08-07-00 PCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH 50 �
PLANNING REPORT 3
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 15 August 2000
RE: Otsego - Stonegate Estates; Preliminary Plat
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Tollefson Development, Inc. has submitted revised plans for a residential development on
a 34.2 acre parcel located at the southwest quadrant of CSAH 42 and 85' Street. The
subject site is currently a tilled agricultural field and zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service
District. The Comprehensive Plan includes the subject site within the Sanitary Sewer
Service District and suggests low and medium-high density residential development.
The applicant had previously submitted a development plan for the subject parcel
consisting of 164 six and eight unit townhomes units and 15 single family lots. These
plans were considered by the Planning Commission, which recommended approval.
However, the application was withdrawn prior to the City Council considering the request.
The revised plans provide for 146 townhome units consisting of two, four and six unit
structures and 17 single family lots. The overall number of dwellings within the proposed
development has been reduced by 16 units. The proposed development plan requires
consideration of the following applications: Land Use Plan Amendment to mirror the
proposed mix of uses, rezoning to R-6, Residential Low Density Multiple Family District
and R-4, Residential Urban Single Family District, PUD -CUP concept plan for platting
townhouses in a unit/base lot configuration; and preliminary plat.
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A:
Site Location
Exhibit B:
Preliminary Plat & Site Plan
Exhibit C:
Grading Plan
Exhibit D:
Utility Plan
Exhibit E:
Building Plans
Exhibit F:
Park Concepts
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 61 2-595-9636 FAX 61 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@)WINTERNET.COM
Recommendation
Designation of land uses as guided by the Comprehensive Plan and implemented by the
Zoning Ordinance is a policy decision for City Officials. The Planning Commission and
City Council may approve the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning
applications if a finding is made that the action is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
policies. If these applications are approved, our office would recommend approval of the
preliminary plat and PUD -CUP concept plan applications as outlined under Decision 3.A.
Decision 1 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
A. Motion to approve a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan such that the
uses indicated on the Land Use Plan mirror the proposed development plan based
upon a finding that the request is consistent with the following policies:
• Whenever possible, changes in types of land use shall occur either at the
center or rear, mid -block points so that similar uses front on the same street,
or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers.
(Policy Plan, p. 39)
• Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses shall be
accomplished in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative impact
on adjoining developments. (Policy Plan, p. 39)
• A balance in the availability of quality housing choices throughout the City
shall be maintained.
B. Motion to deny the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment based upon a
finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (A specific
finding or policy supporting denial of the application should be cited.)
C. Motion to table the application. (specific direction should be provided to the
applicant and/or City Staff regarding additional information to be presented.)
Decision 2 - Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to designate the parcel
within the R-4 and R-6 Zoning Districts as illustrated by the development plan
based upon a finding that the action is consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan (see above).
B. Motion to deny the requested Zoning Map amendments based upon a finding that
the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (A specific finding or
policy supporting denial of the application should be cited.)
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 2
Decision 3 - PUD -CUP Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat
A. Motion to approve a PUD -CUP Concept Plan and preliminary plat of Stonegate
Estates, subject to the following conditions:
Approval of the preliminary plat shall not guarantee access to sanitary sewer
service. The City shall only guarantee sanitary sewer service to approved
final plats with signed contracts or through a financial commitment for such
services to assure the City of timely development.
2. The preliminary plat is revised to provide lot, block and outlot designations
for the entire development.
3. The preliminary plat is revised to improve orientation of the townhouse
structures and eliminate the proposed private cul-de-sac as part of a
development stage application.
4. The street layout is revised to provide a second access 85d' Street, shift
Street B at least two lots to the south, and revise the intersection of Streets
A and B with an 83`d Street extension such that Streets A and B function as
through streets with 83`d Street intersecting at an angle to discourage traffic
movement to the west. The design of all public streets and private drives
shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
5. Individual or shared access points to private drives and public streets shall
not exceed 24 feet.
6. Flexibility from the front yard setback requirement for the townhouses may
be considered as part of a development stage application in consideration
of site design improvements including (but not limited to) building orientation,
setbacks and landscaping.
7. Verification is made that the separation between individual townhouse
structures is at least one-half the sum of adjacent building heights.
8. The landscaping plan is revised to specify the type, size and quantity of
proposed plantings.
9. The site plan is revised to provide off-street guest parking for the townhouse
structures at a ratio of one-half stall per unit.
10. Scaled building elevations, floor plans and materials list are provided for the
proposed townhouse structures with a development stage application.
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 3
11. Park and trail dedication requirements are satisfied through combination of
cash fee in lieu of land and dedication of Outlot A subject to review and
approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council.
12. Documentation is provided regarding vacation of the Great River Power
easement.
13. Drainage and utility easements are provided at the perimeter of all single
family lots and over the townhouse base lots. All grading, drainage and
utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
14. A homeowners association is provided for as part of the development stage
application, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney.
15. The 40 foot easement conveyed to the John LeFebvre Loving Trust in the
agreement dated April 16,1990 is terminated.
16. Upon approval of a final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development
contract with the City, pay all fees and post required securities, subject to
review and approval of the City Attorney.
17. Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the requested preliminary plat based upon a finding that the request
is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (A specific finding or policy
supporting denial of the application should be cited.)
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The subject parcel is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for low density land uses on the
west half of the parcel and medium-high density uses on the east half. The gross density
of the project is approximately 4.8 units per acre, which would be considered low density
by the Comprehensive Plan. Excluding the single family lots and the park, the townhouse
portion of the project has a density of 5.3 units per acre, defined as medium-high density
by the Comprehensive Plan. The previous development plan had an overall density of 5.2
units per acre and the townhouse element provided 6.2 units per acre.
