02-21-96 PC.�' 02/08/96 08:12 FAX 612 441 5665 JOHN OLIVER ASSO 002
Clvll Engineering john Oliver & Associates, Inc.
load Surveying Sd 0 Dodge Avenue, Elk Rtwr, YN SS330
Land Planning 1 (611) 441-2072 • Fay 4414665
February 7, 1996
Ms. Elaine Beatty
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: HERITAGE PLAINS
Dear Elaine:
This letter responds to a couple of the drainage issues raised in
the preliminary plat review letter from Hakanson Anderson
Associates, Inc. dated February 6, 1996.
The specific issues relate to the need for a positive overflow
from the proposed ponding area to the ditch along Ochoa Avenue.
As I understand, from the staff meeting held on January 11, 1996,
there are several drainage problems which currently exist in
Ochoa Avenue. When we prepared the drainage plans, Hakanson
Anderson, Inc. was contacted to obtain the design requirements
for the drainage ponds. At that time we were told that if a
retention basin was used, with no overflow, it was to be designed
to hold the runoff volume generated by a 2.0 inch rainfall over a
frozen ground condition. That is the case for this plat, as the
submitted drainage calculations show.
We feel that it is the Developers responsibility to address any
drainage concerns which his plat creates, including the runoff
from the surrounding watershed which drains into the plat. The
proposed drainage pond meets the requirements for a retention
basin design, accounts for all runoff that the surrounding
watershed generates and reduces the volume of downstream runoff.
We feel it is unreasonable to require the Developer to install an
overflow, and subsequently, solve existing drainage problems
along Ochoa Avenue at his expense.
07 r l 3 U'na I_,P1i. c�_1CI` ip *:
02/08/98 08:12 FAX 812 441 5885 JOHN OLIVER ASSO Q003
Page 2
February 7, 1996
Ms. Elaine Beatty
Please review this for the staff meeting on February 9, 1996. We
will be present to discuss the issues and to answer any other
questions.
Sincerely,
JOHN OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Todd W. McLouth. P.E.
CC: Richard Rincannon
File: 7226.10-03
Disk 38 - EERTPLAI.207
02/08/96 08:12 FAX 612 441 5885 JOHN OLIVER ASSO Q 003
Page 2
February 7, 1996
Ms. Elaine Beatty
Please review this for the staff meeting on February 9, 1996. We
will be present to discuss the issues and to answer any other
questions.
Sincerely,
JOHN OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Todd W. McLouth. P.E.
cc: Richard Kincannon
File: 7226.10-03
Disk 38 - HERTPLAI.207
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:
Elaine Beatty
Bob Kirmis
13 February 1996
Otsego - Heritage Plains
176.02 - 96.04
Attached please find our review of the Heritage Plains preliminary plat and PUD/CUP.
Please distribute copies of the report to the Planning Commission for their consideration
on 21 February.
We have mailed copies to all pc's.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
pc: Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
Richard Kincannon
Wayne Fingleson
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
rAN
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
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Bob Kirmis/David Licht
13 February 1996
Otsego - Heritage Plains - Preliminary Plat and PUD/CUP
176.02 - 96.04
Mr. Richard Kincannon has requested preliminary plat approval of a 16 lot single family
residential subdivision entitled "Heritage Plains". The proposed subdivision overlays a
landlocked 19.3 acre site located south of County Road 39 and west of Ochoa Avenue.
The property is zoned R-3, Residential Immediate Urban Service, which establishes a
minimum one acre lot size.
Due in part to the subject site's landlocked condition, the applicant has requested a
planned unit development to accommodate the following:
1. Lot widths less than the 150 foot requirement imposed in the base R-3 Zoning
District.
2. A cul-de-sac which exceeds the maximum 500 foot length requirement.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit D - Grading and Drainage Plan
Recommendation
The applicant has requested a PUD/CUP to provide lot width and cul-de-sac length
flexibilities from the strict terms of the Ordinance. Recognizing that economics cannot
serve as justification for the granting of a PUD, the City should determine whether the
purpose of the PUD in this particular case has been satisfied. More specifically, whether
the simultaneous allowance of design flexibilities and imposition of performance standards
(which go beyond that of conventional subdivisions) will result in a high quality
development.
Should the City find the use of PUD to be appropriate, our office would recommend
approval of the Heritage Plains preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The City approve a planned unit development conditional use permit to allow
flexibility from the City's lot width and cul-de-sac length requirements.
2. Lots 8, 9, and 10 are reconfigured to provide greater consistency in lot width.
3. The service road which abuts the subject property to the north is surfaced with
bituminous material. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City
Engineer and Wright County Highway Department.
