06-04-97 PCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC V%Mor COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Bob Kirmis / David Licht
20 May 1997
Otsego - Sprint Spectrum Conditional Use Permit
176.02 - 97.07
Sprint Spectrum has requested a conditional use permit to allow the co -location of a
personal wireless service antenna upon a "non-public" structure. Specifically, the
applicants wish to co -locate a set of personal wireless service (cellular) antennas upon an
existing 260 foot high United Power Association (UPA) tower located in the southwest
corner of the City (6155 Kadler Avenue). The applicants intend to mount four antennas
upon the structure, two at 223 feet in height, one at 213 feet in height, and one at 203 feet
in height.
The subject site measures 4.0 acres in size and is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A:
Site Location
Exhibit B:
Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C:
Site Survey
Exhibit D:
Tower Elevation/Compound Plan
Exhibit E:
UPA Co -Location Letter
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55415
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837
Recommendation
Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of the requested
conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the existing
UPA tower can physically support the proposed cellular antenna installations.
2. The antennas be in compliance with all City building and electrical code
requirements.
3. The structural design, mounting and installatiorrof the antennas are in compliance
with manufacturer's specifications and verified and approved by a registered
professional engineer.
4. Written authorization is provided from the tower owner (UPA) to allow attachment
of the proposed cellular antennas. This issue should be subject to comment by the
City Attorney.
5. No advertising messages are affixed to the antennas or antenna support structure.
6. The antennas are not artificially illuminated unless required by law or by a
governmental agency to protect the public's health and safety.
7. If applicable, any required federal or state licenses are acquired.
8. The applicant demonstrate (via a coverage/interference analysis prepared by a
registered professional engineer) that the location of the antennas are necessary
to provide adequate personal wireless system coverage.
9. Outdoor storage, excepting materials determined by the City to be customary and
incidental to the use of the property, is prohibited.
10. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to property
access easement issues.
11. Comments of other City staff.
2
e�
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit. Applicable A-1 Zoning District provisions list "personal wireless
service towers and antennas not located on a public structure" as a conditional use. The
ordinance defines a "public structure" as:
An edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or
composed of parts joined together in some definite manner which is owned
or rented, and operated by a federal, state, or local government agency.
Because the structure to which the proposed antennas are to be attached does not
constitute a "public structure", the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary.
In consideration of conditional use permit requests, Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning
Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider 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.
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.
Co -Location. The area in which the antenna is to be located is characterized by a
number of tower structures. Specifically, a 250 foot WDAY tower lies + 400 feet to the
northeast of the UPA tower in question, while a recently approved 100 foot U.S. West
cellular lies + 600 feet to the northeast.
3
The City's antenna regulations have been specifically created to encourage co -location.
Co -location is considered preferable to new tower construction for obvious compatibility
reasons. Co -location also provides financial incentives to wireless service providers via
reduced capital investment and greater antenna height allowances (than new tower
construction).
Generally speaking, the co -location of the Sprint Spectrum antenna upon the existing UPA
tower and the grouping of antennas (and support structures) in a single location is
considered positive. The proposed antenna will not increase the impacts of pre-existing
antennas (and support structures) located in the area.
U.S. West Tower. In the Summer of 1996, the City granted a conditional use permit to
U.S. West to construct a 100 foot cellular antenna *tower near the subject site. In its
consideration of such request, the City required U.S. West to provide opportunity for future
co -location and to demonstrate that a "good faith" effort was made to co -locate upon the
proximate WDAY and UPA towers.
In response to such stipulation, U.S. West provided a letter from the UPA which indicated
that its tower could not support the proposed U.S. West antenna (see letter attached as
Exhibit E). This previous disclosure by UPA raises question as to either the structural
capabilities of the tower or accuracy of the statement.
As a condition of CUP approval, the applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer that the UPA tower can physically support the proposed Sprint Spectrum
antenna installations.
