Loading...
09-17-97 PCOtsego: City Council Otsego, MN 55.330 Members of the Council 11 September 1997 It is with some�sadness that I ask to resign from the position of Alternate to the Planning Commission for the City of Otsego. I have accepted a position in Grand Junction, Colorado, which will require relocating there by the middle of September 1997. I have'very mulch enjoyed the opportunity to serve and to learn as a member of the �ornmission, and to be involved in the City's growth. I appreciate your trust its me in appointing me to this position. It has been a good experience working with all of the City Staff and other Commission members. With this experience, I am ever more interested in becoming involved inmy future location with the City and it's functioning. Thanks forthe `time and opportunities here. Sincerely, William M Jones TOTAL P.01 SEP -10-1997 ae:44 NA,C 612 595 9e57 P.02/08 Il MEMORANDUM To: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis 10 September 1997 i Otsego - Mississippi Riverwood CUP 176.02 - 97.12 J LTANTS RESEARCH On 3 September, staff met with representatives of Mississippi Riverwood to discuss various questions and concerns associated with recommendations contained within our office's 29 July planning report. As you are aware, the applicants had previously requested a continuance of the original 20 August public hearing (associated with their CUP'request) to the 17 September meeting to allow such a staff meeting to take place. In reference to the conditions of the 29 July report, the following changes, as suggested by the applicant, are agreeable to staff: 1. Terminology. The applicants have requested that references to terms "campers" and "camp sites" be changed to "recreational vehicles" and "recreational vehicle sites'°. The applicants consider Mississippi Riverwood a "resort area" and feel that the "camp site" references detract from the character of the facility. Staff believes the suggested change in terminology will not alter the effect of the recommendations. 2. Storage Plan Review. Condition 4.E of the 29 July report states that a plan must be submitted which identifies the elevation of individual camp sites and the boundaries of the proposed storage areas. �t is further stipulated that such plan is to be subject to review and approval by tpe City Council. The applicants have suggested that the City Engineer (rather thn the City Council) be responsible for such review and approval. Staff is agreeaille to this change. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 e PHONE 6 1 2.595-9636 FIX 6 t 2-59S-9837 3. Permit Revocation. Condition 4.17 states that any violation of the off-season storage plan will result in immediate permit revocation. Recognizing that the City's Zoning Ordinance has a standardized set of CUP cancellation and enforcement requirements which remain applicable (Sections 20-4-6 and 20-8-1), the applicants request that this condition be omitted is agreeable. 4. Floodplain Requirements, The City's floodplain regulations state that travel trailerslvehicies located in the floodplain must have current. licenses required for highway use (condition 7.A of NAC report). The applicants have indicated that not all their °recreational vehicles" can be licensed because they exceed a certain width. As a result, the applicants have requested that this condition be omitted from the planning report. Acknowledging that the Aforementioned licensing requirements are basically State standards established in the State's model floodplain ordinance, contact was made with Mr. Larry Kramka, Otsego's DNR representative. Considering that Mississippi Riverwood Resort includes areas out of the 100 year floodplain, Mr. Kramka suggested that any "non -licensable„ trailers be located in non -floodplain areas of the site, thereby being exempt from the floodplain standard and the licensing condition. Thus, no change to this condition is recommended by staff. Also to be noted is that omission of the condition would require the processing of a variance and demonstration of unique, non -economic hardship which may be difficult. 5. Prospectus. The applicants have requested that condition 9 regarding the contents of the resort's prospectus be deleted. Considering that the contents of the prospectus are essentially a private matter and that the CUP requirements will be imposed regardless, the City Attomey has indicated that the omission of the condition would not compromise effects of the permit and would be acceptable. 