Loading...
08-21-00 PCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTA INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEAR P WT 3, PLANNING REPORT 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 However, the application was withdrawn prior to the City Council considering the request.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 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.CO' 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: 1. 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 85t�' Street, shift Street B at least two lots to the south, and revise the intersection of Streets A and B with an 83rd 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 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 85th 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 85th 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 851h 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 85th 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 85t' 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 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.: '/ 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 11 1u ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD 5p �2a Z 4 W,• L4 W, �aaaadd Rx " F sas�a xxxxx m X 2 John ONvsr d Aasoclates, /nc. �^ r••1.11r Qe P ,,. rIR tll ° (f ltf I t t /Ar)111-Q866 ! FU STONEGATE ESTATES 0(m111 OTSEGO, MN. W FOR: TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT INC. PRELIMINARY PLAT d: _ PHASING SITE PLAN John ONvsr d Aasoclates, /nc. �^ r••1.11r Qe P ,,. rIR tll ° (f ltf I t t /Ar)111-Q866 ! P � Yi: 'Si� 0(m111 it, D n r'!FC31 !en■n -- p ^t per. s; 's $ [a F v :913Sg ga P8 o8e '��g' g�g';p Qo P • �. John ONvsr d Aasoclates, /nc. �^ r••1.11r Qe P ,,. rIR tll ° (f ltf I t t /Ar)111-Q866 ! I .I, .hn X.11 "� ml ;',",: ' "W ' I. � � w •. w 1111 1Yw1 v11PVINtw wW Ilwl I n ]II A1JytiR,n WegtlaeJ Yrol°nwn �r�, o �x- 11 N111n..o11 G 99n.1Q)0.C���, I n C. DwlNevn � — Nll _. _1 �! 1!/ wn nr u IIQ ChID DY�J} UWG. _jt WPI I[XI� pr INn D n r'!FC31 !en■n -- Y / �' if halt SnY4 Yff tl ' 4 6b.Yxv r �a.ua r Nat o• neve w Fmva rrREns aV NeftC SfR¢n N Cd M "I Oatsa aY0M0 GOPHER MA % rei i Tdr k- 46 w. d vr� I" X m• : N Ia6[ M STOAM47E ESWES PLANNED UNIT DEMaPAIENT [ecAN oEscRranaN �w...p a.�atw, t�we, Fibl.e m. MaM..w aatr or d. ewa.me o�n. er s.etwi u, r..rd,a txt. Raw. 21 WIgMt Cant% r1n...ts auye Canty R.W .3 uW ..ipt Mot pat �1M0 w.lsly ./ N. bp..Yy J..praN M aM ". �awlK npN �Sealtlrlwt yte� mG a M lrMt IC.CC M .o.IMtM M IM. W tW NaM.rt arty sl VI. SeMal Owbr, Maw. p..galX p— t .p10 wt M. ei M. II.rM...t asla N M. TalMaat awrta, a.falp a 6S18S b.E Msty OJ..I b IM brl. JO awt-�W Y4i. SaYOwt Cuort- aq Ma. tamMUp, .M ae.pt Mel pert Idw 4 Canty RW Its .2 cental. xraT an D6IIOPAIENT SUYYIRY mitt MwTRD .tRE.I r,ae0.J3x1 $R xrT k 6eN 3x Ras MG .6as)1 Wt saR err 1.6x Ac k m>K tn¢mm Mu Oat NlrlQM. MEAN r.afgeno son I77LtI2J SOR axa .c am Ae wrrt l..t.p - nap...s _ _ Stock 2rLet:. ew W, si cat r - 0.en Sa.R NNat z T"Q .9si[ F.KY - tt mva IMM6 - s6 BLor� J Let': / m- - Alm Ww W W r - 1411 S¢R W rawAc Lo WT bm/Ap �[ nut[r tow