04-16-97 PCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
F1 N kCCINCOMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
t!-*
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: 9 April 1997
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance: 1 per 40 Density Transfers
FILE NO: 176.08 - 97.03
BACKGROUND
At the Planning Commission's request, we have given some thought as to how the City's
current 1 per 40 density transfer requirements may be expanded to provide a more well
founded basis for potential conditional use permit denial, particularly in regard to
compatibility.
In previous discussion, it was made clear that the Planning Commission does not, at this
point, wish to change the City's density policy or general content of the existing density
transfer requirements (via cluster cap, road frontage eligibility requirements, lower density
requirements, etc.), but rather to expand the City's existing requirements.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Existing Regulations. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows the transfer of "1 per 40"
development rights within the City's A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District via a
conditional use permit. Attached as Exhibit A is a listing of various conditions applied to
such transfers.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 8
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837
Since the City's original adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, two key amendments/
modifications have taken place to the 1 per 40 density transfer requirements as
summarized below:
Public Road Frontage. in August of 1992, the density transfer provisions were
amended to allow development rights to be transferred from quarter -quarter
sections or contiguous 40 acre parcels which do not have frontage on a public road.
Previously, quarter -quarter sections had to have public road frontage to be eligible
for transfer rights.
2. lusters. In October of 1993, the Ordinance was amended to omit a stipulation
that clusters not contain more than two residential parcels. This language deletion
basically established no dwelling unit limit on residential clustering provided such
clusters are found to be compatible with the area (a CUP evaluation criteria).
The Planning Commission has indicated that it does not, at this time, wish to amend
the preceding requirements but rather consider the addition of a provision (or
provisions) which will establish a sound basis for conditional use permit denial in
cases where obvious compatibility concerns exist.
Regulatory Options. Obviously the most direct way of limiting the introduction of "urban
type" subdivisions (created via density transfers) in the urban area is to limit the number
of dwelling units which may be grouped within a cluster. Recognizing, however, that this
option does not wish to be pursued, four regulatory alternatives have been conceived as
summarized below:
Option A: Application of Reverse Feedlot Setbacks. Arguably, animal agricultural
activities present greater compatibility concerns to residential development than does crop
agriculture activities. Initial versions of the City's animal feedlot ordinance established
various setbacks for new animal feedlot operations (i.e., from residences). While not
formally adopted, such setbacks acknowledged the potential incompatibilities between
urban and rural uses and attempted to mitigate such impacts through minimum separation
requirements. In addressing the regulation of 1 per 40 density transfers (and 1 per 40
splits), various feedlot setbacks could be imposed.
The negative sides to this option relate to feedlot identification (legal and illegal) and
situations where close proximity to a feedlot may be desired (i.e., farm family member lot
creation).
Option 6: Contiguous Forties. Currently the Zoning Ordinance allows the transfer of
development rights from contiguous 40 acre parcels of land. In the past, applicants have
transferred available development rights from 40 acre parcels in different locations (farms)
into a single or grouping cluster. As a means of reducing the number of dwelling units
2
within a cluster, , the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to stipulate that residential lots
within a cluster must be transferred from a contiguous parcel of land (i.e., 80, 120, 160
acres, etc.). While this option would not lessen a property owner's current development
rights, it may have the result of prohibiting the creation of a "desired" cluster.
option C: Productive Agricultural Land Demonstration. The Zoning Ordinance states that
residential development rights may be transferred for the purpose of preserving productive
farmlands. In the past, City staff has addressed the issue of farm land production by
reviewing Wright County Soil Survey information. Recognizing that the primary purpose
of allowing density transfers (per the ordinance) is to preserve productive farmlands, a
more detailed demonstration of preservation could be required of applicants (i.e.,
submission of crop yield information, etc.). This option is considered positive in that it
would require detailed demonstration by an applicant to the City that the purpose of the
ordinance has been satisfied.
Potential drawbacks to this option are instances where absolute, productive agricultural
land preservation cannot be demonstrated, but where a cluster may be desired for other
reasons (i.e., consolidation of access points, minimizing farm disruption, etc.).
Option D: Minimum Separation Requirement. Section 20-51-5.G of the Zoning Ordinance
states that each quarter -quarter section or contiguous 40 acres shall contain no more than
one cluster or grouping of single family residential lots. In addition to the preceding
requirement, the ordinance could be expanded to establish a minimum separation
requirement (i.e., 1,000 feet) from other residential clusters.
Such requirement would have a result of prohibiting the location of clusters "across the
road" from one another or congregating at roadway intersections, both of which may
contribute to the creation of an "urban character" within the A-1 Zoning District.
Other Options: As noted previously, several other regulatory options exist in addressing
this matter. While not necessarily endorsed by the Planning Commission, the following
alternatives should not go unrecognized:
1. Establish dwelling unit cap on residential "clusters".
2. Reduce density requirement (i.e., 1 per 60 acres).
3. Revise eligibility requirements for development right transfers (i.e., public road
frontage).
3
CONCLUSION
The issue of desired density within the City's A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District is
considered a policy matter to be determined by City officials. The City's existing
Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages the preservation of productive and/or prime
agricultural lands within the City. At this point, the Planning Commission has indicated that
no change in policy is desired but rather an embellishment of the City's regulatory controls.
Each of the alternative means of regulation described in this memorandum has both
positive and negative aspects. Of the presented regulation alternatives, it is believed
Option A, Application of Reverse Feedlot Setbacks, responds most favorably to urban/rural
compatibility concerns associated with residential clustering.
Recognizing the legality issues involved in this matter (i.e, grounds for CUP denial), I have
asked the City Attorney to provide comment on this material. His comments are attached
as Exhibit B.
This material will be discussed in greater detail at the forthcoming 16 April Planning
Commission meeting.
pc: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
4
r
3.
The potential traffic generated by such use can
be
adequately accommodated (both volume and weight) upon
the
City streets serving the property upon which the use
is
located.
4.
Adequate, improved off-street parking is provided.
5.
The amount of land devoted to buildings is minimized
to
the extent possible but in no case shall exceed five
(5)
percent of the lot area up to a maximum of four thousand
(4,000) square feet.
6.
An adequate septic system and well can be established
on
the site and which, if the use is approved, shall
be
subject to applicable provisions of the City Code.
7. The provisions of Section 4.2.F of this Chapter are
considered and determined to be satisfied.
F. Residential lot sizes larger than two and one-half (2-1/2)
acres as part of the "one per quarter -quarter" section_
division, provided that:
1. All other applicable provisions of Section 20-51-8.A of
this Chapter are met.
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. The provisions of Section 4.2.F of this Chapter are
considered and determined to be satisfied.
G. Single family residential development rights may be transferred to
property under the same ownership for the purpose of preserving
productive farmlands provided that:
I. All single family lots resulting from the transfer conform to
the minimum standards established for the A-1 District with
regards to lot area, dimensions, setbacks and frontage on a
public road.
Amended Ord. No. 92-29, 24 August 1992 and also
Amended Ord. No. 93-11, 11 October 1993
217 EXHIBIT A
2. Single family residential lots are clustered or grouped in a
contiguous fashion, except in cases where such clusters ma,
disrupt agricultural activities as determined by the Citi
Council.
3. The quarter -quarter section or contiguous 40 acres from which
the development rights are transferred have frontage on a
public road.
4. Each quarter -quarter section or contiguous 40 acres shall
contain no more than one (1) cluster or grouping of single
family residential lots.
5. The cluster or grouping of single family residential lots does
not adversely affect the adjacent properties.
6. If a quarter -quarter section or contiguous 40 acres does not
have frontage on a public road,but is part of a larger parcel
which does have frontage on a public road, then the
residential development rights of said quarter -quarter section
or contiguous 40 acres may be transferred to the parcel which
has public road frontage.
