06-18-97 PCN WAA r1w* NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: 28 May 1997
RE: Otsego - DeWitt Accessory Building CUP
FILE NO: 176.02 - 97.08
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Kenneth and Janet DeWitt have requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow
the construction of more than one detached accessory structure upon their 1.0 acre
property located east of Palmgren Avenue between 85th and 88th Streets. Specifically,
the applicants wish to construct a 1,008 square foot (28 feet by 36 feet) detached
accessory building approximately 20 feet to the west of their single family residence. The
proposed accessory building is to include a 728 square foot two stall garage and 28
square foot "patio" area.
Presently, a 160 square foot detached accessory storage building exists in the applicant's
rear yard.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - Site Plan
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837
Recommendation
Based upon City policy and regulations, our office recommends approval of a conditional
use permit to allow more than one detached accessory building associated with a single
family residential use subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed accessory building is not used for home occupation/commercial
related activities or the keeping of animals.
2. The proposed accessory building match the principal building in color.
3. The applicant pursue one of the following options to rectify the proposed non-
conforming front yard setback:
a. Shift the accessory building as currently designed five feet to the southeast.
b. Redesign the accessory building such that the patio component does not lie
within the subject property's front yard.
C. Revise the design of the patio such that it may qualify as a setback
exception (i.e., remove roof element).
4. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to the proposed
driveway width expansion.
5. The site's driveway is surfaced in asphalt, cobblestone or paving brick in
accordance with ordinance requirements.
6. A building elevation is submitted which demonstrates compliance with City building
height requirements.
7. The applicant recognize that future sanitary sewer service to the property and
implementation of the resubdivision plan could necessitate relocation or removal
of the proposed detached accessory structure.
8. The applicant consider utilizing a roof design and pitch upon the proposed
accessory building which is similar to that used upon the site's principal building.
9. Comments from other City staff.
2
ISSUES ANALYSIS
CUP Review Criteria. As noted previously, the applicant has requested a conditional use
permit to allow more than one detached (or second) accessory building upon his property.
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:
There is a demonstrated need and potential for continued use of the structure and
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 facility.
3. The building has an evident re -use or function related to the principal use.
4. The 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 204-2.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.
C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein
(i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.)
d. The proposed use's effect 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.
Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets
serving the property.
3
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.
Existing Accessory Storage Space. Currently approximately 748 square feet of
accessory storage space exists upon the subject property as summarized below:
Square Footage
Existing Attached Garage 588
(28 feet by 21 feet)
Detached Accessory Building 160
(16 feet by 10 feet)
748
Including the proposed 1,008 square foot accessory building, approximately 1,756 square
feet of accessory storage space would exist upon the subject property.
According to the Wright County Assessor, the subject site's principal residence includes
1,012 square feet of living space. It should be recognized that the amount of proposed
accessory storage space will significantly exceed the size of the applicant's dwelling.
Building Use. The CUP review criteria states that there should be a demonstrated need
for the continued use of the structure for the stated purpose. The proposed garage is to
be used for the storage of the applicant's personal equipment. As such, there appears to
be a demonstrated need for the continued use of the structure. In accordance with
ordinance requirements, the structure may not be used for home occupation and/or
commercial related activities or the keeping of animals.
Building Type. According to Section 20-16-4.g of the Zoning Ordinance, the same or
suitable quality exterior building materials (as determined by the Building Inspector) shall
be used in all accessory buildings over 150 square feet as the principal building. The
applicant has not specified finish materials of the proposed detached accessory building.
As a condition of CUP approval, a finding should be made by the City Building Inspector
that exterior building materials comply with applicable ordinance requirements.
To ensure structure compatibility, it is recommended that the proposed accessory building
match the principal building in color.
V
Setbacks. Section 20-16-4.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that no accessory building
shall be allowed within a required front yard (35 feet from Street right-of-way). With the
exception of a garage, the Ordinance further states that no accessory building may be
placed within a front yard (45 feet from street right-of-way). According to the submitted site
plan, the proposed detached accessory building is to lie 40 feet from the Palmgren Avenue
right-of-way. The acceptability of the proposed structure location is dependent upon
whether the proposed patio is determined to be a structure in and of itself (other than a
garage) or simply a sidewalk or stoop.
Section 20-17-5.A of the ordinance establishes allowable encroachments on yard setback
requirements. Specifically, the ordinance lists the following as an allowable
encroachment:
Walks or steps for negotiating ground slopes, retaining walls, uncovered
porches, decks, stoops, hedges and natural growth, paved terraces; paved
areas or similar features provided they do not extend above the height of the
ground floor level of the principal structure or not more than a distance of
three (3) feet into any required yard except a rear yard.
