Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-06-00 PC
Hakanson , Anderson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 5g91 1 Assoc., Inc. Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax: 763/427-0520 '' j'. i October 30, 2000 Thomas D. Juergens Anoka Equine Veterinary Service 16445 N.E. 70" Street Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Building Expansion 2001 Dear Mr. Juergens, We have reviewed the architect's drawing of the site and have the following comments and concerns: 1. In 1998, there was a requirement by our staff that an "as -built" drawing of the site be provided to the City. A copy of the drainfield location is in our files from 1993. However, an "as -built" of the 1998 expansion has not been provided to our office. The current expansion will need a more detailed site plan showing existing facilities such as, but not limited to, septic tank, drain field, well, driveway, parking, buildings, wetlands, etc. Contours need to provide for any elevation changes proposed. 2. There is no mechanical plan to determine if additional sewage treatment is required. Both existing and alternate drainfields must be shown on the site plan. Any drainfield change must be submitted and current standards met with respect to the ordinance. 3. The drainage issue needs further review with the additional building creating more hard surface. There would be no requirement for storm water runoff rate control, however water quality is the issue that needs to be addressed. The wetlands are large enough to handle the rate control issue. A NURP pond will be required on site for water quality. We will make this letter available to the planning commission and city staff for their review. If you have further questions, please contact the City staff or myself. Yours truly, HAKANNDE ON ASSOCIATES, INC. Law nce,G. Mshak, P.E. L :ck cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator Elaine Beatty, Clerk Civil 6-Afunicipal Dan Licht, NAC Engineering C Jerry Olson, Building Inspector Land Surveying for \\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\AOTSEGO\2227\ot2227tji.doc Nabil" IST ASSOCIATR4 CONSULTA"Irs" INC% 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 1 November 2000 RE: Otsego - Anoka Equine Veterinary Clinic FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.32 BACKGROUND Anoka Equine Veterinary Clinic is proposing an expansion of their 5,540 square foot facility located at the southeast corner of TH 101 and 70'hStreet. The proposed 7,190 square foot expansion consists of two treatment areas, a lab, break room, feed room and 5,400 square foot riding arena. The subject site is within the Sanitary Sewer Service District outlined by the Comprehensive Plan and is guided for commercial land use. The subject parcel is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District. Veterinary clinics are allow within the A-1 District as a conditional use. A conditional use permit for the original facility was approved by the City Council in February 1993. An amendment to the CUP was approved in June 1998. This recent expansion proposal also requires consideration of an amendment of the CUP pursuant to Section 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has also requested that the City consider an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow pole building construction as a principal building. FYhihitc- A. Site Location B. Site Plan C. Building Plans D. Floor Plans ANALYSIS Criteria. In considering an amendment of the CUP allowing a veterinary clinic use of the subject site to accommodate the proposed expansion, the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decision in part on the factors outlined in Section 20-4-2.17 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The subject site is planned for future commercial uses that would take advantage of access and visibility to TH 101 and available sanitary sewer. In the interim, the site is planned for continued agricultural uses. The existing use is an appropriate bridge between the interim plan and ultimate land use plan as it is both agricultural and commercial in nature. However, the a portion of the proposed building is inconsistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the highest quality building construction and materials within planned commercial areas in that pole construction with vertical metal siding is proposed, which is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Comment. Surrounding land uses include single family residential to the east and north and agricultural uses to the south. The site has been previously found to have adequate screening in terms of natural vegetation to buffer the surrounding residential uses. As such, the facility is expected to be compatible with surrounding uses, provided all performance standards are met. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). Comment. The proposed use will be required to conform with all applicable performance standards. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Comment: In place expansion of an existing business along the TH 101 corridor is a positive contribution to the community in terms of tax base, services and further utilization of prime commercial land in an area anticipated to develop with urban commercial businesses. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. Planning Report - Anoka Vet Services CUP Page 2 Comment. Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not anticipated to negatively impact area property values provided all performance standards are satisfied. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the property. Comment: The subject site is served by 70' Street, which was designed as a county road. The only issue with the site expansion is access to the right-of-way, which is regulated by MNDoT as part of the TH 101 expansion. 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 provided that adequate on-site utilities are provided and maintained until such time as City services may be extended to the area. Animals. Section 27 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines specific regulations for the keeping. of animals generally and farm animals such as horses. A condition of the CUP amendment should be that the use conform with these performance standards. Lot Requirements. The following table illustrates the applicable lot requirements of the A-1 District. All said requirements have been found to be complied with. Lot Area Lot Width Setbacks Front Side Side Rear Required 1 ac. 150 ft. 65 ft. 65 ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. Proposed +/-62 ac. 846 ft. 127 ft. 550 ft. 180 ft. 2,060 ft. Building Expansion. The expansion of the existing building includes two parts. The first part is abuts the existing building and includes the aforementioned treatment areas, lab, break room and lab. This part of the expansion is basically an extension of the existing building with the same exterior rock face concrete block facade and roof line with fiberglass shingles. This segment of the building is consistent with the requirements of Section 20-17-4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The larger element of the building expansion is a 5,400 square foot riding arena with a clay floor that is attached to the principal building. This portion of the building is proposed with a pole foundation and dirt floor. Section 20-17-4. A of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all buildings provide a continuous foundation and that pole building construction for a Planning Report - Anoka Vet Services CUP Page 3 principal use is limited to farming operations only. The arena portion of the building expansion is not consistent with these requirements. The building expansion must be revised such that the arena is provided a continuous foundation in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. This requirement does not preclude use of a clay floor. The applicant has requested that the City consider a possible amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow the pole structure. This provision of the Zoning Ordinance was just amended in October to eliminate the allowance for pole buildings by CUP based upon existing practice and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan encouraging the highest