The specific land uses suggested by the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site are
intended to serve as a transition between the existing one -acre residential subdivision to
the west of subject parcel and traffic on CSAH 42 and planned industrial development to
the east. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will ensure that the Land Use Plan
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 4
reflects the development pattern of the project. The intent of the suggested transition is
satisfied with the provision of single family lots abutting the existing development with like
uses facing the opposite side of the street.
Zoning Amendment
The subject parcel is zoned A-1 District. Development of the project will require rezoning
to R-4 and R-6 District to accommodate the proposed single family and townhouse uses.
Consideration of a PUD -CUP is also required pursuant to Section 20-17-10 for the
subdivision of townhouse unit and base lots. Section 20-3-2.F and 20-4-2.F of the Zoning
Ordinance must be considered as factors in the rezoning and PUD -CUP applications:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan calls for development of a range of urban
housing options addressing the lifecycle needs of the City including single family and
townhouse units, which supplement the City's existing housing stock consisting
almost exclusively of large lot single family dwellings. The location of single family
and townhouse elements of the project are generally consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan. The following policies may be cited in
support of the proposed use.-
Whenever
se:
Whenever possible, changes in types of land use shall occur either at the
center or rear, mid -block points so that similar uses front on the same street,
or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers.
(Policy Plan, p. 39)
• Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses shall be
accomplished in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative impact
on adjoining developments. (Policy Plan, p. 39)
• A balance in the availability of quality housing choices throughout the City
shall be maintained.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment. The proposed uses have been anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan
as a transitional area at the edge of the Sanitary Sewer Service District. The
proposed single family lots are intended to be a transition between the existing large
lot dwellings to the west and planned medium-high density and industrial uses
adjacent to CSAH 42. The existing trail corridor further separates the proposed
development from existing residences.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 5
Comment: The proposed development plan will be required to be consistent with all
applicable performance standards.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Development of the subject project represents infill of a vacant parcel
within the Sanitary Sewer Service District. As the development provides a transition
between large unsewered residential lots and planned medium-high density and
industrial uses, no negative impacts are anticipated.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not
anticipated to negatively impact area property values as it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The proposed development is adequately served by 85" Street, which
is designated as a collector street based upon the City's functional classification
system. This street has adequate capacity to carry the potential traffic generated
by the proposed development.
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 subject parcel is within a planned service area directly adjacent to
neighborhoods already served by public facilities, public works, police and fire
services. As such, proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the
City's service capacity.
Preliminary Plat / PUD -CUP
Format. The submitted preliminary plat only provides lot, block and outlot designations
for elements of the first phase. The plat must be revised so as provide lot, block and/or
outlot designations for the entire project and not just the first phase. Section 20-17-10 of
the Zoning Ordinance requires that owner -occupied townhouse structures be platted in a
unit/base lot configuration through a planned unit development. Each of the townhouse
units must be provided a unit lot within the larger base lots and blocks. The base lots
should be designated as an outlot with an overlaying drainage and utility easement.
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 6
Subdivision Design. The design of the single family element of the project is similar to
that of the previous plan. A single family unit is proposed as Lot 1, Block 2 whereas a
townhouse structure was previously proposed in this area. This lot is isolated from the
other single family dwellings by two streets in addition to abutting 85"' Street on a side
yard. As such, Street B should be shifted to the south at least two lots such that there is
a neighboring dwelling and the both side yards abut a public street.
Extensive modifications have been made to the townhouse portion of the project. The type
of townhouse units has been reduced in scale by using two unit structures, more four unit
structures and six unit structures. The eight unit structures included on the previous plan
have been eliminated. As noted above, the density of the townhouse portion of the project
has been reduced from 6.2 units per acre to 5.8 units per acre.
There are a number of design issues associated with the revised townhouse layout.
Especially poor are the number units that backs up to the side or rear of the adjacent unit
and a number of units that have double frontage between a local street and private
driveway. We would recommend that the preliminary plat is revised such that the location
of the structures identified on Exhibit B-2 is revised to improve their orientation towards a
central open space opposed to the side or rear of another unit. Also, we would
recommend removal of the irregularly shaped private cul-de-sac and two structures served
by this drive. These units have been crowded into an area where they face the back of
four or five units. Further, the provision of the private drive reduces the usable area
behind the eastern units that back up to the drive.
Access. The preliminary plat will have primary access to 85' Street, which is designated
as a collector street by the Comprehensive Plan. Section 21-7-7.N of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires at least 500 feet separation between intersections along collector
streets. The proposed intersection of Street A with 85t' Street is sufficiently spaced from
CSAH 42 or Parnell Avenue so as not to cause traffic conflicts. Given the density
proposed within the development, a second access to 85h Street may be desirable.
Spacing distances between CSAH 42 and the proposed access is approximately 1,000
feet, which is sufficient to allow for another access point. This access should be provided
either as a full intersection or as a right-in/right-out, subject to approval of the City
Engineer and Wright County.
Secondary access to the development is provided by a connection to 83`d Street in the
Country Ridge subdivision to the west. This connection was anticipated at the time
Country Ridge was platted and a temporary cul-de-sac constructed until the subject parcel
developed. With a lack of destinations to the west or southwest, there is no reason to
expect traffic would go from this development west through Country Ridge Estates. To
further discourage this traffic flow, we would recommend that the 3 -way intersection of
Streets A and B and 83`d Street extension be revised. Streets A and B should be
designed as a through streets with 83`d Street intersecting as a "T, similar to the alignment
provided on the previous submission.
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 7
Access to individual units is provided by a combination of public streets and private drives.
The design of the private drives is proposed to be a 28 foot wide (back of curb to back of
curb), whereas a 33 foot wide surface is required for public streets. The reduction in street
width will preclude on -street parking. The all public and private streets must be subject
to the Engineering Manual standards and approval of the City Engineer.