K -Al t 3 -it. L6f b— IN laT m t lI( tOT vod CtMMR n FC 1 FreF w S.'tl.a 160 R 1 t Atlar. !t tOT OOAt Iww lOT (4LM) V R (rfphH) 121000 sa R tWII [OT 9II CCMrtJ! Y1klVY YARD SEIMGC (Ippp) 10.1Ta0 56 R Js F! Y.N9 SFIr.Ct Srr YAII .YrLCM � b R re R Blnat f tet': Lj i W � - raow saR Z tee J - raw saFr. i �Q' Stock 2rLet:. W Z cat r - 0.en Sa.R ¢ U3 QJI C BLor� J Let': Z 'L, OW N W - W r - 1411 S¢R W Awr.p. W Ors r0.rrJ saR Lo Lo f, OMnx O Fy- O ZZI K -Al t 3 -it. L6f b— W Z �v7i eb�.oa—r. "w_i. swo Mr O (� W y;! s (T6J) a.r_JHT r W d. Grm(amc Talhhavl DeN/opm6nt lna N � 6pu a r1�sr. -awe ren r+ex'.vo-6a cLTE FN NRONAIENTACONDInQN SITE DESIGN ISSUES eMOt dIMT wM M[ M DEW.C"EIt T pE CF EM"RCMYET ,:MOT MM M, EL T A eM 1ME 91[. Q XEXHIBIT B-2 m m ”" a ` �°^ .° ! !' = STONEGATE ESTATES 00 OTSEGO. UN. $EEgAga ilp A TOLLEFSON DEVEFOR:LOPMENT INC. '^•.��, fl 7 N egg � un nvt fl ¢¢ 8 4$ x 0 sz Y R 7f RR, g if gg ag '�4 h$SRfl ma. A Ssfl: 4p�p „I{ 'g'a 9 pR mF Eq i m m fF, m ”" a ` �°^ .° X = STONEGATE ESTATES 1g OTSEGO. UN. $EEgAga ilp A TOLLEFSON DEVEFOR:LOPMENT INC. PRELIMINARY STORM SEWER, GRADING do EROSION CONTROL_PLAN John Olver a Assocreres, a s ”" a ` �°^ .° me O�gRQRQ xz' h 1g fl p4 $EEgAga ilp A g$A�fl4 '^•.��, fl 7 N egg � un nvt fl ¢¢ 8 4$ sme f?)1 sz Y R 7f RR, g if gg ag '�4 h$SRfl ma. A Ssfl: 4p�p „I{ 'g'a 9 John Olver a Assocreres, a s ”" a ` �°^ .° me uczcw vluw �Sf-2l �p11 fcrsNzr +e>t lr.�irJ.�r '^•.��, '.- -_.. _ ___.. � un nvt .rc vx l I F11 sme f?)1 yw»�QQ1ZtllyilLrlL 1xY IrZt m 1 4 -�IUNtUAIL ESTATES HAW LAKE, MN. FOR: TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT INC. PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER :J HIP- M I�ga John rOl/vsr 1 6 Assoc/et Ino. .. ... ^••H• . asp opaa• +penile ta4 gwrc. Ylnne.p ( t)111-tprt (lAx)111-6866 t •- YYa YNre renµ sell. too (elf 89114 --JOTS aat> 1 (nxMw-Sop P P lit mz* t 9� 4 M $� ilk, � £ R p F€ Rqy +650 o �, gua� Rk1Sa r � S R i{ ne.eby u.IIIY IM101 IMS pbn .of WE nepored by me w wldrc n. dvecl bMrvlaiwl wN Ilwl I n TI(July Ia'SN;N 6/Y/OU p.lE OESCMIIpI I•aa...a pal.. p nMa W b�1 I,ITn. mneeWa. .cu _L d au m.� vn. Inn.1_...._.._ .__....._ M CIp.1;NEU JE�n RC zoom (� m El 7 r m �_ D 0 z u � n IE m F ti D 8 v 0 RI DRAUN BW�O N RcpIFY L D. IMwE DATE : !'��DIA�MOND �HOME AMMcGULLUM'S .VaE aS . rgrpw w npflwwro.. RAFTING SERVICE .o. pn4a»wcE i.vniad ucoi . dIOiw . nlGlll.y =—.=P,—= .ip.- .w u9 Fopr .d cw.rr cum u I IAW BY: PAM McCUL UMS v WAD PLAN _ DRAFTING S;E=RMCE�-"_t u I St���PP, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 14 August 2000 RE: Otsego - Olson 2"d Access CUP FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.24 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Darren and Dana Olson own a single family dwelling located at 15460 88th 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 88th Street NE. Section 20-22-4.1-11 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 88th 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 5541 6 PHONE 61 2-595-9636 FAX 61 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 88"' 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 88"' 