quality building construction. The findings of fact regarding the City Council's approval of the amendment should be consulted for specific discussion of the issue. The Planning Commission and City Council should take specific action on this request as part of any motion. The exterior of the arena portion of the building is to have a vertical metal siding with a metal roof. Because the use is within the A-1 District, the general exterior finish requirements of Section 20-17-4-.3 of the Zoning Ordinance apply. While the use of metal siding is consistent with these provisions, we believe that the change in materials between the medical facility and arena compromises the architectural quality of the existing structure. Obviously, cost is a factor in selecting building materials for this structure. However, the City may wish to require use of horizontal lap siding which has a less agricultural appearance or less similarity to lower quality industrial buildings than vertical siding. At a minimum, the colors utilized for the facade and roof of the two building segments should be the same. Buildings within the A-1 District are limited to a height of 45 feet. The existing building and medical facility element of the expansion have a defined height of 15 feet. The arena portion of the proposed building expansion has a defined height of 19 feet. The building expansion includes cupolas the same as those on the existing building, which are exempt from the height limit requirements. Existing Pole Building. There is an existing detached pole building on the subject site, Mich is designated to be removed. This structure would be considered a non -conforming structure under the City's present building requirements. Therefore, its removal is considered positive. Off -Street Parking/Loading. The provision of off-street parking for the subject use have been based on a requirement that at least three spaces be provided per veterinary doctor on staff. Based upon previous staffing levels, this equated to nine parking stalls. The applicant will need to provide documentation of current staffing levels and the provision of adequate on site parking to satisfy this ratio. The previous CUPs required that off-street parking areas be asphalt surfaced with curb and that the stalls be painted onto the site. The submitted site plan does not adequately detail existing or proposed conditions surrounding the building to verify compliance. Planning Report - Anoka Vet Services CUP Page 4 The site has an animal loading area on the east side of the building. This area does not have a hard surface for the safety and health of the animals. As this area is separated from the main access by a gate, it has been allowed as part of the previous CUP applications. Waste. The handling of trash, medical waste and manure are all potential issues with the proposed use. Medical waste is required to be disposed of in accordance with Heath Department standards. Manure should be controlled as necessary to control odors and flies, as well as MPCA requirements. Any other trash should be stored within the building or within containers kept within an enclosure. Lighting. The proposed building expansion includes the addition of wall pack lighting on the northeast side of the building (facing east) and decorative fixtures on the southwest side of the building (facing TH 101). The wall pack lighting should be installed with a 90 degree horizontal cutoff to ensure that the light is downcast and does not cause glare. Grading. The site plan illustrates proposed grading to accommodate the building expansion. All grading and drainage issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Utilities. The proposed building expansion includes facilities that may generate additional sewage that would need to be treated by on-site systems. The submitted plans do not include information regarding existing utilities or any expansions. This information should be provided for the City Engineer's review and approval. Access. MNDoT required the applicant to obtain an access permit when the facility was expanded in 1998 due to the proximity of the curb cut to TH 101, which is MNDoT right-of- way. The applicant should provide documentation as to whether such a permit is necessary with this expansion and if such a permit has been obtained. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed expansion of the Anoka Equine Veterinary Clinic is generally appropriate from a use standpoint as an appropriate transition from agricultural commercial to planned urban commercial uses of the area. There are a number of issues to be addressed with the submitted site plan, however. First is the use of pole building construction for a portion of the building expansion. Pole buildings have not been allowed as a principal building for uses other than agricultural uses as a matter of policy in Otsego. The City Council recently approved an amendment to the building requirements section of the Zoning Ordinance eliminating the allowance for pole buildings as a principal use by CUP on the basis of this policy and the direction of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the highest quality building standards within the Planning Report - Anoka Vet Services CUP Page 5 community, especially within planned commercial areas. Although this is a policy issue to be decided by City Officials, we believe it would be unwise to undue the recent amendment based upon this situation. The area is planned for urban commercial uses and the proposed pole building structure would be inconsistent with the desired character. Regardless of the City Council's final action on the amendment request, we do believe the CUP amendment is appropriate given a general consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, subject to the conditions outline under Option B.1, below. However, the Planning Commission and City Council may table the action to allow the applicant an opportunity to address said conditions prior to final approval. A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 1. Motion to approve an amendment to Section 20-17-4.A.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to restore the previous language allowing pole buildings as a principal building by CUP based upon a finding that the action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Motion to deny a request to amend Section 20-17-4.A.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow pole buildings as a principal building by CUP based upon a finding that the action is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Motion to table the application (Specific direction should be provided to the applicant and or City Staff for further information). B. Conditional Use Permit Amendment 1. Motion to approve a CUP amendment for expansion of Anoka Equine Veterinary Service subject to the following conditions: a. The site is developed in conformance with previous CUP conditions and the following plans and specifications, except as may be amended herein: (1) Site Plan dated 10/16/00 (2) Building and Floor Plan Sheets Al -A4 dated 10/16/00 b. The site plan is revised to provide all information outlined by Section 20-4-4 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless specifically exempted by City Staff. C. All animals are kept in compliance with the performance standards of Section 27 of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Report - Anoka Vet Services CUP Page 6 d. The building plans are revised to provide a continuous foundation for the arena, use horizontal lap metal siding for the arena and color schemes that are consistent with the existing structure. e. The applicant provide documentation as to staff levels and the ration of parking stalls provided on site. f. All waste is handled in accordance with applicable regulations, agency rules and the Otsego Zoning Ordinance. g. Lighting installed on the subject site must have a 90 degree horizontal cut-off. h. All grading and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. i. The applicant provide documentation that MNDoT access permits requirements have been satisfied related to this current expansion. j. Comments of other City staff. 2. Motion to deny the requested CUP amendment based upon a finding that the action is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. pc. Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Larry Koshak Andy MacArthur Tom Juergens Planning Report - Anoka Vet Services CUP Page 7 ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD o m 011176 ADDITION i REMODELING FOR: DD _ 1$j9e ANOKA EQUINE ?UL o VETERINARY SERVICES 3 In s, a o up I ;gad8 m D o o a^° ;7R5C, ^ E z M o wmi T = _•_ ADDITION l REMODELING FOR: C w ip i0'<„i - = z � n IM'• i �gimD o pw D ;457SI W N N — ` ADDITION l REMODELING FOR: 70N O } ' o ANOKA EQUINE - = z VETERINARY SERVICES i �gimD o -i� z N N n./a lf+i:uoNw�a i1�0 i0+ Ci�as OOOC 1: ilawwv"3-a a:r0 bubo &;i.m N7q{a1YG7 fl fl 11 OiAB:� la N�raO sNTld i ,u lia.faaNs SlOHlIH02!'d 'S31b'IOOSSb' ? NOSNHOf 1 ,...,d= F= J, 18 in� Hca ©FE] moon -- uno nen -M -€a za a �e [ram 'Fa ra - -� N T � ka Maimru •� ^"'It � hili �.� "ORTHWIST ASSOCIATIt4 CONSUL ANTS4 INC, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 1 November 2000 1 RE: Otsego - Otsego Business Park; Rezoning/Site Plan Review FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.05 BACKGROUND Mr. Michael Day, owner of Direct Digital Controls, Inc., is proposing to convert an existing single family dwelling located at 8500 Parrish Avenue NE (CSAH 42) for use as a contractor's office/warehouse. The applicant intends to redevelop the site within five years with high performance industrial uses thatwould connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water. In the interim, the applicant is proposing to use the site with minimal improvements and continued utilization of the existing on-site well and septic system. The 14 acre subject site is located within the Sanitary Sewer Service District designated by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update and is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service Area District. The applicant's proposal requires a rezoning to B -W District to be considered to accommodate the use. Also, because of the subject site's proximity to T.H. 101, site and building plan review is also required. The Planning Commission and City Council had previously considered the applicant's request in March of this year. In review of the submitted plans and proposal to utilize the existing dwelling on site "as is" in advance of possibly developing an office/warehouse building, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request by a 7-0 vote. Subsequently, the City Council also voted to deny the request. However, the City Council provided direction to the applicant that they would reconsider the application if a more defined development plan were submitted. The applicant has provided revised preliminary plat plans for review. Exhibits: A. Site Location B. Applicant Narrative C: Site Survey D. Grading and Drainage Plan ANALYSIS Processing. Because the City Council took action to formally deny the applicant's request on Mach 13, 2000, the same request for the same property is not to be considered for one year from the date of action. The application may be accepted if the City Council votes by a 4/5 majority to reconsider the request. This action must technically be taken prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation. As such, we would recommend that the Planning Commission open the public hearing that has been noticed and table the action until the meeting on November 20, 2000. This will allow the City Council to consider accepting the application at their meeting on November 13, 2000. Zoning. The applicant is proposing a contractor's office/warehouse for storing electronic building environment controls. This use would be permitted in either the B -W, 1-1 or 1-2 District. The subject site is on the boundary of the commercial and industrial areas planned between CSAH 42 and T. H. 101. As the B -W District is intended to be a transition District between commercial and industrial uses, it is likely the most appropriate district to apply at this location. In considering amending the Zoning Map to rezone the subject site from A-1 to B -W District, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate the potential impacts of the action. The findings of the City Officials are to be based upon (but not limited to) the following: The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The subject site is within the Sanitary Sewer Service District designated by the Comprehensive Plan and is guided for industrial development. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that this area is to develop with industrial uses with high performance standards and connection to municipal utilities, which take advantage of the visibility and accessability of the area. The preliminary plat would provide opportunities for new industrial development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the applicant's proposal also does not include bringing the site up to conformance with the performance standards for industrial uses or immediately connecting to the sanitary sewer and water systems. The Planning Commission and City Council must consider the following policies that either support or discourage rezoning the parcel at this time: Planning Report - Otsego Business Park Page 2 Support The Highway 101 corridor... shall be promoted as the primary focus for industrial development and operations. (Policy Plan, p. 50) Industrial development shall be strongly encouraged to create new job opportunities and expand the local tax base to assist in paying for needed services and reduce tax impacts on housing costs. (Policy Plan, p. 50) Discourage Standards governing industrial development shall be established and enforced. (Policy Plan, p. 51) v Industrial development which maximizes the return on City investments in public facilities and services shall be promoted. (Policy Plan, p. 51) Existing industrial development shall be encouraged to hook up to municipal sanitary sewer and water service when available. (Policy Plan, p. 51) 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Comment: The applicant has provided for the removal of exterior storage and waste on site, improving compatibility with surrounding uses. The only concern is that long term utilization of the existing structure may be an impediment to the City's goals for the area depending on redevelopment of higher value industrial buildings and connection to the sanitary sewer and water system. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). Comment: As outlined in the paragraphs that follow, the proposed use of the subject site does not satisfy performance standards for development within the B-WDistrict. Any approval of the requested rezoning should be conditioned upon all applicable performance standards being satisfied either at the time of development or by a contract for temporary use of the site in its present condition, with an adequate security to ensure compliance. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Comment: The applicant's proposal may ultimately lead to the type of development intended for the area with the sale and development of adjacent lots. Approval of a zoning amendment to accommodate a reuse of the site in a manner that does not meet required performance standards and does not connect to sanitary sewer and water service at such a highly visible location may establish undesired precedencies. Planning Report - Otsego Business Park Page 3 The applicant has indicated that the substandard conditions would exist no longer than five years. The primary concern of the City should be that is a security or guarantee the site will be redeveloped and/or brought into conformance with applicable standards. Such arrangements have proven problematic in the past. As such, if the applicant's request to use the site as is were approved, an adequate security must be required. It must also be emphasized that any new construction or users would be expected to meet all performance standards and connect to municipal utilities. 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. The City would receive additional property tax revenue based upon a change from residential to industrial tax ratios. However, because the proposed use of the site does not include required improvements for industrial uses, the substandard site would not be expected to have the value of an industrial development that conformed to these standards. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the property. Comment: The subject site has direct access to CSAH 42 which is designated as a minor arterial by the Comprehensive Plan. The capacity of this road should be sufficient to accommodate the conversion from residential to industrial use. However, the access location is offset with the CSAH 42 and 85"' Street intersection. The City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department should review the location of the present access and its design for potential conflicts with the CSAH 42185th Street intersection. The Comprehensive Plan calls for eliminating direct access to CSAH 42. To this end, it is anticipated that 85"' Street will be extended east of CSAH 42 to connect to a future north -south frontage road through the planned commerciallndustrial area, which would provide local access. The submitted preliminary plat provides on -half of the necessary right-of-way for the future street extension. The other half would be acquired with development of the adjacent property to the north to ensure that the extension aligns with the existing 85' Street. 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. However, because connection to the sanitary sewer and water system is not proposed, the re -use of the site does not support the financing Planning Report - Otsego Business Park Page 4 of these systems as anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. The change to a more intensive use of the site does provide an opportunity to require connection to municipal utilities. If the City Council defers connection at this time, a specific agreement for connecting to sanitary sewer and water services must be provided for. Subdivision. The Otsego Business Park preliminary plat consists of five lots with a half right-of-way to allow for a future extension of 85th Street. The following issues pertain to the preliminary plat application: • Format. A preliminary plat is provided that includes the information required by Section 21-6-2 of the Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering Manual. • Access. As noted above, the subject site has direct access to CSAH 42, with future access planned to an extension of 85' Street. Direct access to CSAH 42 by the applicants single business may be accommodated at this time. If a second lot is final platted and new user proposed between CSAH 42 and the lot on which the existing building sits, a CUP for indirect access to a public street would be required unless the 85"' Street extension has been constructed. • Lot Requirements. The minimum lot requirements of the B -W District are a minimum area of two acres and minimum lot width of 200 feet (measured at the front setback line). All five proposed lots meet these minimum standards. Further, each lot appears to have adequate building area within required setbacks. If the applicant intends to use the existing structure, lots 1, 2 and 3 will need to be final platted as one lot in order to meet the setback and lot frontage requirements. This combined lot may be subdivided in the future either with demolition of the existing structure, extension of 85' Street or approval of a CUP for indirect access or combination thereof. • Park and Trail Dedication. Approval of a final plat for the subject property will require satisfaction of park and trail dedication requirements. The City does not have any need for land from the subject parcel. Therefore a cash fee in lieu of land in effect at the time of final plat approval will be required. • Grading, Easements and Utilities. All grading and easement issues are subject to the City Engineer's review and approval. Any plans for future extension of sanitary sewer and water utilities are also subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Building Requirements. Section 20-17-4 requires that all buildings maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding uses. The existing structure's residential design is not necessarily consistent with the anticipated architecture or aesthetics of the planned industrial area. Based upon the Comprehensive Plan, this Planning Report - Otsego Business Park Page 5 area of the community is expected to develop with characteristics similar to the Otsego Industrial Park or of an office/warehouse. Conformance with the building requirements raises the following issues.- Section ssues:Section 20-17-8 of the Zoning Ordinance requires industrial buildings to have at least 1,000 square feet of floor area. Although no floor plans have been submitted, staff meeting discussions with the applicant indicate that the existing structure meets this requirement. • The existing structure is a residential design of stick built construction with wood or vinyl lap siding, which would not meet the requirements of Section 20-17-4, which limits the use of wood or vinyl siding in commercial applications to not more than 10 percent of any one wall. • The maximum height allowed in the B -W District is 30 feet. No elevations have been submitted for the existing structure, which is a split -entry single family dwelling. Although it is estimated that the height of the structure is within the B -W District maximum, the exact measurement would need to be verified. • The applicant has proposed to demolish the proposed structure by 2005. If the Planning Commission or City Council are inclined to allow the conversion of this structure temporarily as a industrial building, it is recommended that a contract and security is provided for to guarantee the applicant's proposal. Parking. Section 20-22-9 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the following off street parking stalls be provided for the proposed use: one stall per 200 sq. ft. of office space; plus, one stall per 1,000 sq. ft. of storage area; plus, one stall per employee; plus, one stall per company truck stored on-site. No information pertaining to floor area, employees or company vehicles has been provided to determine off-street parking requirements. Further, no site plan illustrating the location, design or dimensions of off-street parking areas has been submitted. This information must be provided if the application is approved to verify Ordinance requirements. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing Class -5 gravel surface for the driveway and parking areas. Section 20-22-4.H.12 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that industrial uses provide asphalt or concrete surfaces for parking and driveway areas. Also, Section 20-22-4.H.15 requires that perimeter concrete curb be provided around all driveway and parking areas. Planning Report - Otsego Business Park Page 6 Landscaping. The applicant has not submitted any landscaping plans to illustrate existing or planned vegetation. Section 20-22-4.H.15 requires that parking areas with five or more stalls be landscaped and screened from view of the public right-of-way and adjacent residential uses. Signage. No plans for signage have been submitted. If the rezoning and site plan is approved, any signage installation will require a conformance with Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Lighting. No plans for exterior lighting have been submitted. If additional exterior lighting is to be installed, a site plan illustrating the type and location of said lighting must be submitted and is subject to review and approval. Utilities. The applicant is proposing to continue to utilize the existing on-site septic system and well, instead of connecting to the sanitary sewer and water systems. The existing system will be required to be upgraded to meet current Septic Ordinance standards because of the sale of the property and change in use. Such an investment in the existing system is questionable as sanitary sewer and water service is available to the property. The City should require a contract and security that requires termination of the existing on-site system and/or connection to the sanitary sewer and water system. Development Contract. If the City Council approves the application, it is recommended that the applicant be required to enter into a development contract. Although not recommended, if the City Council approves any deferment of Zoning Ordinance performance standards, the development contract should address when the site must be brought into conformance as well as connection to sanitary sewer and water services. The development contract should also include security provisions to ensure compliance. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed rezoning and preliminary plat would allow for potential development of industrial uses planned for the subject parcel by the Comprehensive Plan. Approval of the applications would also allow for a substandard industrial use that is not connected municipal sanitary sewer and water service in an undeveloped and highly visible area. This raises potential concern because of the potential precedencies involved for the area and for consistent application of the Zoning Ordinance. If the Planning Commission and City Council are inclined to allow industrial use of the site based upon the applicant's proposal, compliance with adopted performance standards must be addressed. If the rezoning and preliminary plat applications are approved, our office recommends that the site be required to satisfy applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements within a development contract that includes securities to ensure compliance. Specific options for Planning Commission and City Council action are outlined below. Planning Report - Otsego Business Park Page 7 Decision 1 -Zoning Amendment (map) A. Motion to approve a rezoning of the. subject site from A-1 District to B -W District based upon a finding that the action satisfies the criteria of Section 20-3-21 of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the following policies: • The Highway 101 corridor... shall be promoted as the primary focus for industrial development and operations. (Policy Plan, p. 50) • Industrial development shall be strongly encouraged to create new job opportunities and expand the local tax base to assist in paying for needed services and reduce tax impacts on housing costs. (Policy Plan, p. 50) B. Motion to deny a rezoning of the subject site from A-1 District to B -W District based upon the criteria of Section 20-3-2.F and a finding that the action is inconsistent with the following policies of the Comprehensive Plan: • Standards governing industrial development shall be established and enforced. (Policy Plan, p. 51) • Industrial development which maximizes the return on City investments in public facilities and services shall be promoted. (Policy Plan, p. 51) • Existing industrial development shag be encouraged to hook up to municipal sanitary sewer and water service when available. (Policy Plan, p. 51) C. Motion to table the application. (Specific direction should be provided to the applicant and/or Staff regarding additional information to be provided.) Decision 2 - Preliminary Plat A. Motion to approve the Otsego Industrial Park preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. All street rights-of-way are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. All grading, drainage and utility issues are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 3. Park and trail dedication requirements for the project are satisfied at the time of final plat approval. 4. The applicant enter into a development contract, pay required fees and post necessary securities, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. 5. Planning Report - Otsego Business Park Page 8 6. Comments of other City Staff. B. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Decision 3 - Site and Building Plan Review A. Motion to approve site and building plans for a contractor operation within the B -W District subject to the following conditions: 1. Application is made for final plat approval that provides a lot for the existing structure that conforms to the requirements of the B -w District. 2. Access to CSAH 42 is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Wright County. 3. All trash shall be stored within the principal building or within an enclosure approved by the Building Official. 4. All exterior signage shall require approval of a sign permit, subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 5. Existing septic and well systems are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. All grading, drainage and easement issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 7. The applicant enter into a development contract and post appropriate securities installation of any deferred improvements and connection to municipal sanitary sewer and water utilities. 8. Comments of other City Staff. B. Motion to deny site and building plans for a contractor operation based upon a finding that the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. PC. Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Today Properties Planning Report - Otsego Business Park J Page 9 N/. C ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD TMH Development Application Description of Request(1 �3�� We are requesting that the property be rezoned as(for the purpose of operating a construction business without outside storage, we further request approval to temporally use the existing structure "as is" with full clean-up of the property and installation of a temporary class 5 parking area with temporary class 5 driveway access to Parrish Avenue. Temporary is defined as no greater then 5 years. Reason why Request should be granted: The request should be granted to allow the existing agricultural zoned land to be converted to industrial 2 by occupying the existing structure with a growing high technology business that will increase the tax base of the property. Existing, Use of the Property/Nature of Facility or Business - Direct Digital Controls was founded in August of 1976, and concentrated on commercial and residential electrical contracts. By the early 80's the primary focus was on installing temperature control wiring and Energy Management Systems. The company acquired the rights to distribute the Alerton line of Energy Management System (EMS) equipment October of 1986. The current. president, Michael Day, has been with the company since 1988 and purchased it in 1993. The focus of the company is Energy Management Systems which accounts for 95% of our business and allows individual control of heating, cooling and lighting equipment. Energy Management Systems are based on the ability of a central computer to monitor and control the building energy demand and consumption. We have to date completed and maintain 147 individual installations of the Alerton Energy Management system. EXHIBIT B 4 Z SURVEY FOR: T .111. H. DEVELOPMENT N w h, c a 0 60 120 180 SCALE: 1 INCH - 60 FEET ttat�-ama� rK q.iM M1 I(t7 I trf tf rN 14 W,/. O ailror tl s./3- -i it, i w�. it �a.ArH .. a� t. I TOPOGRAPHY BY MARK HURD PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN APRIL, 1994. VERTICAL DATUM IS 1929 DATUM, PROVIDED BY MNDOT. CITY MAP PREPARED BY HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC. INC. REVISED JUNE, 1994. THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE WRIGHT COUNTY, AND CITY OF OTSEGO RECORDS, THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES. HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC. INC., CITY OF OTSEGO, AND WRIGHT COUNTY ARE NOT RESPONSIBILE FOR ANY INACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINED. x 658.9 j - ��- /1 1 / / I /- / I ( � x \ 858.6 \ x 856. I � � / 23361 X 0594 / / 1 i I l 1 1 / I I i x x 8574 / I I CITY OF OTSEGO SEC 22,23 T121 R23 PID # 118-500-224-100, 118-500-233201 02/16/2000 r x 8618 t S T. NE ��I—T— ' i x 666.7 1861.7 00-30 I I I I 1869.6 I I 11 x 860 x 060.4 (7 D ■ x \ 1\ x 861.4 I I I I Z II / I 1 1 x e6os #2241 0 I I 1 1 (n I I x 860.8 / / x 863.2 ' I. 1 o I l i l 660.9 \ \ 866.1 I I III l 857b I \ \ 21l x 864.4 TOPOGRAPHY BY MARK HURD PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN APRIL, 1994. VERTICAL DATUM IS 1929 DATUM, PROVIDED BY MNDOT. CITY MAP PREPARED BY HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC. INC. REVISED JUNE, 1994. THIS MAP IS A COMPILATION OF RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE WRIGHT COUNTY, AND CITY OF OTSEGO RECORDS, THIS DRAWING IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES. HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC. INC., CITY OF OTSEGO, AND WRIGHT COUNTY ARE NOT RESPONSIBILE FOR ANY INACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINED. x 658.9 j - ��- /1 1 / / I /- / I ( � x \ 858.6 \ x 856. I � � / 23361 X 0594 / / 1 i I l 1 1 / I I i x x 8574 / I I CITY OF OTSEGO SEC 22,23 T121 R23 PID # 118-500-224-100, 118-500-233201 02/16/2000 85TH ST SILT FENCE DETAIL — (STANDARD) B EMERGENCY OVERFLOW wrmxrc B OUTLET STRUCTURE (MH -5) DETENTION BASIN CROSS-SECTION ' GRAPH,C nwU r�l SILTFENCE INLET SEDIMENT FILTER I I EXHIBIT D "ORT"WItST ASSOCIATIto 2 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 5d 26 October 2000 Ms. Katie Keene 8982 Mason Avenue NE Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Otsego - Benson/Keene; Subdivision Concept FILE NO.: 176.08 Dear Ms. Keene: Paa�'�rk, MN 5 �wi?5416 nacfferneT:com Our office has reviewed the two alternative subdivisions indicated on the survey you provided at the Otsego City Staff meeting on October 12, 2000. As we have discussed, the purpose of the subdivision is to add approximately 3.22 acres of land to the parcel owned by your Mother in order to obtain a second development right. Also as we discussed, the primary factor that the City considers in reviewing any rural subdivision is the long term impact of the request in terms of resubdivision and street or utility extension. Based on the alternatives that you presented, our staff tried to sketch a resubdivision of the parcel. Some of the factors that must be considered are anticipated availability of municipal utilities and Shoreland Overlay District zoning. Lacking detailed existing structure locations, topography or wetland information regarding the area makes preparation of a resubdivision plan difficult. However, based upon the factors outlined above, we have determined that your alternatives would need to be revised slightly as illustrated by the attached drawing to allowfor a reasonable future subdivision. The parcel that would need to be acquired from the property owner to the north would be 440 feet x 320 feet (3.2151 acres) in order to obtain the second development right for your family's existing parcel. The sketch plan for your proposed subdivision will be discussed by the Planning Commission on November 6, 2000. We will likely provide a more detailed analysis of the sketch plan for their consideration. We will also provide you a copy of any report provided to the Planning Commission. IM Ms. Katie Keene Page 2 If you have any questions prior to the Planning Commission meeting, please do not hesitate to call me at 952.595.9636. Sincerely, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. �i D. Daniel Licht Senior Planner Exhibit A. PC. Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Larry Koshak Andy MacArthur r PARCEL B W --S YY13'70'E tl71.99-- _ Wt 10.7019 AC/(CS .I� 7 k l2 t �10 61N E_ Y E cert• r u .. � ovw TAnOt LAND SURVEYORS. INC. •-• N 09:70'30' E 69110 NGS — -- 91&01 "to CER TIFICA TE OF SURVEY for JOEL do KATIE KEENE 4w,.r Sc«4 w lrrr 0 1Y9 700 Opp TOTAL AREA r 20.000/ ACRES 9unc3 � Nq JJu..rwr (alwc 0 Nov YGMM/w! IE/ 3 6W(9 YAK01 13734 rww;r • t lr W w o rw «r •rrr.«a.r« «r •,wr. aw «••rr N. l.,..rr.Jl Mr• v vwW 1'.•r. rrru• rww:la•••NOr•.. Wow 4«r awr.n.O.r «r•w...•9..r,«a«w rwr•••«r ..GW«r N+r.1 M1.r«««r 1iw.r.•,1w 1W r« �•1 Y�.wrrwr.r 11rrW Wur•uw•r• CWrwa ^-".,•rr•Yr...+r•u,rlwr,r.ryrrrr.M r.r..e yr.W.,,,y,+r,. �.•.nr.•ww1•u rrM«•Nr�«YWrM wr.Y. yy Iu•u ,r•Nw(r.•arr•«•11 Nwl rwr•Wr«Y •Yr•«•Yt♦3« ayw N rrr• M r•rr 4l • Y.rN J W •1lrlrr W Y « W wrrr•• O.rr«r WaN•«6.r«. •,•a•W.y,w� WUMw•wYW ryW Wr•. raw ro+[r•[l Yr w lIl M V r r ••nra •r « W Ir�r�..Oru «r Ww.r.Orr. • Mr r�w .r,•uN rrY.MM •\y r•wY .rr•«IaN ilVwr•�ir.. rw r41�.r "•.�Yr'�« �.rrr. yW+^ .rrr.urr e k O y4 SN.(CI p /l�lC NO11 K MVS Alp (•YwW R d KCOgP / wI 3 � ]" � , 4t 1 /A1n1gI3 q K(vN9 A.I ,K Y•9w q 9.S WKI wlA wn9owa OOGwNwrltgv K 09a[R usnKws d Wt AK 1*O "9 I /� 1 3r•y 1•rUry ua u1• •w rq. (r1 a. r nw1 r1 rar.9 y.. w1u wY •.•al •e1✓H•1r r1 Irl I ... I••17 Ly1 •Iu•I lr1 5'w.rJer «n Or Ih• N«s e/ IA• Slel• o/ YM••ela • .'w«+ v. Irl1r A IJSJI � tPal. e ~` 0. KERN r 0. 7All0R r It91 / 17 y •l 1 ... � r_ 1 N r 100 !r w0 / 2J / 00 0017) NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council —C Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 25 September 2000 RE: Otsego - Benson/Keene Subdivision Sketch Plan FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.30 BACKGROUND Ms. Betty Benson owns a 16.7 acre parcel at 8982 Mason Avenue. The subject parcel is within the Agricultural Preserve defined by the Comprehensive Plan Update, which allows for a maximum density of 4 units per 40 acres for parcels with street frontage. As such, the minimum size parcel needed to have two development rights in this area is 20 acres. A subdivision sketch that would detach 3.2 acre parcel from the adjacent forty acre parcel to the north and attach it to the current Benson property has been submitted. The purpose of acquiring the additional land is to have the minimum 20 acre area to be able to divide the property into two building sites, one with the existing dwelling and a site for a new house to be constructed. Staff met with Ms. Benson and her daughter Katie Keene at the September 14, 2000 staff meeting to discuss their plans. In reviewing the survey the property owners had prepared, staff said that we would not recommend approval of the subdivision of the 3.2 acre parcel as proposed because of the future complications for resubdivision and street/utility extension that were likely to occur based upon the irregular shape of the parcel. The property owners requested a sketch plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council for their input. As such, the sketch plan is presented for discussion purposes only. No motions concerning the subdivision or necessary rezoning applications should be made at this time. Attached for Reference: Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Subdivision Concept Exhibit C: Alternative Subdivisions 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 ANALYSIS Subdivision Sketch. In reference to Exhibit B, the property owners are proposing to detach the 3.2 Parcel A from the 40 acre property to the north of their property identified as Parcel B. Parcel A is a 105 foot wide strip along the 1,329 foot east lot line of the north 40 acre parcel, which adjoins the subject parcel perpendicularly at one corner. Staff discussed with the applicant how Parcel A, as proposed, is inconsistent with the City's policy that subdivisions do not preclude future street or utility extensions and that they have future resubdivision potential with the availability of urban services. The subdivision as proposed would leave Parcel A as a remnant between the 36.8 parcel from which it was originally divided and undeveloped area to the east. This remnant would preclude future street/utility extensions and is not able to be re -subdivided based upon an urban residential lot design. As such, it is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 7 of the Subdivision Ordinance and should not be approved. Alternative Subdivisions. Staff discussed with the applicant alternatives for adding the necessary 3.2 acres to their existing property that would be consistent with the City's subdivision policies and regulations, illustrated by Exhibit C. Alternative A would involve acquisition of land from the forty acre parcel to the north. Ideally the parcel would extend the length of the north property line from Mason Avenue to the rear lot line. However, the existing structures on the north 40 acre property are not setback sufficient distance from the common lot line to allow this. As such, the parcel would need to be divided in a manner similar to that shown on the exhibit. Alternative B would involve acquisition of a 180 by 777 foot parcel from the adjacent forty acre parcel to the east of the subject site. This alternative is the most preferred in that it results in the most "square" shape of the resulting parcels. The property owners have pursued this option with the adjacent land owner, but were unable to reach agreement o sale price. However, as it pertains to potential City action, economic considerations are not typically considered a primary factor as part of a land use issue all other factors being equal. A third alternative that was discussed was acquiring the necessary 3.2 acres from a combination of the surrounding 5 acre lots to the south and west of the