7. A deed restriction shall be placed upon the quarter -quarter
section or contiguous 40 acres from which the development
rights have been transferred to prohibit additional
development.
8. The average density of one (1) dwelling unit per forty (40)
acres is maintained over the area affected by the transfer.
9. The purpose of allowing such transfers is to preserve
productive farmlands, and the Planning Commission shall
consider the effects and advisability of the transfer(s) on
the environment, the surrounding neighborhood and nearby farm
operations during its deliberation.
10. The single family residential lots are capable of
accommodating a private well and septic system.
11. The division is processed according to the City's Subdivision
Ordinance.
12. The provisions of Section 4.2.F of this Chapter are considered
and are determined to be satisfied.
** I. Personal wireless service towers and antennas not located on a
public structure as regulated by Section 33 of this Chapter.
** Amended Ord. No. 97-4, 24 February 1997
218
bu-rJa- l �y � u� � ebrrl
SGV Uam S.
Andrew I.
Michael E.
Megan M. .
F-hturl kaazwlll 6 Couri Law u ti lu .J7 70, I I . 1_0c_
RADZWILL & COURI
:Arthur Attorneys at Law
un 705 Central Avenue East
Donald PO Box 369 .
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
April 8, 1997`
Bob iz�mis ;
Seni r ;Planner
Nort west Associated Consultants, Inc.
5775 W3yiata Blvd.
Suit 555
St. ouis, Park, MPI 55416
RE eaioiandum To Otsego Planning CommissiOn— 106r 40 Density
ronsf ers
Dear Bqb:
At y ur request I have reviewed the draft memorandum to the Otsego
planniiig Commission dated April 8, 2997. Following' are my comments:
OPTI N;A. While I would not favor such reverse setbacks if they
woul .;po'tentially affect residential housing; outside of an
Agricultural zone, in this case, where there affect is contained
within the agricultural zone, I do not have as miiah of a problem
with it. -However, I do see the potential for problems related to
the rrepent definition of a feedlot, which includos all operations
over 10 animal units. Depending upon the distance;of the setbacks,
it m Y.sti11 be an easy matter to establish mini -subdivisions
within :the agricultural areas. I think that this approach would
less n compatibility problems, but would not necessarily eliminate
the Irdblem. of "urban" areas within an agricultural zone.
OPTI N B. While this approach does have some merit,• it appears that
it might decrease the number of larger clusters, but increase the
number of smaller clusters within the agriculturatlly zoned areas.
OPTI N C. While it would not hurt to establish better criteria and
defi iti.on for "preservation of productive farm land", it is
unclear to me how that would be done, especially in light of
commeints made by Council Member Berning when the -last development
of this type was brought before the Council. If production is
EXHIBIT B
f
7ti=igg'r -0U 01111 r -Mull Kaa w I i i 4. A_r-,
w
Lett r`to Bob Kirmis
April 8, 1997
Page 2,
depe dent upon a combination of soil type, access, topography,
previous use, �and yearly weather conditions, as I suspect it is, it
may be ;difficult to put this into a workable definition. or it may
be d fficult to create a definition that could be'properly applied
by a iy6ne who- was not themselves a farmer.
oPTI NSD. This appears to be a good method of separating clusters,
but Inot. eliminating them. However, this method may have the
pote tial of effectively denying some persons the ability to use
their development rights.
It would seem to me that if the objection to this clustering is
thatlit is simply out of character with agricultural zones then
plac ng a cap on such clusters would be the logical solution.
Howe�ek, if the objection is more to the negative affect of such
clus er's on existing farm uses, than the separ4tion or setback
meth ds would probably be the best solution to the problem.
If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter
please feel free to contact me.
Ve I 7y YOIXS,
w acSar
sWz covaY
cc: tity of Otsego
airy Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
TOTAL P.03
i
TOTAL P.03