6. Accessory Buildings. Condition 10 of e 29 July report states that existing permanent accessory structures or fences, associated with individual camp sites must be removed. The applicants have indicated that because no permanent structures currently exist upon the individual camp sites, the condition is a moot point. Provided that the balance languagj of the condition be retained (that no permanent structures may be constructed on the camp sites) and that the absence of accessory structures is verified, staff ha" no problem deleting the reference to existing structures. 7. Vegetative Cutting. Condition 12 of the report states that no cutting of trees in excess of four inches in diameter (at the four foot height level) within 100 feet of the Mississippi River's OHVVM. The applicants have expressed question whether this requirement applies to damaged or dead trees. Section 70-74.10.0 of the Ordinance stipulates that the aforementioned requirement does not apply to the E SEP -10-1797 Oe:45 NAC 612 595 9e37 P.04/ce removal of diseased or insect -infested trees or the removal of trees that present safety hazards. To further clarify this condition, it is recommended that the following language be added to condition 12: as regulated by Section 20-74-10 of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance. For reference purposes, we have attached a revised set of conditions which incorporates the preceding modifications. As you are aware, this item is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on 17 September. PC: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Kevin Kielb Larry Kramka, DNR William Pribble Mississippi Riverwood Associates fnc. 3 SEP -10-1997 REVISED CONDITIONS 1. The applicant submit a site survey indicating the location of all existing structures and/or buildings. 2. Expansion of the site through the provision of additional e r'e�fi.�. veic 9 P camp E .. gr- nfl sites, building additions, or construction of new structures shall require approval of a CUP amendment. 3. Any expansion of the site shall require conformance to all applicable performance provisions of the A-1 District, Wild and Scenic Overlay District, and Floodplain Overlay District_ 4. The City Council impose one of the following options as a condition of CUP amendment approval. OPTION A. All ` -`- - -`` ts and related -a��ers r��r'eatcrr�akv�hi�'�e�,�x���wu,.B,r, equipment shall be removed from the site no later than 1 November of each year. Occupancy of the property shall not resume until the water level drops below. 855 foot elevation in the Spring of each year. or OPTION B. The following Off -Season Storage Plan shall be implemented and completed no later then 1 November of each year: A. Occupancy of the tamp F M 4_6` e -o i?k sites within the floodplain shall not occur prior to the water level dropping below 855 foot elevation in the Spring of each year. ` B. de',located on property below the 857 foot elevation will be removed from their lots and stored on higher ground within the park or taken to other storage areas outside the park. C. 3ei✓t%iaeFates to units that are located on land within elevations between 857 and 858 feet will disconnect all utilities and all blocking will be removed and units will be prepared for removal from their locations if necessary. Steel cables shall be attached to unit frames and secured to a tree over six inches in diameter, or a heavy duty ground anchor will be used. Cables shall have a simple way to be removed. D. Units on land above the 858 foot elevation will be disconnected from all utilities. They may remain on blocks, but be prepared for removal in all other ways. SEP -10-1997 oe:47 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06zoe E. The applicant will submit a detailed site plan indicating the elevation of each ea Tp ;_ {q V tt fie ter tailii site, indicate the earrrp tec ajkd' ue efs sites to which °A°, "B", and "C" above apply to and indicate the location of on-site storage areas, subject to review and approval of the City C — of -gnee�r. - ---- - - - -- a ---: - - - --. - -t1�t�fl�l:lt'+[tylia L�l�i�lll lata Jtl1l�l�>s:1:1O\�tt!\�1�1�1� N&i!. 5. The applicant submit an emergency evacuation plan for the entire property that includes the following elements: A. Identification of a flood emergency official responsible for monitoring water levels and initiating the emergency evacuation plan in the event of a flood. A record of the name, address and phone number of this individual will be maintained at City Hall. B. The identification of a business or individual responsible for evacuating the eajtls�i�:ts in the event of a flood. C. The identification of a site where the�' eefe�eainnal srei�ices�rr iris will be removed to, on site as well as off site, in the event of a flood. 