Access points to the proposed public streets and private drives must be limited to not more
than 24 feet wide. In several instances, driveways to up to 12 individual townhouse units
have been merged into one large surface area. These areas are not only poor
aesthetically, but can create functional problems as well. As such, these areas identified
on Exhibit B-2 will need to be revised so the access is not larger than 24 feet.
Blocks. Section 21-7-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance limits block length to not more than
1,200 to provide for circulation within and to/from a development. Because of the access
limitations to 85"' Street and CSAH 42 and Otsego Elementary to the south, the loop street
exceeds this requirement. However, because of these physical limitations, the excess
block length is acceptable.
R-4 District Lot Standards. The development plan includes 17 single family lots on the
western edge of the project. The lots are proposed to develop within the performance
standards of the R-4 District which require a minimum area of 12,000 square feet,
minimum width of 75 feet and minimum depth of 100 feet. All of the proposed single family
lots meet or exceed this requirement.
R-6 District Lot Area. The project includes 146 townhouse dwelling units. The
breakdown of units by type of structure and lot area requirements of the R-6 District are
shown in the following table. The area occupied by the townhouses is approximately 21.9
acres or 6,534 square feet per unit, which exceeds the minimum lot area per unit
requirement outlined in the table.
Unit Type # of Units
Lot Area/Unit
I Required Area
2 unit 38
7,500 sq. ft.
6.54 ac.
4 unit 12
5,000 sq. ft.
1.38 ac.
6 unit 96
5,000 sq. ft.
11.02 ac.
TOTAL
18.94
Setbacks. Required setbacks within the project are as outlined below.
Front: 35 ft. Local Street / 65 ft. Collector/Arterial Street
Side: 10 ft. Interior Lot / 35 ft. or 65 ft. Corner Lot
Rear: 20 ft. interior lot / 35 ft. or 65 ft. Through Lot.
Townhouse Bldgs.: '/2 of the sum of the adjacent building heights.
Driveways: 15 ft. from any street/ 5 ft. from any lot line.
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 8
The preliminary plat illustrates the appropriate setbacks for the single family lots and there
is adequate building envelope within each lot for its intended use.
The townhouse structures are located within the setbacks required at the perimeter of the
base lot. The townhouse units are proposed to be setback between 30 to 35 feet from a
local public right-of-way and 25 feet from the private driveways. One structure at the cul-
de-sac terminus of Street B encroaches into a setback from the private drive and must be
relocated. The City has allowed other townhouse projects to use private streets and/or
front setback reductions when the need is created by physical site characteristics or in
response to good site design. We would recommend that any flexibility on setbacks as
part of the PUD -CUP be based upon the site plan being revised to address the design
comments above. The twenty five foot setback from the private driveways would be the
minimum necessary to allow parking in the driveway and visibility backing out of the
garage. City Staff will need to verify that the appropriate separation has been provided
between structures, as the building plans submitted for the four/six unit structures were not
to scale. According to the site plan, each townhouse building is at least 25 feet apart from
the adjacent unit which would allow for an average building height of 25 feet.
Landscaping. The applicant has provided a preliminary landscaping plan that provides
generalized locations for proposed plantings. A revised landscaping indicating the type,
size and quantity of proposed plantings must be provided. Increased landscaping has
been used for other townhouse projects as an incentive to allow design flexibility, such as
the setback flexibility proposed for this project. As such, the revised landscaping plan
should also provide a greater quantity of planting materials both at the perimeter of project
and among the structures.
Parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires two off-street parking stalls for each single family
or townhouse unit. Although no plans have been provided, it is assumed that each single
family unit will have at least a two car garage. The preliminary building plans for the
townhouse structure indicate that each unit will have a two car attached garage. As such,
the off-street parking requirements are satisfied.
The development plan does not include guest parking areas within the townhome area.
In consideration of the proposed 28 foot private street and the frequency of curb cuts for
those units fronting a public street on -street parking for the townhouse area will be
problematic. As such, additional guest parking should be provided along the proposed
private streets at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit.
Building Design. The applicant has provided elevations for the proposed townhouse
structures. The structures utilize an unspecified lap siding with brick accents at the front.
The materials utilized on the roof and side and rear elevations have not been specified.
The R-6 District allows a maximum building height of 3 stories or 35 feet. Based on the
submitted elevations, the proposed structures will conform with this requirement.
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 9
Park and Trail Dedication. The Comprehensive Plan plans development of a
neighborhood park adjacent to the City's well property to serve surrounding development.
To satisfy park and trail dedication requirements of Section 21-7-7 of the Subdivision
Ordinance, the applicant is proposing to dedicate the 1.8 acre Outlot A. The dedication
of Outlot A will result in a park size of approximately 3.4 acres in combination with the
existing City property based upon the concepts attached at Exhibit E. The Parks and
Recreation Commission has reviewed the park concepts and found the proposed
dedication to be adequate. As the applicant is required to dedicate 10 percent of the gross
area of the plat (3.4 acres), a cash contribution in lieu of land will be necessary to account
for the difference. The amount of the cash in lieu of land will be determined as part of the
development contract.
No new public trails are proposed as part of the project. There is an existing trail from 85th
street to Otsego Elementary running along the west edge of the property. Although there
were discussions of moving the trail to be adjacent to a public street when the subject
parcel developed, the use of Federal ISTEA funds for its constructions limits this
opportunity. The Federal program will not allow the trail to be relocated unless the City
were to incur expenses equal to or greater than the grant amount used to construct the
original trail.
Grading and Utility Plans. All of the necessary sanitary sewer and water utilities are in
place to serve the subject site, so no extensions or City construction should be required.
