06-17-98 PCJUN -10-1998 14:53 NAC 612 595 9837 P.09i16
N
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht / David Licht
DATE: 10 June 1998
RE: Otsego - Lin -Bar PUD amendment
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 98.06
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
J LTANTS
RE5KARCH
Mr. Bill Christian on behalf of Lin -Bar Development Inc. has requested an amendment to
the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) regarding the requirement to provide five
flinch caliper trees per lot within Lin -Bar Estates 2nd Addition. The applicant claims that
the specified tree size are not recommended or guaranteed by nurseries and are difficult
to obtain. The applicant is proposing to amend the PUD to instead provide six 2" caliper
trees per lot within Lin -Bar Estates 2nd Addition, which the applicant states will address
their issues with providing 4" caliper trees. Amendments to established PUDs are subject
to the same procedures and criteria as the original PUD application.
Attached For Reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Letters from nurseries to applicant re: 4" Caliper trees
Recommendation
The requested amendment effects zoning standards applied within the established PUD
District. Decisions as to what performance standards are appropriate within the zoning
Districts established within the City of Otsego is a policy issue to be decided by City
Officials. Therefore, our office makes no specific recommendation regarding this
application.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 6
PHONE 612-59S-9636 FAX 612 -S95 -9x37 E-MAIL NAC@)WINTERNET.COM
JUN -10-1998 14:53 NAC 612 595 9837 P.10/16`
The Planning Commission and City Council have the following three options to consider
regarding the applicants request:
Approval. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council
approve the application subject to conditions as appropriate based upon the
following:
FINDING: The provision of six 2" caliper trees per lot of the variety specified in the
Development Contract will create an established neighborhood character and
encourage higher overall property values.
2. Denial. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may deny
the application based upon the following:
FINDING: The provision of six 2" caliper trees per lot of the variety specified in the
Development Contract is contrary to the intent of the PUD approved in 1996 as it
does not provided for an established neighborhood character and does not
represent a sufficient investment in lot improvements intended to encourage higher
property values.
3. Table. The Planning Commission or City Council may table action on the request
and direct the applicant to make changes to their request as appropriate to satisfy
the intent of the original PUD approval.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Intent of PUD. Section 20-36-1 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the purpose of
Planned Unit Developments is to allow for greater flexibility from strict Zoning Ordinance
provisions in order to encourage, in part, unique neighborhoods. Uniqueness may include
higher standards of site or building design and enhancement of desirable site
characteristics that would otherwise not be possible through the strict application of
development regulation provisions. As such, PUD flexibility is only to be granted when it
results in a superior development that is to the general benefit of the City
The City Council approved the PUD zoning of the subject site that allowed flexibility in
terms of Comprehensive Plan consistency with standard residential zoning, project density
and the desire to expand the range of housing in the community to include higher value
housing. The City Council, as a condition of approval, required that the developer provide
five 4" caliper trees of specified varieties on each lot within the subject site. The intent of
this requirement was to provide for a more established character for the neighborhood, as
well as a greater investment by the developer to encourage higher overall property values_
Planning Report - Lin -Bar PUD Amendment
Page 2
JUN -10-199e 14:54 NAC 612 595 9e37 P.11i16
Proposed amendment. The applicant is suggesting that it is problematic for them to
comply with the requirement to provide 4" caliper trees within the project. The applicant
has stated that this size tree is not recommended or guaranteed, as well as being difficult
to obtain from nurseries they have contacted. The nurseries that the applicant has
contacted recommend 2" caliper trees on the basis that they are heathier and will quickly
grow to a 4" caliper size.
Therefore, the applicant are proposing to provide six 2" caliper trees per lot in place of
providing five 4" caliper trees per lot. As this request is a zoning amendment, the Planning
Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed
amendment Their judgement is to be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors:
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.
In evaluating the requested PUD amendment, the Planning Commission and City Council
must make a determination if the installation of six 2" caliper trees satisfies the intent of
the original requirement, that is that six 2" caliper trees will result in a more established
neighborhood character and result in greater investment in lot improvements that
encourages higher property values.