subject site. In considering this option further, staff believes that it would not be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The other two alternatives that detach land from larger tracts have the effect of transferring a development right between the parcels. Acquiring the necessary land from the surrounding adjacent 5 acre lots would be creating a new development right where none previously existed. Transfer of Development Rights. A concept that has been discussed at a staff level with the applicant and others interested in development in the Agricultural Preserve is transfer of development rights. The City currently allows transfer of development rights between parcels under common ownership by CUP in the A-1 and A-2 Zoning Districts. A more broad application of this concept is to allow transfer of development rights between -2- property owners. The idea is to allow property owners some revenue from the sale development rights while requiring the actual development to be clustered in areas with adequate services. This approach maintains large contiguous tracts of land for continued agriculture while concentrating development into existing service areas. This approach is also intended to minimize the inherent conflict between agricultural uses and rural residential development. The impacts of allowing transfer of development rights would need to be more fully explored before it could be implemented. However, it was suggested to the property owners as a potential means to their desired end. The acquisition of 3.2 acres from a surrounding parcel is intended to allow a second development right. Allowing a development right transfer without actually dividing land would achieve their desired result to construct a second dwelling and protect the City's long term planning goals. The property owners were not favorable to this approach in that the money paid for the development right would not result in a corresponding land transfer. CONCLUSION As presented, the sketch plan attached hereto as Exhibit B is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and subdivision regulations which preclude any subdivision from negatively impacting future growth and development of surrounding parcels and the City in general. The proposed 3.2 acre division would be a.useless remnant parcel that would be a barrier to the future extension of street and utility corridors between properties. Staff believes that there are other alternatives for acquiring the additional development right that would accomplish the property owners goals, while being consistent with the City's development policies. These options include acquisition of 3.2 acres in. a manner that does not create such an irregular lot or- consideration of allowing transfer of development rights between properties. The Planning Commission and City Council should review the proposed sketch plan, as well as the other options presented that would allow the property owner two development rights. Again, because the actual subdivision would require approval of a rezoning and/or preliminary plat, no formal action should be taken at this time. The informal comments of City Officials should be sufficient direction to the property owners as to how to proceed. PC. Mike Robertson Elaine Bitty Andy MacArthur Larry Ko�hak Betty Benson Joel and Katie Keene N/. C vvv ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD NORTH (5 APPROX TE scut 1"=400- m "=400' m W le IU3- LU F� { w i .2 too W v � m m � F� { w i .2 � ss :Ss a de b_`s i� iie t w � t .n 1. >.a < W. r e►vrrl M .Z4aLao w oo•d" s .ePi= - - 1k roviri 7 -4=0 S ■ 3 a� iii ._• A a B ri •a :r - � , - Y b I` a� eQa z — ----__----- ---------------- a _ ressra (unos _ _ 31Y WSYXa3.N d $ f IiORxNMfESt 1►3SOCMI►tE4 �ONS11►xA►ItS, IR1Q. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE: BACKGROUND Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Daniel Licht 1 November 2000 Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Residential Access 176.08 - 00.14 The City Council has directed the Planning Commission to consider changes to the existing regulations for driveway width for single family residential properties. At issue, is whether the maximum width of driveway should be increased to allow a straight back access to a third (or even fourth) garage stall. This question has been raised specifically in reference to LIN -BAR Estates, where there are a number of newly constructed houses with driveways that exceed the allowed maximum width. Because the driveways that were installed exceed the Zoning Ordinance and Engineering Manual allowances, the City is withholding a construction security until such time as the driveway is corrected. This same issue was previously discussed by the City Council in June 1999. At that time, staff explained the basis for the current regulations. The decision of the City Council at that time was not to direct the Planning Commission to consider amending the standard. The City Council did clarify the interpretation of the existing provision by adopting a standard plate as part of the Engineering Manual illustrating the maximum allowed driveway dimensions. This plate is attached to all building permits issued by the building official. Exhibits: A. Standard Plates No. 705 & 706 B. Alternative Driveway Width Sketches ANALYSIS Existing Standard. Section 20-21-4.H.7 of the Zoning Ordinance limits the size of access within the public right-of-way to not more than 24 feet. Accesses to the public right-of-way are intended to be minimized to the extent practical for traffic management, snow storage, on -street parking, increase green space and minimize construction within the right-of-way. The City Council approved standard plates illustrating the driveway allowances for residential properties for both rural and urban section streets. As shown on exhibit A, the maximum width of a driveway is 24 feet extending across the right-of-way to the curb. The plates do allow for the width of the driveway to be increased to greater than 24 feet in the area from the property line to the front building line. Flares are also allowed at the curb line, up to a maximum of 34 feet. Based upon the required front setback from a local public street and the typical width of the right-of-way between the back of the curb and property line, most houses are setback at least 48.5 feet from the street. This distance is sufficient to allow vehicles to circulate into a third garage stall. The maneuver does require turning as the driveway widens from 24 feet at the property line as opposed to a driveway that would extend the full width of the garage to the street. The Zoning Ordinance does allow exception to the 24 foot standard approved by the City Engineer. This exception is intended primarily to accommodate traffic circulation for commercial and industrial properties. Large commercial developments may need to have three or four lane access to public streets to allow for turn lanes. Industrial developments may require wider accesses to allow tractor -trailers to circulate into/out-of a site without crossing traffic lanes on streets that carry more volume than a local residential street. To date, the exception has only been allowed for industrial properties within the Otsego Industrial Park and those northeast of TH 101 and CSAH 36. Garage Size. Single family uses within all Zoning Districts are allowed the same 1,000 square feet of attached garage space. Common dimensions for various garage sizes are provided below to allow an understanding of how garage size relates to the area allowances provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. Garage Size Dimensions Area 1 Stall 12 ft. x 22 ft. 264 sq. ft. 2 Stalls 20 ft. x 22 ft. 440 sq. ft. 3 Stalls 30 ft. x 22 ft. 660 sq. ft. 4 Stalls 40 ft. x 22 ft. 880 sq. ft. 4+ Stalls 45 ft. x 22 ft 990 sq. ft. -2- The main issue with the existing driveway width restrictions for single family uses is that a garage larger than two stalls is wider than the driveway is allowed to be at the property line. The driveway must be angled at the property line to its full width at the garage, which must be setback not less than 35 feet from the property line. This prevents a vehicle from being driven forward or backed straight into the third garage stall from the street. Based on the information