4. O'Brian Avenue is reconfigured to intersect the County Road 39 service road at a
right angle.
5. Driveways upon Lots 1 and 16 are located proximate to the lots' southern
boundaries.
6. The subdivision's street (O'Brian Avenue) is constructed as an urban section. This
issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer.
7. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to drainage and
utility easement establishment.
2
8. The submitted grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
9. The Park and Recreation Committee provide recommendation in regard to park and
trail dedication requirements.
10. All front yards of lots be sodded. Side yards which abut public streets are to be
treated as "front yards" and shall also be sodded.
11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to street
lighting.
12. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to water supply
and sewage disposal issues.
13. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all
necessary securities required by it.
14. Comments of other City staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Planned Unit Development. The subject property is zoned R-3, Residential Immediate
Urban Service which provides for low to medium density single family detached dwelling
units (minimum one acre lot sizes imposed).
While it is the applicant's intent to satisfy applicable R-3 density requirements, flexibility
from the district lot width requirements and cul-de-sac length requirements have been
requested via planned unit development conditional use permit.
According to Section 20-36-1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of planned unit
development (PUD) is to provide a development procedure where deviations from the strict
provisions of the ordinance may be allowed in order to encourage:
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of
economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and sighting of
structures and by the conversation and more efficient use of land in such
developments.
2. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and
experienced land planners, architects and landscape architects.
3
3. More convenience in location and design of development and service facilities.
4. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as
existing vegetation, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention
of soil erosion.
5. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and
orderly transition of land from one activity to another.
6. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby
lowering development costs and public investments.
7. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
(PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning
principals).
8. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
To be specifically noted is that PUD is not intended to be used solely for economic benefit
nor vary from applicable planning and zoning principles. In this regard, the City's
allowance of design standard flexibilities should result in some sort of "trade off' or benefit
to the community.
While the fact that the subject parcel is a land locked, remnant parcel is acknowledged,
flexibility from ordinance requirements should be justified and a determination made that
the intent of the PUD application has been satisfied. In other words, an incentive should
be provided to the City to utilize PUD.
If the City is to allow design flexibilities (particularly in regard to lot width) through PUD,
it is recommended that additional performance standards be imposed which will result in
high quality design. Specific recommendations in this regard will be provided in later
sections of this report.
CUP Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of all conditional use permit requests, the
Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider possible
adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Their judgement shall be based upon
(but not limited to) the following factors:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
112
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein
(i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving
the 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.
Provided a determination is made that the proposed subdivision satisfies the intent of the
PUD, the proposed use will satisfy the preceding CUP evaluation criteria.
Blocks. According to Section 21-7-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, blocks within
residential subdivisions may not exceed 1,200 feet in length. The proposed subdivision
constitutes a single, 16 lot block measuring ± 1,150 feet in length. Thus, ordinance block
length requirements have been satisfactorily met.
Lot Area. Within R-3 zoning districts, a minimum lot area of one acre is required. Lots
within the proposed subdivision range in size from 1.0 to 1.3 acres. While it is recognized
that the lot proposed sizes are significantly smaller than those which surround the subject
property, such lots have been found to comply with applicable district requirements.
Lot Width. As noted previously, the applicant has requested flexibility from R-3 District
lot width requirements (150 feet) through a PUD conditional use permit. The rationale
behind the existing 150 foot requirement is to allow for future "splitting" of such lots should
sanitary sewer service become available. In this regard, the City's R-4, Urban Single
Family District has been established to accommodate 75 foot lot widths.
As shown on the submitted preliminary plat, lot widths within the proposed subdivision
range from 95 to 151 feet with an average lot width being 131 feet. While such lot widths
will prohibit future resubdivision, all lots are of sufficient width to meet applicable structure
setback requirements.
5
While the subdivision generally illustrates consistent lot widths, some concern exists in
regard to Lot 9 which is provided a lot width of 175 feet. In contrast, Lots 8 and 10 which
flank Lot 9 are provided widths of 95 and 103 feet respectively. To the extent possible,
Lots 8, 9 and 10 should be reconfigured to provide greater lot width consistency.
Setbacks. While the proposed lot widths dictate that future resubdivision of lots will not
be possible, all lots demonstrate an ability to satisfy the following R-3 District setback
requirements:
Required Setback
Front Yard
35 feet
Side Yard
Corner*
35 feet
Interior
15 feet
Rear Yard
20 feet
*While Lots 1 and 16 lie proximate to County Road 39, "local street" setbacks are
applicable as the lots physically abut a service road
Streets
Cul -de -Sac Length. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, cul-de-sac streets shall not
exceed 500 feet in length. As part of the requested PUD, the applicant wishes to establish
a cul-de-sac measuring ± 850 feet in length. Considering that the subject property is
"landlocked" and that an alternate street design is not considered viable, the proposed cul-
de-sac length is considered justified.