The preliminary plat does not illustrate the required easements at the perimeter of the
single family lots or overlaying the base lots for the townhouse blocks. Also, there is an
existing overhead electrical transmission line crossing the property, which has an existing
50 foot easement. The preliminary plat indicates that the 50 foot easement is to be
vacated, leaving a 30 foot easement in its place. Appropriate documentation of the
easement vacation will be required. All grading and utility plans and issues are subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer.
Phasing Plan. The application includes a phasing plan indicating that the project is to be
built out in three phases. The first phase would include the park parcel, five single family
lots and 54 townhouse units. The second phase includes 12 single family lots and 50
townhouse units. The third phase includes the final 42 townhouse units. The applicant
will be required to extend public streets to provide access to the park as part of the first
phase.
Homeowners Association. Section 20-17-10.C.6 of The Zoning Ordinance that a
homeowners association be provided for property maintenance. These documents must
be provided as part of the development contract and include provisions dealing with
property maintenance, building maintenance and architectural controls, snow plowing,
street maintenance and repair, etc. The homeowners association documents are subject
to review and approval of the City Attorney.
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 10
LeFebvre Easement. At the time the City acquired the trail corridor along the west
property line, an easement was granted to the property owner to allow continued access
to the land to the south of the well property. This easement terminates with development
of the subject parcel and reverts to the City.
Development Contract. Upon approval of a final plat, the applicant must enter into a
development contract with the City and pay all fees and securities. It must be emphasized
that approval of the preliminary plat does not guarantee access to sanitary sewer service.
Only those projects that have received final plat approval and paid the applicable fees will
be allocated capacity for sanitary sewer service.
CONCLUSION
The Comprehensive Plan anticipates the development of this parcel with a mix of
residential uses in order to provide a transition between existing one -acre lot development
to the west and planned industrial uses to the east. The proposed development is
generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, including the guidance for
how such transitions are to occur. Further, the single family lots satisfy all of the
applicable performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.
At a concept plan level, the Townhouse element of the project is also consistent with the
applicable performance standards of the City's development regulations. The change to
two, four and six unit structures has results in a more crowded development with some
questionable design elements. To address these problems, revisions should be made to
improve access, traffic management, building location and site landscaping. These
revisions may be required as part of a development stage application and final plat, which
is subject to Planning Commission, as well as City Council review and approval. A specific
recommendation and options for Planning Commission and City Council actions are
outlined in the executive summary of this report.
pc. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
John Anderson
Gary Harris
Planning Report - Stonegate Estates
Page 9
;u
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
I
AAA$;S
q "-aaa�afl RF
i
p 880:3
MAP
m
x
co
F i N 9
O75EG0, AIN. . �-. John O/Ive/ 6 Assoclefes, lnC. .. •..r r.•r.:: .i.'" _ —_1.f19! w; wn
FOR:
TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT INC. (I -..r_.... ' - *—Nov' ++_ ev
PRELIMINARY PLAT & y ^' '^ r.0 •`•• +°° QF' _ in.er°'pF _ --
n,.."....r.. rr aa.,ao 'plh.i�, r. n,.rr..d— aae _
PHASING/SITE PLAN kj•'•a•,.�rv,rH,.-.,,.. ----- .. ._._
... rk w _rxw _ nr m•.... _. iMsan.oa - —
a..+ —
a ,
pp�sq�6g �pg�
F i N 9
O75EG0, AIN. . �-. John O/Ive/ 6 Assoclefes, lnC. .. •..r r.•r.:: .i.'" _ —_1.f19! w; wn
FOR:
TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT INC. (I -..r_.... ' - *—Nov' ++_ ev
PRELIMINARY PLAT & y ^' '^ r.0 •`•• +°° QF' _ in.er°'pF _ --
n,.."....r.. rr aa.,ao 'plh.i�, r. n,.rr..d— aae _
PHASING/SITE PLAN kj•'•a•,.�rv,rH,.-.,,.. ----- .. ._._
... rk w _rxw _ nr m•.... _. iMsan.oa - —
a..+ —
cae re Fyn e.ro,, eso lg
GOPHER STATE QNF rail
T. ONy Ary 45�0002
W Ta rr« 1-ao0 232-11M
:I sl
L
� 1
PLANNED UNIT DEYELIPM£NT
tlJ�l
II
�i
i
=
o ao' ]ao' Jppr
XUL w
:I sl
S704E{'v47F E9TA7ES
PLANNED UNIT DEYELIPM£NT
I ~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
m. xaa...t a,enr seeu.e.l aer. e/ qrn« u T
«�J.mexgnt Can xen..etn .+.st C;
rone oee a-�'aM vwt
-
.y . Wt
yu. Yie.F° s-veed M+. -e n
u. �5wtnw� pwtxrt�u
°? iJ
afe Ous�trT me a ev Mmtnl0.0p«i w
iFe el eaW Mrtxwt p,r1r e/ W So,txot darter Ix-ve
t
e,arry,
eeet he Me xaa of M Swore -t
Ourtr.~e
��
M•pvtr
Jr1m> M 6524) YeG eMla1 Y Me M Je
eq«. J1 Mrw1- JI wrme� • l.Iw« ]l.w 1«t Y 1M
`i
_ �(
{
e « xerM.eet Oq-Ir e/ ore Swore -t Qvtr a,a Ixr e t �
� ° € — i
-
Md .+ue1 an pot teem b Canty xee0 xs .2
�? 4 a - ; I�
GnteFe N.Ir]yu
'3 �e. ��
DEYFL OPMfNT r/MMARY
ro]K N]]LO A4U I,ee6112r art Ja r)At
! i °
rua SY RQR .Vf£.lea V)1 Satt
p/RD] '�' 4fCA' >Ae12! Sart 1.61 K
�
ro1K 0.!SRP^m A.eLK (4ID, I>Se brt 12er Aa
R6R w OLSIIP^ I.PLA]1.6C.J bR ns b
Awrf Ieannnnqq ApY�y�y
l"Ke-e SaLL,y - 1TpY ls,Jy _
V!
