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