Right -of -Way Requirements. In accordance with City Subdivision Ordinance
requirements, a 60 foot right-of-way width has been provided. Likewise, a 60 foot radius
has been provided for the proposed cul-de-sac. Additionally, a 30 foot wide service road
to County Road 39 has been appropriately dedicated.
Service Road. As shown on Exhibit C, the subject property is to be serviced by an
extension of the County Road 39 frontage road. As a condition of subdivision approval
and to justify the use of PUD, the paving of such service road will required. This issue
should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer and Wright County Highway
Department.
Street Intersection. According to Section 21-7-7 of the Subdivision Ordinance, streets
should intersect at right angles. To improve sight angles and increase area safety, the
O'Brian Avenue intersection with the County Road 39 service road should be shifted to
0
intersect at a right angle. To further improve intersection safety, driveways upon Lots 1
and 16 should be constructed proximate to the lot's southern boundaries.
Street Construction. Currently, developers within the City have an option to construct
streets either with a rural section (ditching system) or urban section (curbing). Generally
speaking, the urban section street is considered aesthetically preferable.
To further adhere to the purpose of the PUD (higher standard of design) it is recommended
that an urban section street be constructed. This issue should be subject to
comment/recommendation by the City Engineer.
Easements. According to Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision Ordinance, drainage and
utility easements, a minimum of 10 feet in width, must be centered on rear and other lot
lines. The acceptability of proposed drainage and utility easements should be subject to
review and comment by the City Engineer.
Grading Plan. In accordance with preliminary plat submission requirements, a grading
and drainage plan has been submitted for review (Exhibit B). The plan will be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Park and Trail Dedication. Specific park and trail dedication requirements should be
subject to specific recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
Landscaping. As standard policy, newly platted single family lots are required to be either
grass seeded or sodded. To ensure a high quality development and further justify the use
of PUD, it is recommended that all front yards of the proposed lots be sodded. Side yards
which abut public streets are to be treated as "front yards".
Street Lighting. For safety (and security) purposes, some consideration should be given
as to the need for street lights at the proposed service road/O'Brian Avenue intersection
and at the cul-de-sac's southern terminus. According to the City's adopted street lighting
policies, any new residential development must have a street lighting plan prepared by a
developer and submitted as part of the development plan. Exceptions to this submission
requirement may be allowed at the Council's direction. This item and the specific need for
a street light should be subject to specific recommendation by the City Engineer.
Water Supply/Sewage Disposal. According to the City's Subdivision Ordinance,
preliminary plat submissions must identify/illustrate to location and size of both water
supply and sewage disposal systems. As a condition of preliminary plat approval,
proposed well and drainfield locations should be illustrated. This issue should be subject
to further comment by the City Engineer.
7
Development Agreement. As a condition of ultimate final plat approval, the developer
must enter into a development agreement with the City and post all necessary securities
required.
CONCLUSION
Provided the City determines the use of the PUD/CUP to be appropriate, our office
recommends approval of the Heritage Plains preliminary plat subject to the conditions
listed in the Executive Summary of this report.
pc: Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
Richard Kincannon
Wayne Fingleson
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
(141400
#171401
13764-30
Ila ^ #I= OTS
i7.-00 ,3.,7-w C E
2 ,].57.00
3
• - /1040
- ------ Q-
4 /,o.o -
/1050 9 /10"
.L. C 5 8 /1
N
� 016
D 1 Lc► 9=-30 10
flow 6
W X30 11
.35► -w
Y
/low '� Q /7120
J
F .w.6� Z .J20 w 12
w a.
nob � #2100 �t" =
G
_ .266-30 1
.223-40 #2140
19 #2190 13m-ao
.,76-w 14
%1
02,00
1 8 .176
/2170
,U2,.3o
P #2190
16
2 15 14
X015
I
I
I
I
I
1
/162300 '162502 {1010 /1020 /,ow ; #01 cc
/162301 1 flW I flow
14024-3 1_� 2 3 + 1
14100- R
7i
flow na
14023-30 ,7
31 5R
J162304 96th = I ¢ R
9546-30 nolo , I S7. -
> N.E. -
0163200
,
�m �� 6
E G 162303 0 � + 3 ; 2-
M E'TERY w ' 2'
Z ; fl02w {1010
2 0 CRSS 3rd ADD ON
I �OUTLo
--T- -------------- --------------- ----- -�---- ------ - --
-- ------
1-30 -- ---- ----
300
5 /10.0 I I ,070
? CpU��% 6 ; { flow {lob
7 8 9
x /VQ 3e' 0 45
R /1010 "'
i 1 i I
.5n -w
SITE
2 novo I f>�w I
I R
.3s,ao I
I
4o= � 1 2' R
3 flow -b-
A§ ? n'
/moo 3
ut>.ao j .214,0 3 3 I 2
arm-= )w,
flows I� .2.0 30 /1000Pow
; /1om nolo
4 2 '
' 1
5 .2,►-Jw/ A '
�
{1050 �0130
15' / J1161 /n90 I �.
