby Riverwood Conference Center. It is possible that the "package" treatment system
being proposed as a part of this application may at some point in the future serve to
remedy these concerns. This system may also provide for a potential connection to the
adjacent Island View Estates subdivision the north of the subject property.
To gain an initial indication as to the general acceptability of such use in the proposed
location, the applicant has requested an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to:
1. Expand the City's immediate urban service area boundary to include the subject
property.
2. Amend the Land Use Plan (map and text) to accommodate low/medium density
residential use upon the subject property (plan currently suggests agricultural use
upon subject site).
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
Please note that a rezoning of the property has not been formally requested at this time.
While still tentative in nature, the development plan calls for a + 190 acre golf course
flanked by ±200 low and/or medium density residential dwelling units. Such units are
intended to be served by a "package" sewage treatment system.
The subject property is currently zoned A-1 Agricultural Rural Service. The northern one-
third of the property lies in the Long Range Urban Service Area, while the southern two-
thirds lies within the Rural Service Area.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - Urban/Rural Service District Map
Exhibit D - Land Use Plan
Recommendation
It is our office's position that determinations of land use appropriateness are policy issues
to be determined by City Officials.
As noted in this report, Comprehensive Plan Polices exist which both encourage and
discourage the proposed use upon the subject property. Should the City find that the
proposed low/medium density residential development and golf course are a generally
acceptable use at the proposed location, our office would recommend the City approve the
requested Comprehensive Plan Amendments subject to the following:
1. Final project approval of a development similar to the one proposed, including, but
not limited to property rezoning and subdivision
2. A determination is made by the City that the proposed use will have no adverse
environmental impacts (preparation of an Environmental Impact statement is not
required).
3. Comments from other City staff.
2
ISSUES ANALYSIS
As noted previously, the applicant has requested the following changes to the
Comprehensive Plan:
Expansion of the immediate urban service area boundary to include the subject site.
2. Amendment to the City's Land Use Plan to suggest low/medium density residential
development upon the subject site.
Urban Service Area/Land Use Plan Amendment. As shown on Exhibit C, the subject site
currently overlays both the City's Rural Service District and the Long Range Urban Service
District. The Rural Service District is intended to define preferred areas of the City where
agricultural activities may occur. The Long Range Urban Service District is intended to
serve as a transition between urban and rural areas of the City.
To accommodate the proposed development (residential densities), it is necessary to
expand the boundaries of the immediate urban service area to include the subject +335
acre property. The geographic delineation of the immediate urban service area is based
in part on an ability, at some future point, to accommodate public sanitary sewer service.
A portion of the subject property is located south of County Road 39 and is designated for
agricultural use in the Land Use Plan. Therefore it is also necessary to amend the Land
Use Plan to suggest low/medium density residential land use (in place of agricultural uses)
upon the subject property in order to accommodate the proposed development
Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the
City should consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Generally
speaking, a decision regarding the amendment should be based upon, but not limited to,
the following:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions
of the official Comprehensive Plan.
Obviously, the proposed low/medium density residential use of the subject property
is not consistent with the agricultural use suggested on the Land Use Plan (south
of County Road 39). The existing agricultural designation south of County Road 39
is intended to reflect and maintain an existing cohesive land use pattern and
assumes that sanitary sewer service is unavailable to the area.
3
North of County Road 39, long term low density residential development has been
suggested. Such land use is intended to provide an for infilling of existing
development in the area (south of Island View Estates and recognize the
desirability of proximity to the Mississippi River.
The Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies which tend to both encourage
and discourage the proposed low/medium density use of the subject site. Goals
and policies which would tend to support the proposed use include:
• To the extent possible, provide a variety of dwelling unit types and balanced
housing stock to satisfy the needs, desires and income levels of all people.
• Land use allocations are to be balanced with economic market demands and
service availability. 11
• All development proposals shall be analyzed on an individual basis from a
physical, economic and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate
uses within the context of the community as a whole.
• Land use development shall be related to and reflect transportation needs,
desired development and community priorities.
• Once established, geographic land use designations and related zoning
classifications shall be changed only when it can be demonstrated that such
modifications are in the best interest of the community on a long range
perspective and such changes will promote land use compatibility and pre-
determined goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
• The housing needs of the entire community shall be addressed and
responded to.
• To the extent possible, a variety of housing types, styles and choices is to
be created and maintained.
• Land uses and environmental quality are to be maintained and where
necessary, upgraded.
0
Goals and'policies which would tend to discourage the proposed use include:
• Protect and preserve prime agricultural lands and the economic viability of
farming operations.
• Permit growth on a phased basis providing for a logical extension of urban
growth and related community services.
• Boundary limits for urban expansion shall be clearly delineated and non -
farming types uses shall be prohibited from encroaching into agricultural
areas.