Number of Trees.. The Development Contract specifies that five 4" caliper trees are to
be installed on each lot not already containing five trees. At the time of the original
application, the subject site was used as crop agriculture. At some point between
application and approval of the Development Contract, the developer transplanted trees
to the subject site. Based upon a site inspection, the majority of these trees are less than
4" caliper inch.
Planning Report - Lin -Bar PUD Amendment
Page 3
JUN -10-1998 14:55 NAC 612 595 9837 P.12i16
The applicant is requesting clarification as to whether these trees count towards the five
trees that must be provided per lot, or if five 4" caliper inch trees the number of trees to be
installed on each lot in addition to those already transplanted by the developer. It is the
interpretation of staff that the applicant must provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City
that these trees existed on the site prior to project approval in order to be counted towards
any landscaping requirements.
Planting Growth Rates. The applicant has provided statements from several nurseries
regarding the benefits of transplanting 2" caliper trees versus 4" caliper trees (Exhibit B).
According to a Landscape Designer of our office, 2" caliper trees do recover from
transplanting more quickly and would initially grow at a faster rate than 4" caliper trees,
because of less severe root disturbance during transplanting. However, 4" caliper trees
provide a more mature landscape character at the time of transplanting.
Cost of Improvements. With regards to the cost and availability of tree sizes, our office
contacted Bailey Nurseries and Bachmans. Bailey Nurseries does not sell 4" caliper trees,
and Bachman's sells a few of the varieties allowed by the Development Contract as 4"
caliper trees. Tree species that can be obtained according to Bachman's Wholesale
catalog in a 4" caliper size include linden, ash, and sugar maple. For these species the
4" caliper size is 230% more expensive than the 2" caliper size. Please note, the prices
outlined below are identified as Sring 1996 wholesale prices.
As illustrated above, the proposal to provide six 2" caliper trees per lot results less cost for
improvement per lot versus providing five 4" caliper trees. Based upon these figures, the
estimated minimum cost to satisfy the landscaping requirement for the 34 lot subdivision
would be approximately $45,220. The proposed amendment to the landscaping
requirement, based upon a comparison with tree species where both 2" and 4" caliper
sizes are available, would have a total estimated cost of at least $23,460 for 34 lots. As
such, the proposal to provide six 2" caliper trees may cost as much as an estimated
$21,760 less than providing five 4" caliper trees.
Warranty. The above referenced 4" caliper trees from Bachman"s are under no warranty
after transplanting. However, the Development Contract includes a requirement that the
applicant must post a $1,000 cash escrow at the time a building permit is issued for each
Planning Report - Lin -Bar PUD Amendment
Page 4
Cost per Plant
Plantings Per Lot Cost
Difference
4" Caliper
2" Caliper
As Required
4" 5/12t
As Proposed
" llot
Ash
$266
$115
$1,330
$690
$640
Linden
$318
$138
$1,590
$828
$762
Sugar Maple
$350
$152
$1,750
$912
$838
Source: Bachman's Nursery Wholesale Center
As illustrated above, the proposal to provide six 2" caliper trees per lot results less cost for
improvement per lot versus providing five 4" caliper trees. Based upon these figures, the
estimated minimum cost to satisfy the landscaping requirement for the 34 lot subdivision
would be approximately $45,220. The proposed amendment to the landscaping
requirement, based upon a comparison with tree species where both 2" and 4" caliper
sizes are available, would have a total estimated cost of at least $23,460 for 34 lots. As
such, the proposal to provide six 2" caliper trees may cost as much as an estimated
$21,760 less than providing five 4" caliper trees.
Warranty. The above referenced 4" caliper trees from Bachman"s are under no warranty
after transplanting. However, the Development Contract includes a requirement that the
applicant must post a $1,000 cash escrow at the time a building permit is issued for each
Planning Report - Lin -Bar PUD Amendment
Page 4
JUN -10-1998 14:55 NAC
612 595 9837 P.13i16
individual lot to guarantee compliance with the landscaping requirements. As outlined
above, this escrow would not cover the cost of providing all of the required landscaping
on an individual lot. The Development Contact requires that the developer post
appropriate guarantees to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. Therefore,
from the City's perspective, the Developer is held accountable for the warranty of
plantings. Whether the vendor offers a warranty with the planting materials is an issue of
the developer.