•'
s6cr rKar - s
�
rnA}( 111U
9+3[rKt]- ri
O 7 '„
Ai _ Cn�
' 6'a'
a1K fRirx rrJ
Rt] LK)91r
e'SCIex04 a'Ax
. -y
A'eL LOt eDM l3
WLO,
r
rt 1 ns,f LYeeet
)' w rUe4C 3'fRII? Ler LO] rO1N pJw¢c Men e ! f snap
� i
G 'i I
LK Lo) OOn! rU R (
L0n
WM1Y 1 SlS� (Ac1W) 120000 is R
O
'O1^A/ �) sg caertiR ! J ra•na Jo n
sRovr ruo se-m
]J
Rrw rA,m snnM cc w n rt
— sac rARo srTa.a /o re
�
BLack 1 L6t'e
U
Lw ] - raoM sort
U)
Blo,k 2 L ef'e
W Z z
- r,m salt
Q QJ
C
N
Beek T Lot'e
Lel
W Z D a ta
r - 14000 sort
Lef ar ra ms xn
<ww <�
Kevin
o Z
zi
& Benito Le/ebe
a5a5 /roue •.
oMY-.9na
W Z Hui
Z O J Q
(m]1 ui-J] 0
LLI
Nvet-LC Lo
LL �
W I Ll
To/felsan Development Inc
rob R r /n h 9xle
J
J
- r0]
SITE DESIGN ISSUES
�/TF [NYIRONMFNTA! ('LVJD/TIr1N
a m D� m —.n.xt � MY Uf+ROY EXHIBIT
AZY105 M LY/T.vnx ATOx, LLJIeK M M 91[
B-2
m
Ili
x
00
STONEGATE ESTATES
W
..i
OTSEGO, MN.
FOR:
TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT INC.
NA.
L.°SSrrl
PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER, GRADING
k FRoc;inN CnNTROI PI Am
P`
__
M
7'
n
r""''
�-
�A
�7Q{�1'
J:Mri. � l�Cli
.
.- ...
o�
o
F
$¢ R M
m
„ ..... .. r .....
p..ww e,. ,.,. ,„
x
STONEGATE ESTATES
W
..i
OTSEGO, MN.
FOR:
TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT INC.
NA.
L.°SSrrl
PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER, GRADING
k FRoc;inN CnNTROI PI Am
A GAP ��� A"�a�a Pibp
lll�l 9X2$P
01 y !1
�=a
�
John O/lver 6 Aaaocleles lnc.
„ ..... .. r .....
p..ww e,. ,.,. ,„
awu ry�......r,
o
r1YMMr
NA.
L.°SSrrl
0 LIL.
a. ,r
__
M
7'
r""''
�-
nor • n...wn n..i .,wu ,ep
�7Q{�1'
J:Mri. � l�Cli
.
.- ...
m
x
v
HAW LAKE, MN.
FOR:
TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT INC.
PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER
m
1! 1
John OJlver d Asaocletea. Inc.
4 •Nw, YNn.r.l.
Pum.�nlli.�Y�,TMII Sulo S,a
i fl
=
uP
�k$xa
o
I n...p. .eri�ln.l ISM pbn ..
wMM,.o� Mw u�d
DIAMOND
KD
REAR ELEVATION
SCALES I/D' I•-0'
In
LETT" ELEVATION
a
RIGHT ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
#i
W
� Z
�o
O
,._........1-�
FRONT ELEVATION
#i
EXHIBIT E-1
W
� Z
�o
EXHIBIT E-1
0
L �
EXHIBIT E-1
PAM M.CULLUM'S
!�_DUAD PLAN DRAFTING SERVICE
u
E
(, - __�._.._ -..i ..; -•..fes., .,,... .,..,,...,r,. .#��� , -.__
;� .rte A � � .,• _ ...
a
✓�•. ter' r siM'. {,
• I � 1 4f IJ ,. 4 1w...��'4, L
lz
,.' a •� � Jnr �` o ,/
ocl
_ t ;
` CA
03 •� .jai ��
/ l
� r
' � 1
. V x
II •
ul
• f
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NV�INCNXIIIIIIIIIIIIA*COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
y
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 14 August 2000
RE: Otsego - Olson 2nd Access CUP
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Darren and Dana Olson own a single family dwelling located at 15460 88"' Street NE (Lot
1, Block 1 Country Ridge Estates). They are proposing to construct a detached accessory
building with a second driveway and curb cut on to 881' Street NE. Section 20-22-4.1-1 of
the Zoning Ordinance limits single family properties to one curb cut, unless a conditional
use permit is approved.
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Country Ridge Re -Subdivision Plan
Recommendation
There may be justification in allowing a second access to the property located at 15460
88'' Street on the basis of existing site conditions and not simply based upon convenience
Further, the proposed second access meets all of the applicable requirements for location
of curb cuts and widths. As such, our office recommends approval of the requested
conditional use permit outlined below.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM
A. Motion to approve a conditional use permit allowing a second access to Lot 1,
Block 1 Country Ridge Estates, subject to the following:
The second access serving a single lot shall be removed if the subject
property is subdivided to create one additional lot.
2. The second access shall be not less than 40 feet from the existing curb cut
serving the subject property and not less than five feet from a side lot line.
3. The width of the second access shall be 24 feet as defined by the Zoning
Ordinance and Engineering Manual.
4. The second driveway shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, cobblestone
or paving bricks.
5. Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the requested conditional use permit based upon a finding that the
application is inconsistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table the application (Specific direction should be provided to the
applicant or City Staff).