6. A flood monitoring device shall be installed on the subject property. 7. 1 aeteesi"v located within the floodplain satisfy the following conditions. A violation of these conditions will require that . ,. within the floodplain conform u avc� u to all applicable provisions of Section 20-73 of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Have current licenses required for highway use. B. Are highway ready meaning on wheels or with an internal jacking system. C. Are attached to the site only with quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds, trailer parks, D. The ., >`at�o�taµvtesorz€rt�s does not have permanent structural type additions attached to it. E. The tra�re►}-tr�r{eri recredtioizai vehicje, t?t�;utt and use must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning use district. SEP -10-1997 08:47 NAC 612 595 9837 P.07/08 8. The construction of site improvements that exceed $1,000 in total cost, as determined by the Building Official, and that occur on the portion of the parcel within the floodplain shall result in the forfeit of the exemption from floodplain provisions for earrtptt$_Ga ef'ier l u it" iteand travel `- sI eh located in the floodplain. 9. No permanent accessory buildings, structures or fences shall be constructed in .......................................................... association with individual camp ri a#fo ab e_hides :ar units. Any existi� 10. The construction of or addition to accessory buildings or structures and fences shall require approval of a CUP amendment and the issuance of all applicable City permits. 11. No cutting of trees in excess of four inches in diameter at four feet high within 100 feet of the OHWM is allowed inthe Wild and Scenic District except by City permit, 12. Any additions or modifications to existing site signage shall be subject to applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and require approval of a CUP amendment. 13. Any additions or modifications to existing site lighting shall be subject to applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and require approval of a CUP amendment. 14. Any amendment to the existing conditional use permit shall be subject to the following conditions related to required MnDOT approvals: A. A MnDOT access permit is required for access to or across state highways or right-of-way, including MnDOT owned frontage roads. A change in intensity or type of use of an existing entrance also requires a permit. B. A MnDOT storm water drainage permit is required for any change in rate of runoff to trunk highway right-of-way, or any alteration of trunk highway storm water drainage systems. C. Any other use of or work within MnDOT right-of-way, including but not limited to grading, utility work, and landscaping shall require a permit. The permit necessary shall depend on the nature of the proposed work. -�-_ 1 KJ -177 i vv • .o rr-+l. b l e 595 9837 P. 08/e8 D, If property adjacent to MnDOT right-of-way is to be platted, the preliminary plat must be submitted to MnDOT for review along with site, grading and drainage plans. 15. The condition, maintenance and upgrade of the existing private sewer system shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 16. Comments of other City staff. TOTAL P.e8 .. � .. ... .. .:. �• .. �"i...l._-�.1 Y'�+�Y'�fJ �.; Ii V1��.1;;7)'��•' :'ice: �(. i. ..�../. Y. .� v.: .x : l ''�: . t: ' J'. �, 1,: � ... •r... `�.; fir.. ..1 �4Y.. M iflamn S. Radzwill Andrew J. AlacArthgr Michael C. Couri Megan ,nf. McDonald September 17, 1997 RAD VLLL & CO UR Anorneys as Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 st. midiael, MNS5376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2.599 (TAX) Planning Commission Members City of Otsego Elaine Beatty, City: Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, NR -T 55 30 I RE: Mississippi Rlv?erwood CUP Dear Commission �4embers: The last time thisnutter was before the Planning Commission it was tabled. Myself, Bob Kirmis, and Devin Kielb then met with the representatives of the applicants.and their attorney to d'i'scuss the proposed conditions of the CUP. A por4ion of the rrieeting wasspent explain$g where and why the various conditions came from and their'.purpose. We also went over the conditions and slightly modified some of them in light of further information recei4ed. Enclosed please fb�d correspondence received today from the Association'. s attorney relevant to the most recent NAC report. The only objection is to the inclusion of Option A. into revised Condition No. 4. I discussed this by phone with him today and indicated that the options wee presented to the Planning Commission through the Planner'. s