09-18-00 PCNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
NINC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 13 September 2000
RE: Otsego - Roden/Weidenbach Concept Plans
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.29
BACKGROUND
Floyd and Beverly Roden own approximately 197 acres northwest of 801' Street and CSAH
19. Donald and Vernon Weidenbach own approximately 214 acres to the north of the
Roden properties. Each of the property owners wishes to subdivide one lot along the
common property line of their respective properties. The proposed lots are to be created
for construction of new dwellings for Bret and Keri Schoen and Thomas Weidenbach.
The issue with the proposed subdivision is that the applicants have proposed to construct
these house at the west side of these properties adjacent to a creek. The resulting lots
would be defined as flag lots with the house sites setback more than 2,400 feet from
access to a public street. City staff has meet with the applicants on several occasions to
discuss the proposed subdivisions' consistency with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
regulations and intent and the specific designs.
In advance of proceeding with the necessary formal applications for rezoning and plat
approval, the concepts are being presented to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The intent of the concept plan review is to provide informal comments and input regarding
the proposed subdivisions to give an indication as to whether they are appropriate.
However, because the formal applications have not been submitted, it is inappropriate for
the Planning Commission or City Council to take any action. Therefore, no motions
concerning the subdivision concepts should be made as this matter is for discussion only.
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Subdivision Concepts
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 6
PHONE 61 2-595-9636 FAX 61 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC�%a WINTERNET.COM
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcels are within the Agricultural Preserve area
designated by the Comprehensive Plan, which allowed residential development at a
density of 4 units per 40 acres on street fronting parcels and 1 unit per 40 acres for "back"
parcels. The density prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan is intended to allow
subdivision of large agricultural tracts for rural residential use. These subdivisions can be
accomplished by clustering several small lots and one or two larger tracts or several large
rural tracts. The overall intent to allow some development while protecting the long term
potential for resubdivision should urban services become available.
Zoning. The subject parcels are each zoned A-1 District, as well as a Shoreland Overlay
District. As part of a preliminary plat application, the applicants would request rezoning
to A-2 District in order to allow for the additional rights permitted at a 4 per 40 density for
road frontage parcels and 1 per 40 density in anticipation of possible future development
and to avoid conflict with the maximum lot size requirements of the A-1 District. While the
primary focus of this concept review is to discuss the proposed lot layouts, it should be
noted that the necessary rezoning action would be generally consistent with the provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Subdivision. The creation of the proposed lots would involve the concurrent combination
and subdivision of portions of several of the applicants' 40 acre parcels. As such the
subdivisions must be processed as preliminary and final plats, opposed to administrative
divisions.
Access. Access to the proposed lots would be from CSAH 19. This roadway is
designated as a minor arterial, which discourages direct access. A second access issue
with the proposed divisions is the distance of the home sites from a public street. This
raises a concern about police, fire or ambulance vehicle access to the home if there is an
emergency. Because of the distances involved and the density limits in place in the
Agricultural Preserve, it is likely not economically feasible to extend public streets to serve
the proposed lots deeper into the subject sites. As you will recall, all lots within the City
are required to have the minimum district frontage to an improved public street. Creation
of lots without said frontage would require approval of a variance based upon a finding of
physical hardship.
Subdivision Design. The applicants have provided four concepts for subdivision of the
respective parcels to create the two lots. The subdivision concepts have been designed
in consideration of the minimum design requirements of 1 acre in area and 150 feet of
frontage per lot. The following paragraphs address each of the subdivision concepts:
• Concept A. Concept A proposes that each lot would have a 150 x 130 foot area
directly adjacent to CSAH 19. From this area, a 25 foot wide corridor would extend
west on each lot 2,400 feet. The proposed lot on the Roden property would be an
-2-
additional 245 feet beyond the common driveway corridor and consist of a 3.4 acre
buildable area. The proposed lot on the Weidenbach property is 415 feet north of
the common driveway corridor. The principal issues with this concept is the future
reuse of the driveway corridor and the remnant parcel on the Weidenbach property
that is left to the south of the building area. This remnant is detached from the
balance of the Weidenbach property by the creek to the west.
• Concept B. This concept proposed to extend the 150 foot frontage to CSAH 19 all
the way back to the building area on the Roden property and to the end of the
common driveway on the Weidenbach property. This option has the same
concerns regarding the remnant parcel on the Weidenbach property. Otherwise,
this option is technically correct. Resubdivision of the access corridor could be
accomplished with cooperation of the owners of the two lots if sanitary sewer were
available by extending a street down the center with lots on each side.
• Concept C. Option C utilizes the same access corridor of Option A, but the
building area on the Weidenbach property is larger because the remnant parcel has
been incorporated.
• Concept D. This concept uses a 150 foot corridor extending back from CSAH 19
to the building areas and proposes the larger building area on the Weidenbach
property to avoid any remnant parcels.
Each of the proposed subdivisions may be in technical conformance with the provisions
of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. The applicant has provided example
subdivision designs with the concepts that illustrate potential future resubdivision of the
balance of the applicants' properties. These resubdivision plans indicate that the
proposed flag lots could ultimately result in 50 to 300 foot wide corridors separating future
neighborhoods and do not adequately address the long term reuse of the corridors.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the reasons stated herein, including access, irregular lot shape and limitations
on resubdivision, our office has not been supportive of the proposed subdivisions. While
the proposed lots may be technically consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, they are contrary to the intent of these same
regulations, as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan policies to allow rural development
only in such a manner that will ultimately allow for redevelopment at urban densities. Of
the concepts that are presented, we would consider Concept #4 to be the most reasonable
in that the 300 foot access corridor does have some resubdivision potential with
cooperation of the property owners and there is no remnant between the two buildable lots.
However, a preference for this subdivision is relative to the other concepts in that we do
not believe that a subdivision based on any of the four concepts should be approved.
-3-
This issue is being brought to the Planning Commission and City Council for discussion
to provide the property owners with input as to City officials opinions of the proposed
subdivisions. Because the subdivision would require rezoning and preliminary plat
approvals, this discussion should remain informal. We would not recommend that the
Planning Commission or City Council take any formal action, but rather provide individual
comments regarding the concepts as presented.
pc. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Andy MacArthur
Floyd and Beverly Roden
Bret and Keri Schoen
Donald and Vernon Weidenbach
Thomas Weidenbach
-4-
NAC
v
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
i.A%
,^
0
R
r Bj
4
R
-,0019