• All development proposals shall be analyzed on an individual basis from a
physical, economic and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate w
uses within the context of the community as a whole.
• Land use development shall be related to and reflect transportation needs,
desired development and community priorities.
2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses
of the area.
In considering the appropriateness of a particular land use, it is generally beneficial
to examine neighboring land uses. The following is a listing of land uses which
surround the subject property and their zoning designations:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Single Family Residential
(Island View Estates)
R-1
South
Agricultural
A-1
East
Agricultural/Single Family
Residential
A -1/R-3
West
Agricultural
A-1
Based on a review of surrounding uses, it would appear that area of the site north
of County Road 39 may be conducive to low/medium density residential
development. Low/medium residential development south of the County road would
be bounded on all sides by agricultural uses. In this regard, its appropriateness
may be debatable. This is not to say, however, that the proposed use could not
compatibly exist upon the subject property.
5
3. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards.
While the City has not received a detailed plan application, any development upon
the subject site would be required to comply with applicable zoning and subdivision
standards.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Measurable effects of the proposed use cannot be determined until such time as
a detailed development plan is submitted. Based on the development's size (± 335
acres), the preparation of an environmental worksheet will be required. Ultimately
project approval will be conditioned on a finding of no adverse environmental
impact.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is
proposed.
There is no evidence that the proposed use will depreciate area property values.
Based upon comparable situations, a depreciation of area property values is not
anticipated.
6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets
serving the property.
The traffic generated by the proposed use and related impacts will be dependent
on the number of residential dwelling units. As such, this criteria cannot be fully
evaluated until such time as a formal development application is received. In this
regard, any improvements to adjacent streets will need to be evaluated when a
development proposal has been formalized.
7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities
including parks, schools, streets and utilities and its potential to overburden
the City's service capacity.
The proposed development will clearly impact the City's service capacity. While
the intent to establish a "package" sewage treatment system would likely address
utility service issues, other related service requirements (police/fire protection, snow
plowing, etc.) must be considered and evaluated by the City.
Immediate Urban Service Area Nature. By nature, the Immediate Urban Service Area
generally defines areas where development may occur without negative impacts when
evaluated against the criteria described above. At this point, the applicant is only seeking
to determine the City's position regarding the acceptability of the proposed land use over
the subject property. Should the City determine that the suggested land use is appropriate
for the area and approve the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments, a formal
development application would be forthcoming.
It is not inconceivable however, that circumstances may arise where no development
application is received and for some reason the project is determine to be unfeasible by
the applicant. To protect the City from such a potential action approval of the requested
amendments should be subject to City approval of forthcoming development application(s)
submitted by the applicant.
Rezoning. As part of a formal development application, rezoning of the subject property
will be necessary to accommodate the suggested low/medium density residential uses
which are anticipated. The subject property's existing A-1 zoning designation does not
allow residential units at the density suggested.
A determination of future zoning district application will be made at such time as when a
formal development plan application is received.
Private Sanitary Sewer. The applicant has indicated that the proposed development
would be served by a common private "package" sanitary sewer system. Such a system
will be subject to State and City review and approval as part of future project review.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Neal Perlich, on behalf of Neal Perlich Reality, Inc. has requested an amendment to
the Otsego Comprehensive Plan to:
1. Expand the City's immediate urban service area boundary to include the subject
property.
2. Amend the Land Use Plan (map and text) to accommodate low/medium density
residential use upon the subject property (plan currently suggests agricultural use
upon subject site).
The intent of the applicant's request for Comprehensive Plan amendments is to determine
the City's position regarding the establishment of low and medium density housing and golf
course on a tract of land located in the western portion of the City. While no formal
development plan/proposal has been submitted at this time, it is anticipated a formal
development application (rezoning, subdivision) will be forthcoming should the
Comprehensive Plan amendments be approved. It is therefore recommended that
approval of the applicant's request for Comprehensive plan Amendments be contingent
7
upon ultimate receipt and approval of a complete development application. Our office's
recommendations regarding the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments are further
detailed in the Executive Summary of this report.
PC. Elaine Beatty
Andrew MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Neal Perlich
0
EX H l BIT A
SITE LOCATION
Otsego,
WIN
j, :X I
Minnesota
65th ST
01
Z
WI" St Z11f,
(n
rrI
x
M
M
X
>T
X - Urban/Rural
M a]
> Service Concept
--62nd SI (.ITT or
2nd ST RICE 0 01 62nd ST Li A (Kwl
L
Both ST
X;Cjtl. it
601h
-u n !nded by Resolution NO. 94-70, 10 January 1994
Immediate Urban Service Area
Long Range Urban Service Area
Rural Service Area
Specific Immediate Urban Service Area Boundary
to be determined by Engineering Study
PREPARED BY:
Forthwest
Associated
Consultants, Inc.