I � '�O� 19 '
I �
,Y5 ; 1 —�G�. 18 0 20
5N2 .w I R �!1100 3 OO
1 � � n7L-JO �• - P I 1 # #2210
N.E. 91st ?
--- _.. _ ST � - x 21
13 R R 12 02120 #2110
11 U
s 10 g
90.4-00 .,,o-�o '
02100V I
02100 �\ 6 1
t°" -.,o
OQ- '
OG'Z` #2000
N.E.
905, ao � e I
G P
flow s f2"° 4
� ' S
I
Ios°
1716 unor o
;T—n, -) N. E. EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION
I
ELi
� U sv..7
I
a".7
n:• n• a• J� .I
') eoae
(::A11. No .%,I
a99.7
I` 17 Ac.
=\ 9973
7.
16 9zr.,a�
ti I 3 .ol i� I C✓! 15�' ` ; £J \v� \Av,w
1 n Ar. f I •: I 1
Lo At., 89n 71 1 ` 1 � •+.. � '
•' . � : �• - -.fat--a.29b- _ _ _ 1 I , _ � Y _' ..I � Ca it
zV4 AC
.I 4 14l
ao7.4 T-7. 5 I : I e9tz 13 n97.z1o A(' I• 1 u At:I IN
I 1e9.3
_ m
.. � off X9.3 i �� iII �`\ • I !__ r - _.� — -- � e�o I. I�a u �.� `
I.0 LO AC
A� I
a9mo
I '--.vu _ - _ I I _ �� 1 I e97.a�41 W xi
'Q s'
L t II f 1 9&2 I
IS l = a9ad_. I / I I 1•�� I z t x a97.e
7 0
LO Ac _�•. ../ 1 --L97.a x Lb AC
r
_ _� 1 ..\ I� ~ _t._ - •• -1 S x x97.0
IV -
&99.3
897.3
rr �oo * I C
Lj All AC
1Ul-
90o a
'' eons
.\....Oo��..
�R ►{aG'0a'19'E 72b.S1 eo7.o .. �-/-Q-�..-__.�._.-t�/ij�➢� . . - -
r, Ah .. I /Y-'f-[N1IH(l�(y—y.y.'{MIIIU
R
I /' A.4Y: LA.j NI.N1
. ..... IIM' uRII
=
897.3
m
I I
EXHIBIT C - PRELIMINARY PLAT
cls
Cr a 8".7
e.�
�
\W
I
''• - PROPOSED 30' W10E BlTlt►Rf0(!S
><>•. M of I SERVICE ROAD TO BE CONSTRUCTED
. w,� . '. �� ('j.\• ttt J- BETWEEN ENTRANCES.
. 9.,.ss r epi �' `ft_•— —•--�
C&OVE E G
> 393.6 ' .y ' 7• -
I FIELD ENTRANCE—
IRECRADE LtTCII
( � a 899.6 •{��j• tll I u i��_ `� ��,1 �ja9).J ) .. .... .
¢aoF •
yam' 2
l 69,.31.
�. ` i ra99.1 i eod3r^ tl 16
, ) / 1
F 15 = 696.'1
-�°„� '1 - I t' d•� ,� I ' --moo'-Ort„w ` r7 - - __ -
7 5 I� t9a7 s SOA C�� - F •r • •. o- 14
RETENTION POND
'•� " Q. 1i i I 1 1 ,p rN —895.6
5. , 1 I I • e9f.i 13. ,.� i Q eTu-69o.0 . .
8 I •J `1 3971
- �__ ; /�I `, s --` ° i 12
e9e.01 ze 8442
•, �� I = 39631 � - - l � � � h �'' , 3973 ...
u _
per<
. { '• . _ !� 39731
900 —10897�
097.5
J7� , 9-4\ y +� 1 age.
� I /• — /���=.y V>f it ll l`t wqN A':.14' IA:9 NI N1
n,;e9s.t
.397, --
EXHIBIT D - GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN