Loading...
05-01-96 PCrN 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 11163 FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis/David Licht 23 April 1996 Otsego - Roden CUP - 1 per 40 Density Transfer (Section 23) 176.02 - 96.06 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 from a 40 acre tract of land located north of 80th Street and east of Kadler Avenue to a 1.5 acre tract (to be created) which lies southeast of the density transfer source. It is the intent of the applicant to ultimately construct a new single family dwelling upon the 1.5 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. Attached for reference: Exhibit A -Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Soils Survey 5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837 Recommendation Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow a one per forty density transfer within an A-1 Zoning District subject to the following conditions: A site plan (based on a certificate of survey) is submitted and found to comply with applicable A-1 District performance standards. 2. Consideration is given to shifting the proposed building site ± 1,300 feet to the west to comply with the "clustering" direbtive of the Zoning Ordinance. This issue should be subject to comment/recommendation by the City Engineer. 3. The properties involved in the development rights transfer are under the same ownership. 4. The applicant pursue subdivision of the property in a manner substantially similar to that conceptually illustrated upon Exhibit C. Such subdivision (administrative) shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator. 5. A deed restriction is placed upon the parcel from which the development rights have been transferred to prohibit additional development. 6. Findings are made that the subject site is capable of accommodating a private well and septic system. 7. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to drainage and utility easement establishment. 8. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to site access. 9. The proposed subdivision is subject to park dedication requirements as determined by the Park and Recreation Committee. 10. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS 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 be only granted provided that: 6 1. The proposed action's 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. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Land uses in the area of the City are primarily agricultural. The proposal to construct a single family home on a 1.5 acre lot is compatible with surrounding land uses and also protects existing farming activities in the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). As a condition of CUP approval, all performance standards must be met. 4. 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. 5. The proposed use's impact 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. 6. 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 80th Street which serves the subject property. 7. The proposed'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 single family dwelling unit will not overburden the City's service capacity. 3 Submission Requirements. While the applicant has generally described the proposed location of the 1.5 acre lot to be created, a site plan which identifies exact lot location, dimensions, etc. has yet to be received. As a condition of CUP approval, such site plan (based on a certificate of survey) should be submitted and found to comply with applicable A-1 District performance standards. 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 transfer a development right to a ± 39 acre parcel located at the corner of County Road 19 and 80th Street and subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel from such parcel. As noted previously, a site plan has not, to date, been submitted which identifies proposed lot dimensions. The proposed lot will, however, be required to comply with the following A-1 District lot requirements: Setbacks. The proposed 1.5 acre parcel to be created will be required to meet the following A-1 District setback requirements: Requirement Lot Area 1 acre Lot Width 150 feet Lot Depth 150 feet Setbacks. The proposed 1.5 acre parcel to be created will be required to meet the following A-1 District setback requirements: 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. As shown on attached Exhibit B, one dwelling unit currently exists within the quarter quarter section to which the development right is to be transferred. Considering the soil conditions in the area and that such dwelling unit is provided access from the east via County Road 19, clustering around such unit (and additional County road access) is not recommended. Consideration should, however, be M Required Setback 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. As shown on attached Exhibit B, one dwelling unit currently exists within the quarter quarter section to which the development right is to be transferred. Considering the soil conditions in the area and that such dwelling unit is provided access from the east via County Road 19, clustering around such unit (and additional County road access) is not recommended. Consideration should, however, be M given to shifting the building site + 1,300 feet to the west (adjacent to existing residence) to satisfy such clustering directive. 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, ten 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. 80th 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 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 proposed building site holds Cordora and Webster silty clay loam soil (0 to 2 percent slopes). Such soil type is classified as a "group 9" building site. The soils survey indicates that while such soil type is good for crops, group 9 building sites are not suitable for use as fields for septic tanks. In this regard, an alternative site conducive to septic tank drain field placement should be considered. Consistent with the clustering requirements of the Ordinance, consideration should be given to clustering the proposed single family ± 1,300 feet to the west (to abut existing single family residential lot). The applicant has indicated that such building site location was considered but that area soil conditions were not ideal. According to the soil survey, such land area holds Hayden loam soil types with 6 to 12 percent slopes. Such soil is classified as a "group 5" building site. The soil survey indicates that group 5 building sites may be used for septic systems but that larger drain field areas are typically needed. In consideration of area soil conditions, a westward shift of the proposed building site ± 1,300 feet should be investigated. The City Engineer should provide specific comment and recommendation in regard to area soil conditions. 