Performance Standards. In February of this year, the City amended the Zoning
Ordinance to establish specific standards for various antenna types including, but not
limited to, personal wireless service types such as proposed. This ordinance amendment
included numerous performance related requirements which are considered applicable to
the Sprint Spectrum proposal. These requirements are listed below and must be satisfied
as conditions of CUP approval:
1. The antenna be in compliance with all City building and electrical code
requirements and as applicable shall require related permits.
2. Structural design, mounting and installation of the antenna shall be in compliance
with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a
registered professional engineer.
3. Written authorization for the antenna erection is provided (from UPA).
4. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna structure.
0
5. The antenna shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by a
governmental agency to protect the public's health and safety.
6. If applicable, any required federal or state licenses are acquired.
7. The applicant demonstrate (via a coverage/interference analysis prepared by a
registered professional engineer) that the location of the antenna is necessary to
provide adequate personal wireless system coverage.
Antenna Height. According to the ordinance, an antenna mounted upon an existing
structure may not extend more than 15 feet above the structural height of the structure to
which it is attached. According to the submitted antenna/UPA tower elevation, the antenna
support structure measures 260 feet in height. In'accordance with applicable height
requirements, it is the intent of the applicants to mount antennas at heights of 223, 213
and 203 feet.
Equipment. In conjunction with the proposed antenna installation/attachments, a tower
"compound" measuring ± 260 square feet has been proposed. This "compound" is to
house a generator and conduit panel and is to be enclosed and secured by a fence
(similar to that which currently surrounds the tower base).
According to the ordinance, new equipment buildings necessary for transmitting, receiving
and switching equipment must be screened from view by landscaping where appropriate.
Considering that the "compound" is surrounded on all sides by agricultural uses and
screened from view of Kadler Avenue by the existing UPA tower base, landscaping for
purposes of visual screening is not considered necessary. As a condition of CUP
approval, however, outdoor storage within the compound is to be prohibited excepting
materials determined by the City to be customary and incidental to the use of the property.
Site Access. The subject site is to be accessed via an existing ten foot wide ingress and
egress easement from Kadler Avenue. Issues relating to easement acceptability should
be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and City Attorney.
CONCLUSION
In consideration of a previous wireless service antenna request, question was raised as
to the ability of the UPA tower to physically support cellular antennas. Provided this
concern is resolved and a determination is made that such tower can support the proposed
co -location, our office would recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit
subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report.
5
pc: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Sprint Spectrum
m
x
CD
cn
m
r-
0
0
O
SITE
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATI
m z • j ;,
� � V
1• •1
Z �
/ 1
jig
_ _ — N�
—.._..—.._ ... .—. —. _ —. —-3fIN3A1/ a3laV�1 — - — — �
ea 1 / I\—.,- I �� f8 ■ e a ®� - I ! i 0 � �� I I ECd
ii
1 Vii � ' � // `/ '/' \ I ,. `� • b - ' g i y �+ I a
// \\ i< o "I a I i
J
y yXyX
/\ U�'
I / / �\�o`'q \ \ 't \ y \ \ •i is Jal I l 1 '-�"
'l I 1
I 1 1 t 1' I 1 S rc 1 l
s 1 °°°' EXHIBIT C — SITE SURVE
f—
rl� y,
00,
:
\u`A
®
\§.°
|S
k
w /|
IT,
cy.
um
�
.
|.
o
2
E
@
z
\
,}
-!e
2
„
}
�)
�!\
2
¥)i
!
|\
t]
I
EXHIBIT D - TOWERELEVAION/coMPOUNDP!
§
|
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
,lune 3, 1997
Elaine Beatty, Clerk
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: Sprint Spectrum CUP
Maar Elaine,
JU�I 51997
3601 Thurston Avenue
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427--+4ff- 0520
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. has reviewed submittal documents provided for the
above referenced CUP application. We offer the following. comments:
1. An existing 10' wide ingress and egress easement provides. access to the UPA
site. The site plan submittal indicates -that this easement is dedicated to UPA.