ANALYSIS
Number. Section 20-22-4.H.11 of the Zoning Ordinance limits single family properties to
one access, unless a CUP is approved. Regulations on curb cuts for access to single
family properties is to provide head -in parking to a garage or parking areas. The number
of accesses is limited for single family properties to minimize the number of entries onto
public streets, allow for on -street parking, provide snow storage areas and minimize
crossing the public right-of-way. The allowance of a second access is a matter of
convenience and not necessity to provide access to the property and a reasonable use.
In review of the submitted site plan, the location of the existing dwelling with attached
garage, septic tank and drainfield dictate that the proposed detached accessory building
be provided to the east side of the lot. To provide access from the existing curb cut, the
secondary driveway would have to cross the front yard to the detached accessory building.
Aside from the poor aesthetics of such a situation, such a driveway would greatly increase
impervious surface and, according to the applicant, interfere with the existing well location.
The applicant's plans indicate that there are small retaining walls either on the property
or to be installed, suggesting minor topography changes across the lot as well.
Planning Report - Olson CUP
Page 2
Another issue to consider is the potential to subdivide the subject property into two lots if
sanitary sewer is petitioned for by the neighborhood and extended. If the subject parcel
were divided in accordance with the resubdivision plan approved as part of the Country
Ridge Preliminary Plat, a second access would be provided along 88th Street for the new
lot. The proposed location of the detached accessory building would preclude such a
resubdivision of the lot because a second lot would not have adequate width in
consideration of setbacks and existing easements. As such, the proposed second access
may be viewed as a no net increase of accesses along 88th Street. We would recommend
that a condition of approval be that the second access be removed if the property is
subdivided to create a second lot.
Spacing. Sections 20-22-4.H.8 and 9 of the Zoning Ordinance require that curb cuts be
spaced not less than 40 feet apart and at least five feet from a side lot line. Based upon
the submitted site plan, the second driveway appears adequately spaced. This should be
verified by the building official if the application is approved.
Width. Section 20-22-4.H.7 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the width of driveway accesses
to 24 feet, as outlined in the Engineering Manual. The proposed second driveway must
not exceed 24 feet, if approved.
Surfacing. Section 20-22-4.H.12.b of the Zoning Ordinance requires that driveways
serving single family uses be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, cobblestone or paving brick.
Although the proposed access will serve a secondary driveway and detached accessory
building, the driveway should be surfaced with one of the above materials to properly
control dust.
Criteria. In considering CUP applications, actions of the Planning Commission and City
Council are to be based upon (but not limited to) the factors outlined in Section 20-4-2.F
of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The standards adopted by the Zoning Ordinance are intended to
implement a functional transportation system that provides adequate access to
properties. In that a second access to a single family property is not a necessity for
reasonable use, the conditional use may only be approved if the application is
found to be consistent with the following policy:
• Proper visibility, design and control of all intersections shall be required to
promote safety. (Policy Plan, p. 56)
Planning Report - Olson CUP
Page 3
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: Given the large lot character of the area and temporary cul-de-sac status
of 88' Street, the second access is not likely to create any issues presently.
However, future subdivision of the property would require an additional access to
serve a new lot. As such, the proposed second access serving the subject property
should be removed if the property is subdivided creating a new lot to prevent any
negative impacts to traffic on 88" Street.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment: The proposed second access satisfies all applicable performance
standards pertaining to location and width either as illustrated on the site plan or by
condition of approval.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Due to existing site conditions including building design and location,
utilities and site topography, the proposed second access may be a preferred
alternative. In that a second access would be allowed along the same frontage if
the lot were subdivided, no negative impacts would be anticipated.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not
anticipated to negatively impact area property values.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The principal concern with the proposed second access is the addition
of a new intersection along 88th Street. This street currently exists as a temporary
cul-de-sac serving five houses. As such, traffic on this street is likely minimal and
a secondary driveway would not be anticipated to have any negative effects.
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 proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the
City's service capacity.
Planning Report - Olson CUP
Page 4
CONCLUSION
The allowance of a second access to serve a single family parcel may not be justified
solely as a matter of convenience. However, there are factors with this application that
suggest a second access may be appropriate. The location of the single family dwelling,
its design, and utility locations limit potential sites for a detached accessory building on the
subject site. Providing access to a detached building in the proposed location from the
existing curb cut is also problematic for the same reasons. Further support for the
applicant's request may be found in that a second access may be anticipated along this
150 feet of frontage to 88th Street should the lot be divided in the future. This suggests
that a second access would not create any potential traffic conflicts on 88"' Street. A
specific recommendation for this application is provided in the executive summary of this
report.
PC. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
Darren and Dana Olson
Planning Report - Olson CUP
Page 5
m
x
D
Nmrl
���vry
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
kp
in
n
tc.
98
W
Z)5
62
R 5a°„ 5
2
z
Ld
7
Flom
,— • fl—
.11, 11.030
J
130
X031 -JO
I1 t 10
/1110,gyp
qi/-JO
/1310
PJB ,56 „9'QF•
9742-10.056-30
10/0 R
/ ¢
8
„O70 R 110.o
R
5
IL
1 ��
10
11
12
13
14
W
09745-30
20
21
222
8
_
Iz
/1100
EL
111.0
�
1+300
m1-30
SERVICE
ROAD
12
N. E. 90th STREET
Li
�
COUNTY ROAD NO. 39
4 4
8'rh.