Alternative Improvements. If the Planning Commission and City Council are inclined to
agree that providing 2" caliper trees versus 4" caliper trees is more appropriate due to
concerns about transplanting the trees, but not satisfied that the proposed amendment
satisfies the intent of the PUD to achieve a superior development, alternative
improvements may be considered. Options for alternative improvements that the
developer could provide may include:
Providing other landscaping materials (i.e., bushes, perennials, etc.) equal to a
specific dollar amount per lot.
Providing for additional park/open space areas, park improvements or trail
improvements that benefit the development.
CONCLUSION
While the Planning Commission and City Council may consider an amendment to the
approved Lin -Bar PUD, it is the responsibility of the applicant to comply with the conditions
of approval. Issues pertaining to obtaining required size trees, the warranty of planting
materials from vendors and demonstating the number of existing trees at the time are
project approval are issues that the developer must resolve. The Planning Commission
and City Council must evaluate if the applicant's proposal to provide six 2" caliper trees
per lot satisfies the intent of the original requirement to provide five 4" caliper trees per lot
so as to encourage higher overall property values. In making a decision, the Planning
Commission and City Council may consider the value of the proposed improvements and
transplanting issues. The Planning Commission and City Council may also consider
requiring alternative improvements if appropriate to satisfy the intent of the original
requirement.
As this application relates to standards imposed within a established zoning district, the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and decision of the City Council is an issue
of policy. Our office, therefore, makes no recommendation regarding the proposed
amendment. Alternative actions that the Planning Commission and City Council make take
regarding this application have been outlined in the executive summary of this report.
PC. Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur
John Harwood Bill Christian
Planning Report - Lin -Bar PUD Amendment
Page 5
JUN -10-1998 14:56 NAC 612 595 9837 P.14i16
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
JUN -10-1998 14:5? NAC
612 595 9837 P.15i16
�,;,/,a. 24-
lo144 t ,
je,�� r:7 • •• .ir�� � 'r .y/ L.L��• •� a.i.t�.� ,•'`J.�tr. .•. y ,, .. ••,I.'t.• � •i�. :�.•
M rti �' •I ref .f •�.:,•• ,!�!.? f. � � ••.. ,� �. "'.•. I. � •t.
t. ,k•• i'r' t �•,2,:Y•. 1�•. x e.;,.•,.r.�.:;;c�r.?'.�:'rzr•'..,�:,•• +:,r '+�• :1`-'...,
'�t .. it �•• .: ':: ?!: r:,. A: �•'..t+�j,'',�`. •tc. r�a�..�.,....% •. XY'A.-,y.•�t`t
�s�s 1• i—e`�•� .� '! j L�
A1t. ,i%. •1"1 �`., +l tt•.:.�� • .i _. ?li rwr.ii
,,f '.•{ • • .••1,s'%+•�t.,:•:'t�s.w. {y:�Iw.-!� i5' l w' ".ti'"
e «'`:: v`. : �.` w :1�. �:, 'ti • J :' i t _ ;tat s; • . � ' ! r ^'�•
. . :• + :� . .•y,-t�.':if ;•�e,",��''!i , Cp•: .: �.�r.. Y.' �.•;f'N�;\,,..,F/s
;•,1 '�-�.t•'•'-. moi:. s: �: t..5�: _ :< :-'.qr• ./� ff w ,� +•' ,•' •• •,: •t•: .i:.+ '
''JJ:s'a.. •T•;,7';;���.:+•• � t , �,g .1., ,: j�r��w;; •.i y,�� .'1.•; �•t •'•!jr;f: �e
.