provided above, the minimum width of a driveway to accommodate a three stall garage is 28 feet. This measurement is the minimum width of the door openings for a standard three car garage. It is also typical to provide additional surface to either side of the door openings. As such, the minimum standard to allowfor a straight driveway to a three car garage should likely be 30 feet. Street Sections. Otsego currently has two distinct types of local streets within the community. Rural section streets are those that include ditches outside of the street surface to accommodate storm water drainage. Individual accesses to a rural section street must provide a culvert and fill across this ditch. The City Engineer recommends that the maximum length of these culverts be 30 feet to allow for adequate drainage and maintenance of the culvert. Using a base 30 foot culvert, the maximum driveway design that can be accommodated is 24 feet. Urban section streets carry storm water drainage either by bituminous or concrete and storm water pipes. Without the limitation of the culvert within the right-of-way, the City Engineer believes that the driveway width within the right-of-way may be increased without impacting storm water drainage. As such, it is suggested that changes to the access standard be contemplated only for urban section streets and that access from a rural section street be maintained as provided for by standard plate #706. Lot Width. The City Council specifically directed that the Planning Commission consider whether lot width should be an issue with determining appropriate driveway width for single family uses. Single family lots within the A-1, A-2, R-1, R-2, or R-3 Zoning District must have a minimum width of 150 feet, which is the standard for all unsewered single family lots. Single family lots that are served by sanitary sewer service within the R-4 or R-5 District must have a minimum width of 75 feet. As such, driveway width will represent a smaller percentage of the lot frontage for a 150 foot wide unsewered parcel than a 75 foot wide parcel on City sanitary sewer service, as shown below: -3- 24 ft. Driveway 30 ft. Driveway 75 ft. Lot Width 32% 40% 150 ft. Lot Width 16% 20% -3- More recent unsewered single family subdivisions are subject to a resubdivision plan that anticipates division of the existing acre lots with the future availability of sanitary sewer. As such, it may be anticipated that lots within these developments may have a future width of 75 feet. If the standard were increased only for 150 foot lots, the existing driveways would be non -conforming upon subdivision. To address this issue, the City could either apply a uniform standard to all single family driveways on an urban section street or allow a greater lot width for a 150 foot wide lot until such time as the lot may be subdivided. At that time, the City may require that the driveway width be reduced to the standard for the narrower 75 foot wide lot. From a practical standpoint, we think that it would be problematic to require a property owner to remove a portion of their driveway at a future date. It would be preferable to establish a uniform standard for single family uses on an urban section street, which would eliminate this potential future source of disagreement. Alternative Regulation. Based upon the issues outlined above, we have prepared the following alternative access width requirement. The proposed amendment would address single family, two family, townhouse, quadraminium and manor home dwellings separately from other uses. The reason for the distinction is that these uses are those that are likely to have the need for a three car garage and they are the only uses specifically allowed to use head -in parking off of a public street per Section 20-22-4.H.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. We have still allowed the standard 24 foot access width to be increased by the City Engineer for uses other than these specific residential uses in cases where the need is created by traffic circulation or access lane issues, which has been the City's current policy to date. 20-22-4.H.7 Curb Cut Size: twenty-four un ess approve' LL.J. the City El 1-1. Street Access Width. a. Single Family, Two -Family, Townhouse, Quadraminim and Manor Home Units (1) Urban Section Streets. The maximum width of an access to an urban section street, as defined by the Engineering Manual, shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. (2) Rural Section Streets. The maximum width of an access to an rural section street, as defined in the Engineering Manual, shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. b. Other Uses. Except as provided for by Section 20-22-4.H.7.a above, the maximum width of an access onto any public street shall not exceed twenty four (24) feet except as may be approved by the City Engineer in the case of traffic circulation needs. Ca Engineering Manual. It is recommended that any change to the Ordinance text be accompanied by standardized plates included within the Engineering Manual. These plates are helpful as they graphically communicate the intent of the Ordinance to builders. The Building Official can include the plates along with the building permit so that the information has been clearly communicated and there should not be any further issues with driveways that are constructed legally. CONCLUSION In response to a number of requests from residents of LIN -BAR Estates, the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to consider modification to the City's existing street access standards. In summary of the issues herein, the City limits the width of street accesses for the purposes of traffic management, snow storage, minimizing right-of-way construction and increasing green space. The analysis included herein suggests that increasing the minimum driveway width for specific residential uses by six feet would make backing into a third garage stall more convenient. Staffs perspective of this increase is that it would not likely have a significant impact on an urban section street. The width of accesses to rural section streets is physically limited by the necessary design of the ditch culverts. From an administrative standpoint in considering allowing wider accesses for residential uses to urban section streets, we would suggest not differentiating between urban and rural lots. The Planning Commission should review and discuss the alternatives outlined herein. If there is interest in pursuing an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in driveway width, a public hearing should be called for. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may determine that no change to the existing standard is appropriate and forward that recommendation to the City Council, without the need for a public hearing. PC. Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Jerry Olson Larry Koshak Andy MacArthur -5- RESIDENCE Lu Z J m U I J R.O.W. LINE 5' RADIUS OR 45° TAPER (TYPICAL) URB LINE 40' MIN. FROM LOCAL STREET 50' MIN. FROM COLLECTOR/ ARTERIAL STREET BUMPOUT RECOMMENDED FOR CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER —� 2' TAPER FOR VERTICAL FACE CURB AND GUTTER AND BIT. CURB w Z }J F-- w CL O m a. DRIVEWAY TRANSITION TO GARAGE APRON AT PROPERTY LINE IS OWNERS OPTION. 24' MAX. CENTERLINE ENTRANCE �O 45° 700 TO 900. VARIABLE Q� HALF PLAN PERSPECTIVE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS ALONG URBAN STREET SECTION NO SCALE EXHIBIT A-1 RESIDENCE MINIMUM 15" DIAMETER CMP OR RCP CULVERT- DRIVEWAY MINIMUM LENGTH IS 30' OR DRIVEWAY WIDTH PLUS 6' WITH APRON ENDS. /� R.O.W. LINE 24' MAX. DITCH -------- I— �--EDGE --EDGE OF SHOULDER -------- OF PAVEMENT 40' MIN. FROM LOCAL STREET 50' MIN. FROM COLLECTOR/ ARTERIAL STREET I- 34' MAX. BITUMINOUS STREET SHOULDER BOULEVARD PAVEMENT AREA AREA 4" MIN. DRIVEWAY GRADESAME j �� 6 O/TC' CROSSASLOPE SHOULDER 'MIN. MINIMUM 15" DIAMETER 0-107 DESIRABLE, CMP OR RCP CULVERT 157 MAX. DIFFERENCE WITH APRON ENDS SECTION A -A NO SCALE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ALONG RURAL STREET SECTION NO SCALE w z J w CL0 CL 5' RADIUS OR 45° TAPER (TYPICAL) EXHIBIT A-2 1 1 all 0 -1 411 0 1V M—wrlim— F-- 12,000 5Q. FT. LOT I I z z < m � w ! U' N F- p } MIN. 40 FT. TO 2,5 FT. INTER5ECTION - MIN. 5 FT. TO 75 FT. PROPERTY UNE EXHIBIT 8