R
t a
rFo.14"0
R R
2 JIM* 3a
R
a4 _
W
R
10070
6e6°-30
BARTHEL
/,� ACRES
6 Fwm
-N1
R
10
C1J 5
6d2°-30
X30
O l�
1
uj
,30,°
asm-M
3680-M
11000 R
8
/,m0 3 R Flow
7 6
11000 R
5A
Q
D_
�
4
h
7
nu -30
Q
N. E.
a
�
/10010 W7�70
/30,0
1
12
1
1
w
5306-30
N.E. 89th STREET
z
R
g
R
5 2
R
4$
020M1=1204
3
fz2,2oz
iz2,zo3
I
/30eo Fmw
X221201
89 7 6b 5RR
2R
a R
- flowy} 4
3 R
1�
/ low - paw
88th ST R a /1°b
E�
1300 i
n.
SUBJECT SITE
1=1205
°89,-3°
}-
1
2
2 J 3 4 3
02M
0
#221207-
6>e* -30
97114-30
25
gR
%
1 -
/221206
9753-30
z a-30
m
W
Z)5
62
R 5a°„ 5
2
z
Ld
7
.56-30
6
8
GREN1
PJB ,56 „9'QF•
9742-10.056-30
7
Q,
1 ��
1g,°
I00w Q
13
972a-30
W
09745-30
2
F
_
W"4-30
EL
96n1�0Z
m1-30
8
12
3
Li
�
4 4
8'rh.
11
30010
Z
10070
6e6°-30
6 Fwm
�
10
C1J 5
6d2°-30
X30
G wl--30
2
f
asm-M
3680-M
3 3
6005--M
._
4
8
6130--70
7
nu -30
4
N. E.
85th ST.
81M-]030
/10010 W7�70
/30,0
1
12
1
1
F101m
5306-30
122,301
9595-30
Is
W
EXHIBIT A-2
A:,7.-77
EXHIBIT B-1
EXHIBIT B-2
' ; i
PMP(Deod MaR og: Lf U U I V 1 rl T 111 U Ur C: . (.)
FOR STEVE SCHARBER & TONY EMMERICH t
SEWER & WATER OVERLAY
. ..........
7
;
ILL, ILE:�
J U
ca
NM. ROAD
L
CIT
IL
1 16
41
—J L ---J J
per-
AIE
7
J7
12\
A
Li
PROPOSED ROAD
�j,�r'7i n7 -j Lj I
w
J,
r
z_ _I
i
fteE Jw r'-
IN
14
p &AuZ
CITY OF OTSEGO
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NINC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM S. A
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 13 August 2000
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Building Materials
FILE NO.: 176.08 - 00.09
Attached is a finalized version of the proposed amendment to Section 20-17-4 of the
Zoning Ordinance discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on August 7, 2000. The
Planning Commission's discussion on the issue was inconclusive and so the issue is being
brought back for additional comment or changes. Specific discussion should occur
regarding the following issues:
Material Classification. Most Planning Commission members favored the proposed
separation of materials. The proposed categories are based upon the relative quality and
durability of the materials as well as aesthetic character. While all of the materials are
subject to wear and potential damage, a brick facade is likely to have a longer life with less
maintenance than a wood or metal sided building. Further, the cost of a brick structure
adds more value to the property, in turn contributing to the City's tax base. Planning
Commission members should provide direction as to any changes to the materials listed
within each grade.
Commercial Application. A sticking point in reviewing the proposed amendment
appeared to be the percentage of higher grade materials that should be required for
commercial properties. As written, the ordinance would require that any use occurring
within the planned commercial areas defined by the Comprehensive Plan or within any
business zoning district would be required to use 65 percent Grade A materials. There
was no clear consensus as to whether this percentage should be adjusted higher or lower.
If the Planning Commission is able to discuss this issues and come to a resolution, the
next step in this process is to set a date for a public hearing. This item will be discussed
as part of the Planning Commission's August 21, 2000 agenda.
PC. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.: 00 -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20-17-4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
DEALING WITH BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL USES WITHIN THE
CITY.
Section 1. Section 20-17-4 of the Zoning Ordinance (Building Type and
Construction is hereby amended to read as follows:
20-17-4: BUILDING TYPE AND CONSTRUCTION:
A. General Provisions:
1. Metal Buildings: No galvanized or unfinished steel, galvalum
or unfinished aluminum buildings (walls or roofs), except those
specifically intended to have a corrosive designed finish such
as CORTEN steel shall be permitted in any zoning district,
except in association with farming operations or as allowed by
this Section.
2. Quality: Buildings in all zoning districts shall maintain a high
standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with
surrounding properties to ensure that they will not adversely
impact the property values of the abutting properties or
adversely impact the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
3. Finishes: Exterior building finishes shall consist of materials
comparable in grade and quality to the following:
a. The primary exterior building facade finishes for
residential uses shall consist of materials comparable
in grade to the following:
(1) Brick.
(2) Cast in place concrete or pre -cast concrete
panels.
(3) Glass curtain wall panels.
(4) Integral colored split face (rock face) concrete
block.
(5) Wood, natural or composite, provided the
surfaces are finished for exterior use or wood of
proven exterior durability is used, such as cedar,
redwood or cypress.
(6) Stone (natural or artificial).
(7) Stucco (natural or artificial).
(8) Vinyl, steel, aluminum.
b. The primary exterior building facade finishes for
commercial and industrial uses shall consist of
materials comparable in grade to the following:
(1) Grade A:
(a) Brick.
(b) Integral colored split face (rock face)
concrete block.
(c) Glass (curtain wall panels or block).
(d) Stone (natural or artificial).
(e) Stucco (natural or artificial).
(2) Grade B:
(a) Cast in place concrete or pre -cast
concrete panels.
(3) Grade C:
(a) Curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass
and aluminum exterior finishing systems
(non-structural, non -load bearing),
provided such panels are factory
fabricated; finished with a durable non -
fade surface; have adequate dent or
damage resistance; and their fasteners
are of a corrosion resistant design.