Documentation must be submitted to indicate that .UPA has the authority=to
transfer or lease this easement.. Ot ierwise, a . separate easement must --be
obtained by Sprint.
2. A typical roadway section is shown on the Plans, Sections; and Details Sheet--
The
heet:The plan set does not indicate where this road .is to -.be constructed. -The
section indicates that a .12' wide road will be -constructed. This will not fit
inside a 10' wide easement. Clarification is required on. this issue. -
3. Structural comments made by the Planner must be responded to by the
applicant. These issues should be referred to our office for comment.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
-lye v)I /Yj c)6
Kevin P. Kielb, PE
X
cc: Lawrence G. Koshak, PE
Elaine Beatty, Clerk
Bob Kirmis, NAC
Andy MacArthur, Attorney
ot2134.eb
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
A
James L. Goodin, Manager
Telec
Engineering
voice Mall/
Office:
6 2-241.2369 (UPA)
Voice Mail / Otflce: 812-241.2089
Fax No: 612-241-2388 or 2470
United Power Association
P.O. Box 800 . Elk River. MN 55330-0800 • (612) 441-3121
July 29, 1996
Kent Sticha
UA West New Vector Group, Inc.
2510 Mendelssohn Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Re: Collocation on tower near Albertville, Minnesota
Dear Kent,
This is a confirmation that the tower owned by United Power Association near Albertville,
Minnesota cannot support the additional antennas and coaxial cable for a cellular installation.
Accordingly, United Power Association is not interested in locating the US West antennas on the
tower.
Sincerely,
. James L. Goodin /
Manager
Telecommunications Engineering
JLG/pr
MYGROURTELCOWWI KcNTSDOC
Our File: JLGLtrBK
EXHIBIT E - UPA CO -LOCATION LETTER
I
MAY . 29. 1997 e: sew BLACK & VEATCH 35B 3397
Wzl� 14:11 TOWER TECHNOLOGY I NC -> BLACK E VEATCH
TOWER TEOMMOLOGY9 INC.
PAY 29, 1997
Cathie Tender Veen
cow ications Equipment specialirt8, Inc.
Three n Victoria Drive
LOGOS Sunanit, NO 6*006
Telephone: (916) 521,8242
Facsimile: (816) 525-9898
NO. 079 P.1/1
NO. 601 peel/ e1
C
�9
P.a soot »tee ,
KAN6At G1K M0. M1s
FM (M) 3"4W
Subject: united Power Tower, NK (Site 457) for Sprint Spectrum/Elack a Veatch
Dear Cathie,
We have reviewed the Sprint Spectrum drawings (Caaaede No. M9037.0157V1). rt is
our understanding that the antennas are to be mounted on staggered mounts at
203, 213, and 223 ft. l.nstead of the proposed 210 ft. level for all three
sectors.
it is our opinion that the change in loading heights will have little effect on
the structure and that the tower will be adequate for the proposed loading (See
Tower Technology, Inc. analysis dated !earth 6, 1997).
if you have any questions, :please let us know,
Siucerely,
TOWER TSCSNQL,OGY, nNC .
George E. Kouba, P.S.
Senior project Engineer
Post -IV Fax Note 7671
oat* S Zs}g7
pea I
To ay
From
COJDGpL SP�C1wrT
co.
Phone M
Pt=6 M
Fax 0
Fax 0
cc: /{'#az/S`
CC: Robert Wilson a Black.& Veatch - Facsimile 459-2888
** TOWER TECHNOLOGY, INC. **
** P.O. BOX 11538 *#
** KANSAS CITY, MO 64138 **
** TEL. (816) 358-0003 **
R&ice.. dEu
BLACK & VWCH
TOWER ANALYSIS MAR 10 1997
DATE: MARCH 6, 1997
FOR: SPRINT SPECTRUM (CES)
SITE: UNITED POWER, MN (-457V1)--
HEIGHT: 260 FT.