report. The conditions decided upon are a decision that the Planning Commiss .on must .crake based upon 41 information received and the available options. The Association hs requested and agrees with Option B, as .revised. After our meeting and discussion of flus proposed Option B, it is my opinion that sand option satisfactorily addresses the concerns of the City in regards to seasonal storage and removal of units. • j i ZO'd �Z88Zbb 0i T1+0 mp1 c_'no0 3 IIIm'-p,2a Wdo1:20 L66ti-LL-60 Letter to Otsego Planning Commission September 17, 199' Wage 2 i Please feel free to contact me-if you have any questions or concerns.; Veryyours, i drew ac RAUZWYLL & COURI '• . Cc: William, C. Pribble, Jr., Esq. i Bob Kurus,14A.0 Kevin Kielb, lakanson Andersen Enclosure :. is £0'd EZ88T7b Ol T+.+o mg, 3 ano0 2 [ I ?mzP'Q8 WObd WdTT :£0 L66T-LT-60 s t7t:) * cl —'Idioi Tiniam Q. Pfibblc, Jr. tamcy At Lav September 16, 1997. is By FAX is U.S. MAIL 497-2599: Andrew J. MacArthur Radzwill & COurl 705 Central Ave. E. P. O. Box 369 St. Michael, MN'i55376 RE: Mississippi Riverwood CUP Dear Mr. MacArtfiur: This acknowledges' receipt of the revised recommendatlon'S Of Northwest Associated Consultants to the Planning COMIUssi6n via Bob d it generally conlormg to Our Kirmis. We reviewed it an I recollections, except t in one major 'area, Revised condition 4i. the; only lection that Option B as modif i0d; was It is our recol, . to be presented to! thel 3�la�=g condition for ',hait was .going A to the City Council.'- The- ;revised Commission for ecO=Gndation recomzendation as both of them back -in. I would like to have presented a united Front to the, Planning mt1t ifi commission for 6f,all the revised conditions, but WP cz I that that option is left in. Would you please verify with Bob whAheri is a change thae just forgot and call -6 Sincerely, William C. cc: mississipp• 'iV rwood Associates WCP'.St Mi 4'JJN %426 Offict- (612) 1(6S) 995-P1 InLcrdiaMp Tourer •600 Bout Vvay 169•&Ac 670 nnetpG t70'd 1=31N7 0i I I+ fo rne-1 trJoaj WJTT:20 2.66T -2,T-60 N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANT INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH 1 r4 �C PLANNING REPORT TO- FROM- DATE: O:FROM:DATE: RE: FILE NO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Bob Kirmis / David Licht 8 September 1997 Otsego - Rowe Accessory Building CUP 170.02 - 91 Guy and Evelyn Rowe wish to construct a 768 square foot detached accessory building (garage) upon their 1.2 acre property located south of 87th Street and west of O'Brian Avenue. To accommodate the applicant's request, approval of a conditional use permit to allow the following is necessary: 1. More than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use. 2. Total accessory storage space to exceed 2,000 square feet. A total of three accessory buildings currently exist upon the subject property. In conjunction with the requested CUP, the applicant is proposing to remove two dilapidated accessory buildings and retain only a 1,600 square foot pole building. The subject site is zoned R-2, Residential Immediate Urban Service -Large Lot. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Site Photographs Exhibit D - Site Plan 5775 `NAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 12.595-9535 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 Recommendation Based on the following review and in light of applicable City policy, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow: 1) more than one detached accessory building in association with a detached single family residential use; and 2) more than 2,000 square feet of accessory storage space. Approval of such conditional use permit is, however, recommended to be contingent upon the fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. Neither the proposed accessory structure or existing accessory structure is used for commercial or home occupation activities (unless specifically approved in accordance with City home extended business/home occupation requirements) or the keeping of animals 2. With the exception of the 40 foot by 40 foot pole building, all detached accessory structures are removed from the subject property no later than 1 November 1997. 3. The proposed accessory building and existing pole building match the principal building in color. 4. The height of the proposed accessory building not exceed 16 feet. Such height compliance shall be demonstrated via the submission of a building elevation. 5. Utility and drainage easements are provided as determined necessary by the City Engineer. 