(4) Grade D:
(a) Wood, natural or composite, provided the
surfaces are finished for exterior use or
wood of proven exterior durability is used,
such as cedar, redwood or cypress.
-2-
4. Wall Area Calculations. For the purposes of calculating
exterior building material requirements, the total wall area of
structures shall be calculated by taking the total solid surface
area of all facades. The solid area shall encompass all
exterior surfaces except for exterior windows and doors.
5. Foundation Requirements: Structures in excess of one
hundred fifty (150) square feet shall be constructed with
continuous structural load bearing perimeter foundations
except industrial uses within the 1-3 Zoning District and pole
buildings as expressly defined and permitted in accordance
with this Chapter.
6. Pole Buildings: Except for farming operations, pole buildings
shall not be allowed as a principal building or structure, except
in highly unique or special cases as may be allowed by a
conditional use permit.
B. Institutional, Business and Industrial Uses and Zoning Districts:
1. For all uses within the INS, B-1, B-2, B-3, and B -C Zoning
Districts, the exterior building finish of any one wall shall
consist of at least sixty-five (65) percent Grade A materials, as
outlined by Section 20-17-4.A.3.b of this Chapter. Not more
than ten (10) percent of the facade of any one wall shall be
Grade D materials.
2. In the B -W, 1-1 and the 1-2 Zoning Districts, all buildings
constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum
or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with Grade A or B
materials, as defined by Section 20-17-4.A.3.b, on wall
surfaces abutting a public right-of-way, residential uses, or
public areas. The required wall surface treatment may allow
a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the metal or fiberglass wall
to remain exposed if it is coordinated into the architectural
design.
3. Within the 1-3 Zoning District, exterior finish of all buildings
shall comply with Section 20-17-4.A.3 of this Chapter.
4. The City may grant a deferment to the requirements of
Sections 20-17-4.B.1 and 2 of this Chapter when a building or
building addition will be constructed in more than one phase.
Any such deferment shall be processed as a conditional use
permit pursuant to Section 4 of this Chapter and shall be
-3-
subject to the following.-
a.
ollowing:
a. The deferment shall be until the completion of
construction or five (5) years, whichever is less.
b. Property owner shall provide the City with an
irrevocable letter of credit for an amount one and one-
half (1-1/2) the City Building Official's estimated cost of
the required exterior wall treatment. The bank and
letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the
City Attorney. The letter of credit shall assure
compliance with this section of this Chapter.
C. Exceptions to the provisions of Section 20-17-4. B of this Chapter may
be granted as a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 4 of this
Chapter, provided that.-
The
hat:
The proposed building and material maintains the quality,
durability and value intended by the Ordinance.
2. The proposed building is compatible and in harmony with other
existing structures within the district and immediate geographic
area.
3. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.F of this Chapter are
considered and determined to be satisfied.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of , 2000.
ATTEST:
CITY OF OTSEGO
CV
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
-4-
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH WmMt7-*
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 15 August 2000
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Signs
FILE NO.: 176.08
BACKGROUND
Mr. Kenneth Nathe of the Highway 101 Market recently addressed the City Council during
open forum regarding signs allowed his business. Mr. Nathe would like to be able to erect
off premises signs advertising the Highway 101 Market and provide larger on site signs
identifying the business. The City Council directed that the Planning Commission consider
if any change to the existing regulations should be made. The purpose of this
memorandum is to outline the existing Ordinance provisions and basis for regulations
pertaining to Mr. Nathe's request. This information is to be discussed by the Planning
Commission as part of their agenda on August 21, 2000.
ANALYSIS
Sign Regulations. City's may not regulate the content of signs, only their size, location,
height, etc., to avoid infringement on First Amendment rights. The purpose of adopting
sign regulations is only to address community aesthetic and safety issues. Aesthetically,
signs are regulated to avoid overcrowding, obtrusive and blighting signs that detract from
community character. Signs are also regulated to keep them from being a distraction to
traffic on public streets, which could lead to potential accidents.
Off -Premises Signs. Section 20-27-3.13 prohibits erection of advertising signs or
billboards within the City that are used to advertise products or services not exclusively
related to the use of the property on which the sign is located. Off premises signs are
prohibited in that they do not contribute aesthetically or in terms of business identification
to the property on which they are located.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 61 2-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM
Further, these signs are prohibited in that they may go beyond identifying business
locations within the City of Otsego. It must be strongly emphasized that the City cannot
specify that an off premises sign advertise only those businesses located in Otsego. It is
impossible to justify how the physical presence of a sign advertising a business within
Otsego has any different physical impact to the City than one advertising a business in Elk
River or the Twin Cities. Any such regulation would be dealing with content of the sign,
which is not enforceable.
On -Site Signage. Mr. Nathe also expressed a concern that the signage allowed on-site
for the Highway 101 Market was too restrictive. The interim use permit provisions carried
over the sign provisions allowed traditional roadside farm stands, as follows:
a. Are located only on the subject site and are no more than 100 feet from the point
of sale.
b. Are limited to no more than two (2) structures totaling not more than sixteen (16)
square feet.
C. Are erected and removed daily and are not to be displayed at times when the sales
operation is closed.
These provisions were carried over on the basis that the use is within the A-1 District and
not a commercial district. As such, some limitations on the use should be expected given
the lower intensity character of this District when compared with a business district. The
Planning Commission should discuss whether any change to allow increased on-site
signage may be appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to consider possible changes to
Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance addressing off -premises signs and signage for
temporary seasonal sales within the A-1 District. As both issues deal with community
character, direction from the Planning Commission is critical. At least on the issue of off -
premises signs, our office would strongly caution against any change to the existing
provisions based upon the potential negative effect to community character and the
inability of the City to regulate the use of such signs for exclusively local purposes.
PC. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
-2-