TOWER TYPE: ADVANCE MODEL 333 GUYED TOWER
STRUCT. WIND: TIA/EIA-222-F ® 80 MPH WITH & W/O 1/2" RADIAL ICE
RIGID WIND: TIA/EIA-222-F Q 80 MPH WITHOUT ICE
EQUIPMENT DATA
DIAMETER
TYPE
CENTERLINE
AZIMUTH
WAVEGUIDE
N/A
10' WHIP
258 FT.
(BASE)
N/A
1 5/8" COAX
8 FT.
STANDARD
256
FT.
59 DEG.
7/8" COAX
8 FT.
STANDARD W/RADOME
256
FT.
215 DEG.
EW63
8 FT.
STANDARD
240
FT.
215 DEG.
7/8" COAX
N/A
UHF
228
FT.
N/A
1/2" COAX
N/A
* (12) AP17-1900
210
FT.
3 DIR.
(12) 1 5/8" COAX
* - PROPOSED SPRINT SPECTRUM ANTENNAS AND MOUNTS
WITH COAX INSTALLED BACK TO BACK
I hereby certify that this plan, speai
fication, or report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I Sm
a duly Registered Professional Engineer under
the laws o: the Mate of M:n_nesota.
f
Date
Reg stration o 2 Z
I*#
Tower Technology, Inc. Analysis Report
For: Sprint Spectrum (CES)
Site: United Power, MN (457V1)
March 6, 1997
Commentary
This tower was previously analyzed by Tower Technology, Inc. on June 13, 1996
and August 1, 1996 at which time no structural modifications were required.
This analysis includes a change in the proposed Sprint Spectrum mounting height.
This is an existing 260 ft. Advance Industries Model 333 -guyed tower. The mast
structure is three sided with guy wires supporting it in three directions
separated by 120 degrees. The mast consists of reformed 60 degree angle legs
and single angle diagonals in single laced and X -braced bracing configurations.
The bracing bay heights are approximately 48 and 24 inches for the single laced
and the X -braced bays respectively. The face width of the tower is 44 inches
from centerline to centerline of the legs. The yield strength of the legs is
50 KSI with the bracing members being 36 KSI.
The existing tower member information was obtained from a site inspection by
Tower Technology (TTI) and Communication Equipment Specialists (CES) and from
the original Advance Industries drawing number 25A2421C dated October 10, 1976.
Refer to Sketch #1 for the existing tower and proposed antenna configuration.
This analysis assumes that the tower steel is in its original state with no
deterioration due to weather or field modification.
A "K" factor of 1.0 will be used to calculate the allowable load for the leg
members as specified by EIA.
Wind Loading
The tower was analyzed utilizing the current Electronic Industries Association's
(EIA's) specification TIA/EIA-222-F with a structural basic wind speed of 80 mph
at the 33 ft. level with and without 1/2" of radial ice (EIA allows a 25 percent
reduction in the thrust load when ice is considered as a concurrent load). This
analysis assumes the wind blowing from three different directions (i.e., apex
wind, face wind, and wind parallel to a face). The wind and ice loading was
approved by United Power's engineer Carl R. Stapp of Lockard & White for the
previous analysis.
The structural wind loading without ice will be used for the rigidity analysis.
Tower Loading
The previous antenna loading was utilized for this analysis with the change
in Sprint Spectrum mounting height provided by CES. The analyzed antenna
1&1
United Power, MN (457V1) Report Continued -1- March 6, 1997
configuration and transmission lines are restated on the title sheet of this
analysis. The proposed Sprint Spectrum transmission lines must be installed
back to back on one tower face.
Tower Analysis and Results
The tower was analyzed as shown in Sketch #1 with the proposed antenna and
transmission line configuration. The results indicate no structural member
overstressing.
The foundations were analyzed assuming EIA "normal" soil parameters. The
foundations were found to be adequate for the proposed loading.
The tower meets the EIA rigidity requirements.
Recommendations
No structural modifications are required to meet the TIA/EIA-222-F specification
with a basic wind speed of 80 mph with and without 1/2" of radial ice for the
proposed antenna loading. The proposed Sprint Spectrum transmission lines are
to be installed back to back on one tower face.