EXHIBIT B-1 - NURSERY LETTE"
CHOW
NuP-ssVx CENTER
16800 95th Avenue NoM
M2pk Gmve, MN 553D
Ph. (612) 42411202
aY(612)420-5056
A
JUN -10-1998 14:57 NAC
612 595 9837 P.16/16 \
COMPLETE RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL, LANDSCAPING
AND RETAIL GARDEN CENTER'
�'a c^Ck ;eoa-Aeot iLazaercry
15101 W. HWY. 10 -ELK RIVER, MN 55330
(612) 441-3090
AITENT>CON: YlVILtir, 4 ��L DATE:
FAX # PHONE:
10 AL PAGES:
COM MENTS-
&lk- 14 /,
�o
a.
�� Y2,/)O ts4scm afd lL tea. i�lp -�-o pap...'- ,
� � t
� Root`
TOTAL P.16
JUN -10-1998 13:59 NAC 612 595 983? P.02i10
N
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
C O M M U N I T T PLANNING - DF -510N - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Madhulika Singh / Daniel Licht / David Licht
10 June 1998
Otsego - Anoka Equine Veterinary Clinic
176-02 - 98.04
In March 1993, the City approved a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a
4,100 square foot veterinary clinic within an A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service District. With
the growing demand of the clinic, the applicant Dr. Thomas Juergens, on behalf of the
Anoka Equine Veterinary Clinic is requesting an amendment to the conditional use permit
to add four more hospital stalls to the existing veterinary hospital building. As per the
Zoning Ordinance, an amended conditional use permit is processed in a manner similar
to that required for a new conditional use permit.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit 8 - Certificate of Survey
Exhibit C - Site Plan
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 6
PHONE 61 2-595.9636 FAX 6 12-595-9837 E-MAIL NAG@ WINTERNET.GOM
JUN -10-1996 14:00 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03/VD
Recommendation
In reviewing the recommendations listed in the March 1993 Findings of Fact and the
revised site plan, our office recommends approval of the requested amendment to the
conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
The design and materials be consistent with that of the existing principal structure.
The applicant shall provide proposed elevations indicating the design and materials
of the proposed expansion.
2. The height of the expansion area not exceed that of the existing principal structure.
3. All required parking stalls be marked with white or yellow painted lines to clearly
demonstrate their exact location, one of which must also be designated as disability
accessible.
4. All medical wastes are disposed of in a manner approved by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
5. Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign or other structures
must be arranged to deflect light away from adjoining residential use or public
street.
6. A sign permit must be applied for to allow any existing and/or proposed signage,
subject to City review and approval.
7. Upon completion of any expansion, an as -built site plan is to be submitted prior to
full escrow release.
8_ Comments from other City staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Expansion Proposal, The applicant is proposing an expansion of 1,444 square feet to
the southern part of the existing hospital to accommodate four more hospital stalls. The
proposed expansion should match the existing building exterior finish and must comply
with the construction standards as outlined in Section 20-17-4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
CUP Evaluation Criteria. As noted previously, the applicant has requested an
amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit to allow an expansion to the
veterinary clinic within an A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service Zoning District. Inconsideration
of an amendment to the conditional use permit requests, Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning
2
'JUN -10-1998 14:00 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04i10
Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed conditional use. Their judgement must 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.
Comprehensive Plan. The City Land Use Plan suggests neighborhood/highway
commercial use of the subject site. While the veterinarian clinic is considered an
acceptable use within agricultural districts (via conditional use permit), it also holds
characteristics typical of commercial uses. Considering that the clinic is already in service
and is to have no outdoor holding facilities for horses, the proposed use continued use is
considered consistent with the long term suggested land uses of the area.
Land Use Compatibility. In determining whether the proposed use is compatible with its
surroundings, it is generally beneficial to identify adjacent land uses and zoning
designations. The following is a listing of uses and zoning designations which surround
the site in question:
Direction
Land Use
in
North
Single Family Residential
A-1
South
Agricultural
A-1
East
Single Family/Agricultural
A-1
West
Agricultural
A-1
3
JUN -10-1998 14:01 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05i10
As shown above, single family residences lie to the north and east of the proposed clinic.