5 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. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow a one per forty density transfer within an A-1 Zoning District subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Floyd Roden C: EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATIC EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION EXHIBIT C - SOILS SURVEY so 25 April 1996 City of Otsego Otsego City Hall 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Otsego MN Attn.: Ms. Elaine Beatty, Zoning Administration Ref.; Hearing on request for zoning variance by Jay and Carol Swanson. Dear Ms Beatty: This is my input as interested party on the referenced request for variance and I request that this be made part of the applicable record of the hearing. The City of Otsego should NOT grant this code variance (conditional use permit). It is my considerate opinion, that granting of such petition would change the zoning of this area from residential to 'quasi' industrial/commercial, with all the potential results of higher traffic density and congestion. The unrestricted size of the petitioned accessory space ('over 2000 square feet') is an open invitation to have any size accessory building in one's parcel, which would wreck the appearance of the whole Kahler Avenue. I believe it is the City of Otsego's responsibility to control the size of accessory buildings to be not greater than a nominal size, detached two -car garage. If you have any questions, I can be contacted at the phone numbers, or e-mail address shown below. Thank you. Sincerely, Guilermo A. G zalez 12312 SE 23rd. Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: Work: 206.881.1700 ext. 6781 Home: 206.747.1934 e-mail address: bgonzles@rocket.com Northwest Associated Consult C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING e DESIGN MARK E S. ��� E S E A R nCH DOCUMENT HAS BEEN COPIED PLANNING REPORT & DISTRIBUTED TO: >� MAYOR _ jC PC _. X COUNCIL _ EDAAC TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council XCLERK POW Otsego Planning Commission PLANNER BLOt3W FROM: Bob Kirmis/David Licht ATTORNEY OTHER DATE: 22 April 1996 B.'GINEER DATE RE: FILE NO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Otsego - Swanson Accessory Building CUP 176.02 - 96.07 Jay and Carol Swanson wish to construct a 1,200 square foot detached accessory building upon their 5.0 acre property located south of County Road 39 and east of Kahler Avenue. The proposed structure is to be of a "pole type" construction and is to be utilized as a home workshop. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service. To accommodate the Swan sons' request, approval of a conditional use permit to allow the following is necessary: 1. Pole building in association with a detached single family use within an A-1 Zoning District. 2. Total accessory storage space to exceed 2,000 square feet. 3. More than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 While the site in question does by definition constitute a hobby farm, the proposed structure (workshop) does not qualify for hobby farm exemptions as it does not relate to such use (i.e., keeping of farm animals/equipment). Thus, the processing of a conditional use permit is required. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Building Floor Plan/Elevations Exhibit E - Site Photographs Recommendation Based on the following review and pursuant to City policy and precedent, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow: 1) a pole -type accessory building in association with a detached single family use within an A-1 Zoning District; 2) more than 2,000 square feet of accessory storage space; and 3) more than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use. Approval of such conditional use permit is, however, recommended to be contingent upon the fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. Neither the proposed structure or other existing accessory structures upon the subject property are used for commercial or home occupation activities (unless specifically approved in accordance with City home extended business/home occupation requirements). 2. The accessory structures upon the property match the principal building in color. 3. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to drainage and utility easement establishment. 4. The site's driveways be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. 5. Comments of other City staff. 2 ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Conditions. As shown below, approximately 3,800 square feet of accessory storage space currently exist upon the subject property. Area Barn (40'x 80') 3,200 square feet Detached Garage (24'x 24') 576 square feet TOTAL 3,776 square feet Including the proposed 1,200 square foot detached accessory structure, a total of 4,976 square feet of accessory storage space will exist upon the subject property. To be specifically noted is that the property's "barn" is used for the keeping of animals. CUP Review Criteria. According to Section 20-16-4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, a conditional use permit for an accessory storage structure may only be granted provided that: 1. There is a demonstrated need and potential for continued use of the structure and the purpose stated. 2. In the case of residential uses, no commercial or home occupation activities are conducted on the property. This prohibition shall include the storage of materials and equipment which are unrelated to the on-site residential use and activity. 3. The building has an evident re -use or function related to the principal use. 4. Accessory building shall be maintained in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent uses and does not present a hazard to public health, safety and general welfare. 5. The provisions of Section 4.2.F of the Ordinance shall be considered and a determination made that the proposed activity is in compliance with such criteria (listed below). a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3 C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein (i.e, parking, loading, noise, etc.). d. The proposed use's effect impact upon the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. g. 