I*#
a -
Y I40
P h
m ILO
ri x
M
f` loo
go
Lo
40
z-17
C%.sreoRwaz (457 VI MN
ZC.o' Rou �.vcE 3 3 3
.So2��rsi�e.rtur( (C.E.S.�
s/e nco.•x I
ST�NC42o c= u!i' `'144
_..._0' 6r,*..*o4A'0 ?.ao IS ZSce__ "IALl =
I , TefLQI..l� Sr4
8'Sr.4.voA20 e L40' '�/i�� =
aA4F L° ZZ 6' I/L" mod x 1
6?-) 4pr?-t9oa c zrc' �GL� ,si�'�4�
Gvy Q /'S'7' '/ /?-
6,
/L
6, -e c 99 ' `'/ I/L" --;.Is
G"'e «e -4s ' w/ I/L"CA4.s
.I
c
M Q
� C V
V r_l J
OWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Zoe
S.�crci, sF I
P.O. BOX 11538
KANSAS CITY, MO 64138
(816)358-0403
FAX: (8 16) 358-3397
J`CI
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis / David Licht
DATE: 27 May 1997
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance - Driveway Surfacing Requirements
FILE NO: 176.08 - 97.06
At the 12 May meeting of the City Council, staff was instructed to prepare an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance which would omit a driveway upgrade requirement currently
applicable to detached residential uses in the R-3 Zoning Districts which lie within plats
approved prior to 1 January 1992.
According to Section 20-22-4.1-1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, any residential use (within an
R-3 District and in plats of five or more lots) which undertakes an improvement requiring
a building permit and the value of such improvement exceeds two thousand five hundred
($2,500) dollars is required to upgrade the driveway and parking areas to meet surfacing
standards for new construction. Specifically, existing graveled driveways must be
upgraded to be surfaced in asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick. Uses which
front upon graveled public streets are, however, exempt from this requirement.
The intent of the existing surfacing requirement is to provide a mechanism to implement
the eventual "upgrade" of properties to "neve" subdivision standards. This requirement was
specifically discussed and endorsed by the Town Board/City Council as part of the Zoning
Ordinance's initial adoption and reflects the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Our
office's professional opinion is that the current language should be retained as it is a
means and mechanism to enhance the quality and value of residential properties in the
City.
As you are likely aware, numerous, and possibly the majority of single family residential
subdivisions within the City (platted prior to 1 January 1992) currently have driveways
surfaced in gravel and front upon hard surfaced (asphalt) streets.
5775 WAYZATA BO'JI-EVARD. SUITE 555 ST LOUD PARK. MINNESOTA 55416
PHI -)NE 61 2-5959636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9637
Technically speaking, any building permit issued to such properties in excess of $2,500
must include as a condition of permit issuance that driveway surfacing be upgraded to
asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick. This requirement could thus potentially
apply to applications for the following:
- Home Additions
- Accessory Buildings
- Porches
- Septic Systems
- Fences
- Interior Remodeling
- Swimming Pools
As a matter of standard City practice, this requirement has not been enforced. Staff has
raised concern that the $2,500 permit requirement may be excessively low and may in fact
discourage property improvements.
According to a representative of Pioneer Blacktop of St. Michael, a two inch overlay of
asphalt will cost between $1.20 to $2.00 a square foot depending on soil conditions. Thus,
an overlay of a 1,000 square foot gravel driveway could be expected to cost between
$1,200 and $2,000.
As previously indicated, this matter was discussed informally at the 12 May City Council
meeting. In considering this issue and the recommendation of the City Building Official,
the Council has "suggested" that the existing driveway upgrade requirement be omitted
from the Ordinance. The attached draft amendment reflects this Council directive. The
amendment does, however, include a provision that if a property owner undertakes an
improvement which includes the expansion of an existing driveway or construction of a
new driveway, such driveway must be surfaced in asphalt, concrete, cobblestone, or
paving brick.