.......
77th ST
77th ST••
:XXXX
160TIV: " MAP IS " PILAHNHQ
PLW*NMS OWT ANO SHMILD
NOT 91 UMD �rHIEW MWOM
ai
Iti
AKASUF11-b"111 AM MINE
15
14
13
18
4
BASE MAP SOLIFICE:
ST
26
Z5th
92nd ST
WF"T COUNTY
—W-: SURVEYORS OFFICE 7-25-89
4f
70th ST
70th ST
70t4
N
•ri•
<
9
�'
67th
y,
T
•Dt
7P
6 33
34
35 651h ST
X
0
0
0: &
67th ST
XX
.5
SCALE IN MILES
22
23
2419
3
44
X.:
04AP PATU
85(h ST
SEPTEMBER 1989
8 -3rd S1.
Both ST
Both ST
65th ST
01
Z
WI" St Z11f,
(n
rrI
x
M
M
X
>T
X - Urban/Rural
M a]
> Service Concept
--62nd SI (.ITT or
2nd ST RICE 0 01 62nd ST Li A (Kwl
L
Both ST
X;Cjtl. it
601h
-u n !nded by Resolution NO. 94-70, 10 January 1994
Immediate Urban Service Area
Long Range Urban Service Area
Rural Service Area
Specific Immediate Urban Service Area Boundary
to be determined by Engineering Study
PREPARED BY:
Forthwest
Associated
Consultants, Inc.
.......
77th ST
77th ST••
:XXXX
160TIV: " MAP IS " PILAHNHQ
PLW*NMS OWT ANO SHMILD
NOT 91 UMD �rHIEW MWOM
AKASUF11-b"111 AM MINE
27
sT 25
30
BASE MAP SOLIFICE:
ST
26
Z5th
WF"T COUNTY
—W-: SURVEYORS OFFICE 7-25-89
4f
70th ST
70th ST
70t4
••
•ri•
W
'
67th ST
�'
67th
y,
T
•Dt
7P
6 33
34
35 651h ST
35
32
0
0: &
65th ST
01
Z
WI" St Z11f,
(n
rrI
x
M
M
X
>T
X - Urban/Rural
M a]
> Service Concept
--62nd SI (.ITT or
2nd ST RICE 0 01 62nd ST Li A (Kwl
L
Both ST
X;Cjtl. it
601h
-u n !nded by Resolution NO. 94-70, 10 January 1994
Immediate Urban Service Area
Long Range Urban Service Area
Rural Service Area
Specific Immediate Urban Service Area Boundary
to be determined by Engineering Study
PREPARED BY:
Forthwest
Associated
Consultants, Inc.
.......
_ Otsego,
_:_.- inn ta
:.t::::::::::.. M eso
.yly, .. �•.....
'•: :may: ':.:i1.i )�!�fMl(M►
14
15 921e ST Wi and cenic District Boun I a r y
Y t z
87th ST ,� ::: 1 .5 0 1
< 2 SCALE IN MILES
22 23 � 24 ,�19
::.'esi*s>::::;:;.:::••:..:' `:`::
55th ST
z .':i : :;: :•: :•:t rA► art
o ;;j ; SEPTEMBER 1989
8Yd ST. '' 4'G•;
60th ST 601h STf: :.:•' ,.,,::.
:.' iT :. :: •`S' •\ MOTL TNS MAP IS F011'IAJSM6G
4J 77th st 77th St T .'- .:•: ':::!: rtwoscs c.ar AMO SHOULD
:• •. NO BE L"D WHEM PPECI [
< < < `< '•� ` t.cASII*LJEWf$ AAC MlOLW".
7 75th st 25 30 Q ': ': 21� :•:
ST ` 2 u .........
26 Y rr. ; BASE MAP SOURCE
< m < H ;: '':• 'r f': WRC+9COUNTY
- < ;:}:�::�:�:�:�;:. ....:•:::•: •::: :: �• . - SURVEYORS OFFICE 7.2589
70th ST 70th ST _ 70th ST �.'�}Sf �''7•
ti
Y 671h ST pr 6711,
3530 ^ = 31 32 ' 33 0 34 I3 35 65th ST
... .
'P:•:•:;:;.
3
/ = < 62nd STf-
sU, 0 L 62nd si `"'
6cth sT
6}t, ST
a
Z M Agricultural ®- Highway Commercial (134 ac.)
o X
Low Density Residential ®- Industrial (536. ac.)
C = Land Use 0 — PREPARED BY:
U' - - Medium/High Density Residential (229 ac.) [ -Park/Public Facility
M ED Plan - ---- -
®- Neighborhood Commercial m Land uses dependent upon Hwy. FNrthwest
-I 101 upgrade and sewer availibility Associated
r
D Consultants, Inc.
Z 0