There is adequate screening of the vet hospital along the north property line across from
the residential property. Therefore the proposed use meets all criteria for compatibility
with adjacent properties.
Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed principal building meets all applicable A-1
setback requirements:
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Required Setback
65 feet
65 feet (west)
80 feet (east)
50 feet
Proposed Setback
127 feet
610 feet
180 feet
2,216 feet ±
Note: Proposed accessory buildings meet applicable setback requirements.
Lot Area. The subject site measures ± 62 acres in size and greatly exceeds the minimum
one acre lot size requirement for A-1 zoning districts.
Building Height. According to Section 20-51-7 of the Ordinance, principal buildings within
an A-1 Zoning District must not exceed 2 % stories or 45 feet in height. The existing
building is 18 feet in height. The applicant has not submitted elevations indicating the
height of the proposed expansion. Keeping in character with the existing building, the
height of the expansion area should tie in with the existing structure. The applicant must
submit an elevation to indicate the height of the proposed expansion.
Off -Street Parking. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street parking
standard for veterinary clinics. Recognizing that the ordinance requirement for medical
clinics (3 spaces plus 1 space per 200 square feet) is likely not applicable to the proposed
use, the previous conditional use permit had identified an alternative source to be
referenced. According to an American Planning Association document titled Off -Street
Parking Requirements, the following off-street parking requirement alternatives are
recommended for veterinary uses_
Option A One space per 500 square feet
(4,100 sq.ft. divided by 500 = 8.2 spaces)
Option B' Three spaces per veterinarian
(3 x 3 veterinarians = 9 spaces)
4
'JUN -10-1998 14:02 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06i10
Based on the preceding APA Off -Street Parking Requirements, an off-street parking
demand of nine spaces (Option B) was accepted as part of the previous conditional use
permit. The submitted site plan illustrates a total of five individual parking stalls (including
handicap stall) and extensive maneuvering space for truck and horse trailers on the east
and west sides of the clinic.
While ample space appears available to accommodate nine off-street parking stalls, such
a parking allotment should be illustrated on the site plan. All parking stalls should be
striped as required per Section 20-22-4.1-1.13 to demarcate their exact location.
Additionally, one stall must be designated as a disability accessible space_
Trash. The site plan does not identify a specific trash handling area. Prior to final CUP
approval, the site plan should be revised to identify specific areas devoted to exterior trash
handling. All trash handling equipment must be screened from eye level view of
neighboring uses and public rights-of-way. Additionally, all medical waste material from
the proposed veterinary clinic must be disposed of in a manner approved by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
Parking Lot Surfacing. The driveways and parking areas are surfaced with asphalt;
whereas, areas where horses are unloaded is in gravel. The animal loading area is
separated from the general driveway and parking areas by a gate. This is a positive
design and should be maintained in the event the loading area is expanded along with the
addition proposed.
Curbing. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that all off-street parking areas for commercial
type use must have a continuous concrete perimeter curb around the entire parking lot
(Section 20-22-4.1-1.14). The current site meets all curbing requirements.
Curb Cut. In the previous conditional use permit, the City Engineer had recommended
that the County Road 37 access point provide a 30 foot turning radius. This action has
already been executed and meets the County Highway Department and State Department
of Transportation approval.
Landscaping. While it is recognized that no outdoor keeping of horses is to take place
in conjunction with clinic activities, the proposed use does hold characteristics which could
negatively impact the adjacent easterly single family dwelling. For this reason, continued
screening should be maintained along the south and east sides of the subject site.
Lighting. The site plan does not indicate whether any new exterior lighting is to be
provided upon the subject site. If such lighting is to be provided specific type and locations
should be identified on the site plan. Per the Ordinance, any lighting used to illuminate an
off-street parking area, sign or other structure must be arranged as to deflect light away
from any adjoining residential use or public street.
5
JUN -10-1998 14:02 NAC 612 595 9837 P.07i10
Signage. A site inspection identified that two freestanding signs were located on the
subject property. A sign permit is required to be issued for such signs and all standards
for signs must be approved by the City in compliance with Section 37 of the Ordinance.