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 8e 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 88"' 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 88"' 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 Nmr; kp: n C. 98 ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD ui D 5 6 R R 5leoeo 5 2 w /tI10 frvw 11030 11001 J W 1 foa-z 111,0 /„=o sw� J foII-�o luw � /,ao R 8 /1010 A l+ao 6 A 5 IZ z 10 11 12 R 13 14 : 20 21 -_� a Q576-30 2 012w SERVICE ROAD m2-'ao 12 3 /1100 4 4polo 111.0 w _ 90th STREET COUNTY ROAD NO. 39 6 2 — 7B�ARR 3r 2i 4 w2 GpJ 89231-M2 Mi1-JO jf670 r� Jim ACRES 11040EL 30575-30 w \oG 6 M R n 4 8 7 4 1 1 i' 1=0 N.E. 85th ST. n i1M-]0 �M 110010 flow } + 1 7 1 1 A flow 1,�5 A Q rz.-M a = soe-3o ' s.m_30 010110 2 3 a 2 I w 0 O N.E. 89th STREET z R g5 R ^/ R $ 1ma0 3 0221 202 #221203 /221204 +221201 O 1 �f 6b R R o 89 I 5R2A a 43 3 2 1 h plow flow 110w 88th STREP f'°'° S� 11mo b SUBJECT SITE /221203 ,-70 2 R 3 4 /z 3 12cm A holo R /2212073-1 1 MI -J0 " 6770-1 -'0 2 a 1 #221208 8763-30 — = ui D 5 6 R R 5leoeo 5 2 w 7 ]M. 7 I60e0 13 Q576-30 2 9 s,-ao m2-'ao 12 3 4 4polo ath w 6 2 .. 10 8620-M5 GpJ 89231-M2 Mi1-JO jf670 30575-30 \oG 6 °5.' 3 3 4 8 7 4 8130.40 esssa0 N.E. 85th ST. i1M-]0 �M 110010 1 12 1 1 110120 Z Q soe-3o ' s.m_30 010110 1221301 85&5-30 O U 3! EXHIBIT A-2 n EXHIBIT B-1 j." I EXHIBIT B-2 v'ropoes(d Nat 09: Louulv 1 rl T r1luur: FOR STEVE SCHARBER & TONY EMMERICH . .: I` -- SEWER & WATER OVERLAY x u ...... ... . Lu v.7 'I•+,•.ti;r /;_' `1;; x 1 11 1f'- —,�2-�%/ �_ --� '�' `t\\ \. `\ \��\' " "\\,2 �•',:mo\' >\ \ - ,�I •. ��,%,. �� `J�._. / I 1 rII�/rjIl I�� l (L(IIIL/zJ,.Ir,I 'I:' . III�` III I �II �IIrI III t ,I IIIIr II1�1I1 Ja1I11 III LrI 4 U) vp LLI :If,, -7 T-� 1411 co A— p— I PROPOSED ROAD N a/ C�:, �i .1\I \ \.� \ �' i \ I 1-j _Ljf 1 5j L L 5— d' r ____( ' �`�/�i.zll \ c �� (i 1 1..1 1 1 1 1 I I I� I I Ll ® f I r 9 14A, --X I PROPOSE ROAD It Iv -A 'r 4 �o 1,43 /�� - ..� �..._ ----' G ' _ L� r , L_ —JL ! .�I I 1 11 1 I I III I� Ilr ,� �i I I _ '��� Mn JLC L ftym&. :7 1 Z---- .. .... tod CITY OF OTSEGO INC MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH Otsego Planning Commission Daniel Licht 13 August 2000 Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Building Materials 176.08 - 00.09 s A 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*'' -' re=. 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 554 1 6 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. -I- (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. 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: 1. 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 M Larry Fournier, Mayor Elaine Beatty, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk IE 6 N INC MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH Otsego Planning Commission Daniel Licht 15 August 2000 Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Signs 176.08 RIM 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 5 54 1 6 PHONE 61 2-595-9636 FAX 61 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@a 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- 4.