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. Building Use. The CUP review criteria states that there should be a demonstrated need for the continued use of the structure and the stated purpose. The applicants have indicated that they currently utilize their existing detached garage as a workshop (for renovating antique tractors) and that their personal vehicles are resultantly parked outside. The proposed accessory building construction would allow the applicants to relocate their workshop activities and utilize the existing detached garage as originally intended. There appears to be a demonstrated need for the continued use of the proposed accessory structure. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the proposed accessory structure (or existing accessory structures) is not to be used for commercial or home occupation activities (unless specifically approved in accordance with City home extended business/home occupation requirements). Building Type. As noted previously, the applicants have proposed "pole type" accessory building construction. According to Section 20-16-4.G.2 of the Ordinance, pole buildings are allowed within A-1 Zoning Districts (in association with detached single family uses) upon approval of a conditional use permit provided that: a. The location and placement of the structure does not negatively impact abutting property. b. The provisions of Section 4.2.F .of the Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed accessory building is to lie 15 feet from the site's northern property line and is to be screened from view of the adjacent properties by existing tree stands (see attached site photographs). n Considering that the subject property lies in an area where long term agricultural activities are anticipated, the character of the area and proximity of neighboring residences, it is the opinion of our office that a "pole type" accessory building (non-farm) can compatibly exist on the subject property. To ensure compatibility, however, it is recommended that such structure (and other accessory structures) match the color of the site's principal building. Setbacks. Within A-1 Zoning Districts, a minimum 30 foot side yard setback is imposed. According to Section 20-16-4.13.5, however, accessory buildings (for detached single family uses) may encroach into the required side and rear setbacks within the rear yard of a lot provided no encroachment occur on a required easement or be closer than 10 feet to any lot line. As shown on the submitted site plan (Exhibit C), the proposed accessory building would lie 15 feet from the subject property's northern property line in compliance with applicable setbacks. Building Height. According to Section 20-16-4.F of the Ordinance, an accessory building within an A-1 Zoning District must not exceed the height of the site's principal structure, except by conditional use permit. According to the submitted site plan, the proposed accessory building is to measure 12 feet in height and equals the height of the site's principal structure. Easements. It has not been indicated whether any drainage or utility easements exist upon the subject property. The need for easement establishment should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Access/Driveways. As shown on Exhibit C, the subject property is currently provided access via two points from 80th Street. Access to the proposed accessory building would be achieved through an extension of the existing northerly driveway. According to the Zoning Ordinance, each property is allowed one curb cut access and may be allowed (upon City Council approval) additional curb cuts for each 125 feet of street frontage. With 319 feet of street frontage and in recognition of grandfather rights, the existing curb cuts are considered acceptable. So as not to adversely impact adjacent properties, it is recommended that the site's driveways be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. Screening. According to CUP evaluation criteria, the proposed use must be judged to be compatible with surrounding uses. Considering the character of the area and that a vegetative screen currently exists along the subject site's northern property line, the proposed accessory structure is not anticipated to impose any adverse impacts. 5 CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review and City policy and precedent, our office recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow the following: 1. Pole -type accessory building in association with a detached single family use within an A-1 Zoning District. 2. More than 2,000 square feet of accessory storage space. 3. More than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use. 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 Jerry Olson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Jay and Carol Swanson 1.1 .................. EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATIC .......... EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATIC ------------i_________ 1 cr 1 i 1 I 1 I Ioal,_R 1052.-.i �8{ 10,re-.i • tC70a-R 1 I W .- I 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 ____________;______________________________ 1 /.a.ee 1 ,wxR � 1 I 1 i 1 1 1 1 ,IwIR � t 1 1 1 /Iwi00 1 I /I.xao i wi-R /Iwla 1 � of 1 I 103.7-41 10577-42 MIx-.1 1 I 1 /IN.00 1 � ,I wx00 WI W1 fI/� 1115-62 CSI ------------i_________ /Ia101 1 cr 1 i 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I W .- I 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 I� I-- I � i /.a.ee ,wxR � 1 1 i 1 /Ia101 I IIwWI rail -R I cr 1 I 1 1 / I aitR rm-u W .- I 1 1 1 1 Ra. -u 2 I� I-- I � ______________ /.a.ee ,wxR � 1 i 1 i 1 1 I i 1 /Iwi00 I 1 1 /1..]00 II• ­1 1 t 1 I 1 I IIwWI rail -R I � 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Ra. -u I� I-- I � 1 1 i � 1 i 1 2212= � � EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIO' N zll - 9 EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN i Structural Buildings Inc. FLOOR PLAN ADDENDUM To Proposal Number ti(, ~� Customers Name • i Clearance �� �� View FLOOR PLAN Building Width View Building Length f 'View View I A. 01`31W in Column Location lit Locate doors and v,ndows The above floor plan and accessory layout is designed Indicate O racoons aqd agreed to by: J Indi;ate special color layout ' E. Be precise Customer's Slgnsture Form S352 White Office Copy Canary - Crew Copy Pink • Salesmen Copy /Gold Customer Copy 7.92 EXHIBIT 0 - BUILDING FLOOR PLAN/ELEVATIO' LOOKING EAST LOOKING NORTHEAST EXHIBIT E - SITE PHOTOGRAGW w-- -A- --,� May -01-96 02:41P All -Metro Builders, Inc. 612/497-8266 P.Ol Roger A. Anderson & Associates, Inc. NOOMA. XS CIVIL ENOINEEMING CONSULTANTS 7419WAYZATA GM.. •107 I41NII9APOL11. MIMNCSOTA (6MSW7t1M I612)SI64MSPAX Project Comm No Shoat of Computations for By Date Chkd Oata 1(o tvr 0- : VA -f- 4i1- �3 Pluelx+l DGsG - 2-� �4c PQ,.C,e, I TQC *.-- r -4 4-� oT WA, C47�..:fR,6e.d TJte. a a>+ --t 4� e ygo' Sala pante ( (el— 1141 2. S �eRt1 ^io4e oA lest, Dov d sr,ljec! 40 4�e. Q. -t l A T I@ c o d