Ponding Areas. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the subject site contains a
number of significant ponding areas. Such ponding areas have been identified upon the
site survey. This item should be subject to comment and approval of the City Engineer.
Security. Upon completion of any expansion, an accurate "as -built' site plan must be
submitted prior to full escrow release.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding review in consideration of established City policies and
ordinances, 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
Andrew MacArthur
John Harwood
Thomas Juergens
C
'JUN -10-1998 14:03
NAC
r
�
0
0
0
W
o
�
41
L
o
v
x
o
-
W
o
O
J
N
U
N
�
612 595 983? P.08i10
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
JUN -10-1998 14:04 NAC
612 595 9837 P.09/1@
1
�" "'�• Ilrlw r -..I www r rI lw r M IIIi,.r
Inr« w.+�rT• �W ,sl• ~T N NW iYw. Mr«y
�TIFI w r Y+✓,ll wwr Y rl ww.lwwl O+rl ham.
T«, wMY I�I.a ✓•,Y r rr � « W Mrw�. Ow.,w.
Ia.0 r. II.N a rau h,r,.r. a.r>+r.w1 w r.r
�r�..��w..�.wwl T �n wr. IY.. M.W�+T •�.�r r
�� �•r4x bM wda W� �IYM I�IM w r
A1`laee¢ x
.•-ww•w. l..rwp.-........ r.r. r w..... w �.,..w.
�T r Wr n. Twry n4 awa. k TIM r.,rR •'------�
�� r wAwY rr r W 11„ll,w.w l+.r. rw
11„IL wlwl ary Iln� F Ma. M Y W r`..^y pNr
��IwO.1.w1.r N�w1YMYl�r`1r1+1ti
M •IN rMw, Yr P7..I�.r M. r M.+«YNc
aw.11 b.w Mwwwwl.� r.Ir111hr /MJ, Yn Mr
a.r, r.larY warms w,I.Iw1 nw Iw wl«. arw.
I,Tw. N IaMw w ww.V1 fa, IN.M Yy hT Mw,a I.IYyw
h wr,w. I../�M. rYw.M M r rIw r Irl r K W MInMw
bwrnllV r uln,rwl rr r II,r.►w..., 4...n r...
a,l,w,.l.w. Nar.1 n wy Irlll www,ll awrF......
xlruall wr 1YiPla11 w.l..awr k w r w r..,..r7
•.iw alrrrxl„ w ir.�rrww.. ln,x, aw, Iw,w
wr ry..Iwrw.wr�rwl wwT l..a w.r alw
wr,N,wr.r www,rrw a,.w rw �...Irna u
wwxw.arr�lrlwl, war r.rr ural
alr-»wN�xr■�.�wl� a..r.r.N
ww.w�aw.w, Twl nr � rIr a... w rwl. w
v=
ru. wmra.,,,, n.a n..n...w...r_
wx.r Ilar INw,tax a.x rr w. s, IlI�w1 w
.aw.w wrw.1,« Ire¢ r. r..w w •.-. w r..w r
wrr alM la4n 41, w r r w «ww IY,w,ww orrq ....�
lw�l ww M~� N NwT. n wTW bR rl�V aW IM.T ,i1..1
rrl M I.III�ai
AA,
-AA- - (.aIMM N.rtxll w�yl
ft.vo.I.--LZ wrtNauw
KIA w.l fl, Il,w1
p" w.w1 q. al�ws.y
arr.x r%m w•wfr•U wwM
EXHIBIT B - SITE SURVEY
Pgiarwan
ANV•G9' EpUiN6 (id7ER/i1(.eQy ,rEq���S
<.. / ... ".. ,
JUN -10-1998 14:04 NAC
ag;
a
I`
M
O �
-L
A
0
z'
O
k3
612 595 9837 P.10/10
flill., I a L!A it Y I 1 .I 111 J ',u La 1'LCLLw u..1 I I , , r j
EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN
TOTAL P.10
JUN -10-1998 14:49 NAC
612 595 983? P.02i16
N Ww%r0% NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INN%woo COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht / David Licht
DATE: 10 June 1998
RE: Otsego - Thompson Building Relocation CUP
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 98.05
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
Background
Ronald and Christine Thompson are proposing to relocate a 1,056 square foot, four stall
garage structure to their property at 7716 N.E. River Road (CSAR 42), which is developed
with a single family dwelling. Building relocations require approval of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). The approximate 2.7 acre subject site is zoned R-1, Long Range Urban
Service District and is also within the Wild and Scenic River Overlay District.