Please be advised that the Planning Commission certainly has the right to dispute the
informal "suggestion" of the City Council in this matter and offer recommendation as to its
preferred or alternative means of driveway surfacing regulation.
This item is scheduled for public hearing on 4 June.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Jerry Olson
Otsego Mayor and City Council
K
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 97 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 22-12 OF THE OTSEGO ZONING ORDINANCE
REGARDING DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA SURFACING REQUIREMENTS FOR
DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN R-3 ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE CITY OF OTSEGO ORDAINS: '
Section 1. Section 20-22-4.H.12.b of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance (parking area
surfacing requirements for single family uses) is hereby amended to read as follows:
b. Detached single family residential uses in the R-3 Zoning District and in all
residential plats of five lots or more:
(1) In any plats approved after 1 January 1992, all detached single family
residential uses shall have driveways and parking stalls surfaced with
asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick.
(2) In any plat approved prior to 1 January 1992,
(a) Except as provided in Subsection 12.b.2.b below, any
residential use shall at minimum have driveways and parking
areas surfaced with material suitable to control dust and
drainage.
(3) Any detached single family residential use fronting on a public street
which is gravel shall be exempt from Subsection 12.b.1. and
Subsection 12.b.2.b.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of 1997.
ATTEST:
M
CITY OF OTSEGO
0
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
2
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis / David Licht
DATE: 27 May 1997
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance - Driveway Surfacing Requirements
FILE NO: 176.08 - 97.06
At the 12 May meeting of the City Council, staff was instructed to prepare an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance which would omit a driveway upgrade requirement currently
applicable to detached residential uses in the R-3 Zoning Districts which lie within plats
approved prior to 1 January 1992.
According to Section 20-22-4.H.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, any residential use (within an
R-3 District and in plats of five or more lots) which undertakes an improvement requiring
a building permit and the value of such improvement exceeds two thousand five hundred
($2,500) dollars is required to upgrade the driveway and parking areas to meet surfacing
standards for new construction. Specifically, existing graveled driveways must be
upgraded to be surfaced in asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick. Uses which
front upon graveled public streets are, however, exempt from this requirement.
The intent of the existing surfacing requirement is to provide a mechanism to implement
the eventual "upgrade" of properties to "new" subdivision standards. This requirement was
specifically discussed and endorsed by the Town Board/City Council as part of the Zoning
Ordinance's initial adoption and reflects the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Our
office's professional opinion is that the current language should be retained as it is a
means and mechanism to enhance the quality and value of residential properties in the
City.
As you are likely aware, numerous, and possibly the majority of single family residential
subdivisions within the City (platted prior to 1 January 1992) currently have driveways
surfaced in gravel and front upon hard surfaced (asphalt) streets.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 6
PH')NE 6 1 2-5959636 FAX 61 2-595-9837
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 97
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 22-12 OF THE OTSEGO ZONING ORDINANCE
REGARDING DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA SURFACING REQUIREMENTS FOR
DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN R-3 ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE CITY OF OTSEGO ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-22-4.H.12.b of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance (parking area
surfacing requirements for single family uses) is hereby amended to read as follows:
b. Detached single family residential uses in the R-3 Zoning District and in all
residential plats of five lots or more:
(1) In any plats approved after 1 January 1992, all detached single family
residential uses shall have driveways and parking stalls surfaced with
asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick.
(2) In any plat approved prior to 1 January 1992,
(a) Except as provided in Subsection 12.b.2.b below, any
residential use shall at minimum have driveways and parking
areas surfaced with material suitable to control dust and
drainage.
E} Any residential use which undertakes an irnproernent which
includes the physical expansion of an existing driveway or
parking area, or the construction of a new driveway or parking
area shall be required to upgrade all such areas in compliance
with the surfacing requirements of Sub.section.12.b.(1) above.
(3) Any detached single family residential use fronting on a public street
which is gravel shall be exempt from Subsection 12.b.1. and
Subsection 12.b.2.b.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Larry Fournier, Mayor
ATTEST:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
2
1997.