6. All recommendations of the City Engineer relating to site grading and drainage are satisfactorily met. 7. The City Attorney provide comment and recommendation in regard to issues associated with the location of a private driveway with the unimproved 87th Street right-of-way. 8. Comments of other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Conditions. Presently, a total of 1,800 square feet of accessory storage space currently exists upon the subject property. Such storage space is contained within a single 40 foot by 40 foot pole building which lies north of the subject site's principal building and two small storage sheds located along the property's southern lot line (not shown on site 2 plan). It is the applicants' intent to remove the two "small" sheds as they are currently in a dilapidated state. Including the proposed 768 square foot detached accessory building, a total of 2,368 square feet of accessory storage space would exist upon the subject property (acknowledging removal of the two small sheds). According to Section 20-16-4.6.d of the Zoning Ordinance, the total floor area of detached accessory buildings (associated with single family residential uses) shall not exceed 2,000 square feet except by conditional use permit. CUP Review Criteria. According to Section 20-16-4.1 of the City 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 r=esidential 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 no 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 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 Pian. 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 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. 3 f. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of street 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 continued use of the structure and the purpose stated. As mentioned previously, it is the intent of the applicants to remove two accessory storage sheds which presently exist upon the subject property and essentially "replace" lost accessory storage space with a new detached building. The proposed removal of the accessory buildings is considered positive as they are presently in a dilapidated state. The proposed accessory building will be used to store the applicant's personal equipment and vehicles. In this regard, it is the opinion of our office that there is a demonstrated need for the continued use of the proposed structure. As a condition of CUP approval, neither the proposed accessory structure or existing accessory structure (pole building) may be used for commercial or home occupation activities (unless specifically approved in accordance with City home extended business/ home occupation requirements or the keeping of animals. Building Materials. Exterior finish materials of the proposed accessory building have not been specified. According to the Section 20-16-4.G of the Zoning Ordinance, the same or suitable quality exterior finish building materials (as determined by the Building Inspector) shall be used in all accessory buildings over 150 square feet as in the principal building. To ensure compatibility, it is recommended that the proposed accessory building match the principal building in color. As shown on the submitted site plan and site photographs, an existing 40 by 40 foot pole building lies directly north of the site's principal building. While such building type is currently not allowed by Ordinance, the building holds legal grandfather rights. Considering the structure's visibility from O'Brian Avenue and appearance, it is recommended that the pole building also be painted to match the site's principal building in color. Setbacks. While 87th Street has not been improved, the north side of the subject site is technically a side yard which abuts a public right-of-way. Thus, a 35 foot setback from the north property line must be maintained (applicable to local streets in R-2 Zoning Districts). Section 20-16-4.B.5 of the Ordinance further states that accessory buildings (for detached single family uses) shall not be closer than 10 feet to any lot line. The submitted site plan (Exhibit D) illustrates a side yard setback of 35 feet and rear yard setback of + 130 feet for 0 the proposed accessory building. Thus, the proposed structure complies with applicable structure setback requirements. Site Access. As shown on the submitted site plan, the subject property is accessed via a private driveway which lies within the unimproved 87th Street right-of-way. The City Attorney should provide comment and recommendation in regard to liability issues associated with such driveway condition. Building Height. According to Section 20-16-4.F of the Ordinance, an accessory building within an R-2 Zoning District must not exceed 16 feet in