Attached For Reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Recommendation
Based upon a review of the submitted application and of established City policies and
Ordinances, the proposed building relocation generally consistent with applicable
requirements. Therefore, our office recommends approval of the requested CUP, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The use of the relocated garage shall not be for home occupation purposes.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9637 E-MAIL NAC (P WINTERNET.COM
JUN -10-1998 14:49 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03i16-
2. The relocation of the garage shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Building Official.
3_ The relocated structure shall be ready for occupancy within six (6) months from the
date of location on the site, subject to review and approval of the City Building
Official.
4. The applicant obtain approval of an administrative permit for a detached accessory
structure greater than 1,000 sq. ft. in area, as outlined in Section 20-14-6. H of the
Zoning Ordinance, subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
5. The City Building Official verify that the overall height of the structure is less than
16 feet high as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Any grading and/or filling of material in excess of 50 cubic yard shall require
approval of a permit and be subject to the provisions of Section 20-74-12.E of the
Zoning Ordinance.
7. Comments of other City Staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Request. The applicant is proposing to relocate a 1,056 square foot, four stall garage
structure on their property currently developed with a single family house for storage of
recreational equipment and lawn equipment. The garage is stick built with lap wood siding
and will be placed a top a concrete foundation. The applicant intends to paint the garage
to match the existing single family house.
Building Relocation Standards. Section 20-19-3 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines
specific performance standards that apply to building relocations:
Upon relocation, the building shall comply with the applicable requirements of the
State Uniform Building Code.
Comment: The relocation of the garage must also be subject to review and approval
of the City Building Official.
2. The proposed relocated building shall comply with the character of the
neighborhood in which it is being relocated as determined, by the City Council.
Comment.- The size and design of the structure is consistent with that of residential
accessory structures.
Planning Report- Thompson Bldg, Relocation CUP
Page 2
JUN -10-1998 14:50 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04i16
3. The relocated use will not result in a depreciation of neighborhood or adjacent
property values.
Comment: The relocation of the garage is not anticipated to negatively impact
property values in the neighborhood, although no specific study has been
completed.
4. The relocated structure shall be similar to the market valuation of adjacent principal
structures as determined by the City of County Assessor.
Comment: The relocated garage is to be an accessory structure to the existing
single family dwelling on the subject property. As such, this condition does not
apply to this application.
5. The relocated structure shall be ready for occupancy within six (6) months from the
date of location on the site.
Comment: This requirement will be a condition of approval, subject to review and
approval of the City Building Official.
CUP Criteria. The relocation of an existing structure from one lot to another requires the
processing of a conditional use permit. Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs
the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the possible adverse effects of the
proposed conditional use, with their judgement based upon, but not limited, to the following
factors.-
The
actors:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The garage proposed to be relocated to the subject site is designed and
constructed of materials consistent with those common to residential areas, which
is consistent with the following policy of the 7997 Comprehensive Plan.
Accessory buildings within urban areas shall be of a compatible design and
size to maintain a residential neighborhood character. Such buildings shall
be limited to residential use related activities.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: The design and building materials of the garage proposed to be
relocated are consistent with those of a single family residential accessory structure.
3. The proposed use's conformity with 211 performance standards contained herein
(i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.)
Planning Report - Thompson Bldg. Relocation CUP
Page 3
JUN -10-1998 14:51 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05
Comment. Performance standards will be evaluated in subsequent paragraphs.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment. The relocation of the garage to the subject site is not anticipated to
adversely affect the area.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Although no specific study has been completed, the relocation of the
garage to the subject site is not anticipated to negatively impact area property
values.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving
the property.