According to the applicant, the garage's roof is to extend over that portion of the structure
identified as a "patio". Thus, it technically does not qualify as a setback exception. As a
condition of CUP approval, one of the following options should be pursued to rectify this
setback concern:
1. The accessory building as currently designed is shifted five feet to the southeast
(such that patio does not lie in the front yard).
2. The accessory building is redesigned such that the patio component does not lie
within the lots's front yard (45 feet from the Palmgren Avenue right-of-way). In this
regard, the patio could be simply relocated from the front yard to the rear yard
3. The patio design is revised such that it qualifies as a setback exception. This
would, however, require the omission of the patio's roof element.
As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed accessory building would overlay a
future side lot line as illustrated upon the resubdivision plan. According to the City
Building Official, it is acceptable to allow such building placements provided that the
property owner/applicant understand the ramifications of such building placement.
In this regard, the applicant should recognize that future sanitary sewer service to the
property and implementation of the resubdivision plan could necessitate relocation or
removal of the proposed detached accessory structure.
5
Access. According to the submitted site plan, the subject site is currently accessed via
a single ± 13 foot wide curb cut from Palmgren Avenue. The site plan illustrates an
expansion of the curb cut width to ± 18 feet. Such expansion would provide more
convenient vehicular access to the proposed accessory building. The acceptability of such
curb cut expansion and impact onsite drainage (via culvert modification) should be subject
to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
Driveway Surfacing. As a condition of CUP approval, the subject property's driveway
should be surfaced in asphalt, cobblestone or paving brick in accordance with ordinance
requirements.
Building Height. According to Section 20-16-4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, an accessory
building within an R-3 zoning district may not exceed 16 feet in height except via
conditional use permit. As a condition of CUP approval, a building elevation should be
submitted which demonstrates compliance with the maximum height standard.
Compatibility. According to CUP evaluation criteria, the proposed use must be judged
compatible with surrounding uses. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed
accessory building is to lie ± 65 feet from the subject site's southern property line.
Considering that this setback is more than six times that required by ordinance (minimum
10 foot setback required), the proposed use is considered compatible with the area in
which it is proposed. To ensure compatibility with the site's principal building, it has been
previously recommended that the accessory building match the existing residence in color.
Considering the visibility of the proposed accessory building, it is further recommended
that the applicant consider a roof design (i.e., gable or hip) and pitch similar to that used
upon the principal building.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding review and in consideration of City policy and regulations, our
office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the
stipulations listed in the Executive Summary of this report.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Jerry Olson
Kenneth and Janet DeWitt
N.
M
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATI(
J
g �-p„o �lao�o Iaoeo W NJ
11071-:10�0 R1 7 d 10 y=90thSTREETi'�'-
2
13w w2/a 0
s,"O 1„001„.o
1615 . 1 m-
�oo
2 amu"
9 /222202 R
W7 —"
13,00
10
µt,e
12 .ea aw z
p+� Q
88th
4
p000 #22.2203
/3aa l 4
A
R
2
R
l,ax
R
4 pa -0
l,ew1
BARTHEL
l+�
1
ACRES
-9011
-
(,a0 A 1,on R
8 73
A flaw
�d
flow R
5
N. E. 87th STRE E I
N.E. 85th ST.
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIC
N. E. 89th STREET
�3w70
p°J0 3 es3o-aa
3 2� 31,dw
1x,70 -
-
d 5
8 7
5
E 5,
2
Qpolo
5 4 3 R 13
8 7 d b 2
Iaoea
I!LL
1 �eat�w
11
1 ,090 1
3 9741 -M
(130 naaw i
88th ST
T.
FM
po,w I°cxo R
s
7
N. E. 87th STRE E I
N.E. 85th ST.
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIC
o
pow d X791-30
1x,70 -
-
12
5
#048
,
fz„w
Iaoea
4
11
2
3 9741 -M
FM
9
7
8
rAcw
2
)*too
v,o 3010
5j
§
R
b
f=,a
1 ntsx
N. E. 87th STRE E I
N.E. 85th ST.
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIC
cTj �y-
T/<
¢`v �b t •94-'
\ \3\ I
/ t U
�' �
1,6
1-4+-
50
.4•?6 . � �Py� fncV-1
i
Gam„! 9
8j 9 �F-,.•
'.90v 10
\ �� _ ` �/ Ems• d � �3..
V
D
\5•��
Lot 13, Block 4, COLMRY RIDGE
EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 29 1997 - 8PM
*AGENDA*
1. Chair Carl Swenson will call meeting to order
ROLL CALL
2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of :
A. June 18th, 1997
3. HEARLNG initiated by Otsego Mayor and Council and Planning Commission
request as follows:
A. Consider an Amendment to Otsego's Zoning Ordinance
Section 20-19 regarding processing requirements for
building relocations.
4. Any other Planning Commission Business
5. Adjourn
PLEASE NOTE• NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING IS JULY 161H, 1997 (WEDNESDAY) AT 8PM