height. As a condition of CUP approval, a building elevation should be submitted which demonstrates compliance with applicable building height requirements. Compatibility. According to CUP evaluation criteria, the proposed use must be judged to be compatible with surrounding uses. Considering that the proposed structure meets applicable setback requirements, lies in an area characterized by accessory buildings, and must meet applicable City building material requirements (as a condition of CUP approva!), the proposed structure is considered "compatible" with surrounding uses. Driveway. According to a recently adopted Ordinance amendment, driveways upon lots platted prior to 1 January 1992 must be surfaced with material suitable to control dust and drainage. Thus, any driveway used to access the proposed accessory building must be surfaced in compliance with Ordinance requirements. Easements. As a condition of CUP approval, the applicants should provide all utility easements as determined necessary by the City Engineer. Grading and Drainage. Grading and drainage issues shall be subject to review and recommendation by the City Engineer. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Elaine Beatty Jerry Olson Andrew MacArthur Kevin Kielb Guy and Evelyn Rowe 5 a y11 xb'Tz'&wo& q hwft 0% nr wou ON THE GREAT RNER ROAD ............ 1, I y11 xb'Tz'&wo& q hwft 0% nr wou ON THE GREAT RNER ROAD Ll :I- ' �Lp I •CM3 , !2n0 '•OOrt'C++ , I a 17 , a 3 • 3 1 -- 1 2 ! 1 =-. ) . loo• or <. �.�. a•�I., sr I .._.= I —,...' �, • � .__ — .acs XA ,a it; t::.; ,>>' ,.1 Fa' I I=•s I=•<. 2. 1 I a '141 ._ ^' • !moi a e i i 1 f a_ ' OTSEGO .+CRES•� f 'I • 1 at ACOtiION 31. + 2 ss ,7 j /,'.xx I Imam. I Im'm• f qf, m. 4 Im. m, t I=,•u ya..s f r.. I.i f i 13 3 12 :1 , 10 f• i�l •_ flfl IMaI Ns•.s I— ,a Otc 2 x; •- a a 7 a e r <? ,ra.m rv.• -lo ` i -r— I'vaw I I:•,•v I I p 23 a 2. i 10 "—.` ' 10 _ �o 4', is :: WI. :x . � 1: gj �x '-• � 1 I_•,c � l s�f.� „ E�1'..� ':.3. _— `x 1 0� '. • �;3 _ ' �� Yom' . \ r°s _- ,... l ,..`,' ! a ,.. a � ' Ia 20 ts« i • ii `FJ` a / •,2 `�« •Y "'. �e�Gt� , �..' ! w.,�,l .v�'..•'•10' I,. ' W •�a I ,.. •isO t ',a ,., I £ elal I,1017 �,�-�.� > n "„ eee" `" 2 i •:� ... is / ..af/3`; 7, C �i„ •u� EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATI' EXHIBIT C - SITE PHOTOGRAPH .N: I tJ Co J LQ i vi J u l ,. EXHIBIT D - SITE PLAN 4� 11 t� v m � �vl1 u l ,. EXHIBIT D - SITE PLAN •��!,�:4.:�r��\'..1.' .t(.: 'e:N. 1''7aP. �as. ais q�.t, r'. ri l: �: �Y;' � .. .... .. RiMwn S. RudzwW Andrew J. MacArthur: SfWh4d C. CvUri ; Megan M.. McDon4ld September 1d, .1997 RADZW7LL & COURI Anarneo at raw 705 Central Avenue E= PO Bax 369 &. Michael, MN55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FA;Q '. �.•;Lay'�^:far•!r.:j'Tari'r.*.4:.EK•�t�iT.IsM}�W.�j•: W,.. �..�.. Planning Conirmssion Members City of Otsego; c!o Elaine Beatty, Pty Clerk 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk Diver; MN. 55360. RE: Proposed Roe'CUP Dear. Planning Cornmission Members: I have been requested to comment upon a pending request for a conditional use permit Upon review of the planner's report it would appear that he has covered' all :relevant issues, but has requested tat I comment on the issue of access to the property. The report indicates that access to the property is presently across; a dedicated roadway which has never maintained by the City. Unfortunately, access through this route may result in potential City liability in the event of an accident or other oac'urrenee on the "driveway", due to �he previous dedication to the City. It also appears. that •it would not be in the City's best interest to vacate this stub roadway since it potentiallyprovides access to land to the west in the event of farther subdivision. Access would be better achieved through a direct outlet onto.a maintained street. If this access is to rem however, it is my recommendation that 'the owner sign a written document, in recdable form, releasing the City from liability for any . accident or occurrence along the "drivewaay", and acknowledging that such use iso allowed solely at the discretion of the City and that other access may have to be created if the City, for!whatever reason, determines to make use of the dedicated right-of-way. X0.1 �Z88Lbb Ol t}}0 mel c�no� 3 [(gym -pad LiOZl� W6LE:b© L66L-9L-60 Letter to. Otsego Planning Commission September 16, 1997 Page 2 . If you have any questi�hs regarding this rhatter please feel free to -contact me: V o • ewJ 1 +' RAD cc: Bob Khmis, NAC ' Kevin. Kielb, Hakan son Anderson ` -Guy and Evelyn Rowe: i ' 1111 f 1 I i. 20'd ZzseTvb 01 1,}}0 mv-1 1jno0 2 (jimzped WOb.j Wdzz:V0 L661-92-60