Comment: The relocation of the garage to the subject site is not anticipated to
increase traffic from the subject site.
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.
Comment The relocation of the garage to the subject site will not negatively impact
the City's service capacity.
Performance Standards. The following performance standards apply to the proposed
relocation of the garage to the subject site:
Location. The garage is proposed to be relocated to the front yard of the existing
single family dwelling. Section 20-16-4. B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that
garages may be located in the front yard, but must meet the required front yard
setback. The table below illustrates this and other applicable setback requirements
specified in the Zoning Ordinance have been complied with:
Front Side Rear OHWM*
Required e5 ft. 30 ft_ 10 ft. 100 ft.
Proposed 200 ft. 60 ft. 290 ft 250 ft.
*Required per Section 2074 Wild and Scenic)
Size. Section 20-16-4.B.7.c of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the total
accessory square footage of a single family lot is not to exceed 2,000 square feet.
There is an attached two stall garage with the existing single family dwelling, with
Planning Report - Thompson Bldg. Relocation CUP
Page 4
JUN -10-1998 14:51 NAC
612 595 9837 P.06/16
an approximate size of 528 square feet. As the detached garage to be relocated
to the site is 1,056 square feet, the total accessory building area would be 1,584
square feet. However, detached accessory structures greater than 1,000 square
feet require approval of an administrative permit as outlined in Section 20-14-6.H
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Height. Section 20-16-4.F of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that accessory
buildings within the R-1 District must not exceed 16 feet in height, except by
conditional use permits. Although no exact dimension for the structure has been
provided, the applicant has indicated that the wall sections of the garage are 9 feet
high. The City Building Oficial should verify that the overall height of the structure
is less than 16 feet high.
Lot Coverage. Section 20-53-7.A of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that coverage
of all buildings on a lot must not exceed five percent of the total lot area. Based
upon the submitted site plan, the estimated site coverage would be approximately
3.9 percent. Within the Wild and Scenic District, impervious surfaces are limited
to less than 25 percent. Even with driveway areas, this requirement is satisfied.
Grading and/or Filling. The need for site grading and/or filling has not been specified as
part of the application. Any earthwork involving more than 50 cubic yards of material
required to relocate the garage to the subject site, including for new driveways, will require
approval of a permit as outlined in Sections 24 and 25 of the Zoning Ordinance. Any
grading and filling is also subject to the provisions of Section 20-74-12.E of the Zoning
Ordinance related to exposed soil conditions.
Vegetative Cutting. The Wild and Scenic District includes provisions restricting
vegetative cutting within 100 feet of the OHWM or 20 feet of the bluff line. As the
proposed location for the relocated garage structure is outside of these areas, the
requirements are not applicable.
CONCLUSION
The applicants' request for a conditional use permit to allow the relocation of a 1,056
square foot garage structure to their existing single family lot is generally consistent with
all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. Therefore, our office recommends approval
of the application, subject to the conditions outlined in the Executive Summary of this
report.
pc. Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Jerry Olsen
Ronald and Christine Thompson
Planning Report - Thompson Bldg. Relocation CUP
Page 5
JUN -10-1998 14:52
.
/ (DN
Z
NAC
612 595 9837 P.07i1E-
I I .€. 9 1
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
m
z
U
z
F
�
�
/
W
O
C
fx
0.
u
I I .€. 9 1
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
JUN -10-1998 14:5 NAC
612 595 93 P.07/IE-
CN
.07z1E
A ION
N k
m t
2
ti
(5
4�
La w
.
`b
& o
C
I
.
a. Q6
k
.
•
�
�
R
%»
�
\
\ �
�
� � � n
■ �
!
+
!
x
|
�,
% E
&
f
\
fie
�
LM
C%4�
PONY
#mac
=w
!4
&*� .
■�
EXHIBIT A.SITE LOG
A ION
JUN -10-1998 14:52 NAC
SITE f LAN Foft
t -o% A S to a K. I
a4ka AAA.
612 595 9837 P.08
rm
EXHIBIT B- SITE PLAN