12-04-00 PC"oIkT14Wt3x ASSOCIAxto ca"SukTA"M 111HIe.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 1 November 2000
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Residential Access
FILE: 176.08 - 00.14
BACKGROUND
18.
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.
Altemative 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 Ourb Cut Size: No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in wi
unless approved by the City Engineer.
Street Access
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.
-4-
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. Staff's 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-
HALF PLAN PERSPECTIVE
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS
ALONG URBAN STREET SECTION
NO SCALE
GT STANDARD PLATE No.
705
EXHIBIT A-1
RESIDENCE
• i
z .
w
W
o !
z
_,
a f
o
D
DRIVEWAY
TRANSITION TO 3
R.O.W. LINE
GARAGE APRON AT
PROPERTY LINE IS
)Z--IOWNERS
OPTION.
24' MAX.
5' RADIUS OR
45° TAPER
(TYPICAL)
URB LINE
40' MIN. FROM LOCAL STREET 34' MAX.
50' MIN. FROM COLLECTOR/
x
ARTERIAL STREET
-
I
t
F
i
F
i
t
CENTERLINE ENTRANCE i
BUMPOUT RECOMMENDED
E -P
FOR CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS
45°
i
CONCRETE CURB
AND GUTTER
700 TO 900.
2' TAPER FOR
OPE' R
VERTICAL FACE
VARIABLE
CURB AND GUTTER
AND BIT. CURB
HALF PLAN PERSPECTIVE
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS
ALONG URBAN STREET SECTION
NO SCALE
GT STANDARD PLATE No.
705
EXHIBIT A-1
i
I
w Z RESIDENCE w
w
J
IQo � r
o ►-
o C=
�0N CL
lo
0
Io
Wuj
0
MINIMUM 15" DIAMETER
ui I CMP OR RCP CULVERT— DRIVEWAY
MINIMUM LENGTH IS 30'
OR DRIVEWAY WIDTH PLUS
6' NTH APRON ENDS. /�
i R.O.W. LINE /'1
� MMA 5' RADIUS OR
\ DITCH ---------- 45° TAPER
EDGE OF SHOULDER(TYPICAL)
- --------------
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
40' MIN. FROM LOCAL STREET 34' MAX. 5' MIN.
50' MIN. FROM COLLECTOR/
ARTERIAL STREET A
.-11111111111J
BITUMINOUS
STREET SHOULDER BOULEVARD
PAVEMENT AREA AREA
4" MIN.
DRIVEWAY GRADE
SAME A�
CROSS SLOPE
p�TC' MIN.
MINIMUM 15" DIAMETER 0-10% DESIRABLE,
CMP OR RCP CULVERT 15% MAX. DIFFERENCE
WITH APRON ENDS
SECTION A—A
NO SCALE
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ALONG
RURAL STREET SECTION
NO SCALE
or
[TOMTUG 1n
EXHIBIT A-2
I
F --
12,0005Q. FT. LOT
1
I
I
Z
z <
�
LU {
~ o
Ui
�n
� r
MIN. 40 FT. TO
' 25 FT. tINTEP,.5ECTION
MIN. 5 FT. TO 75 FT.
PROPERTY LINE
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2000 - SPM
**AGENDA**
1. Chair Swenson will call the Planning Commission Meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of
A. Monday, December 4, 2000 - 8PM
3. Lida Construction, Inc. and Wally Kluse - Sketch Plan Review of PUD of
"Riverboat Landing" - For Mary Dare's land East of #39 and #101 - South of the
proposed "Waterfront" Development.
4. Hearing to Consider Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of Otsego to provide for
Amendments and General Re -Codification of Existing Sections.
5. Any other P.C. Business
A. Update on Council Actions by CM Heidner
B. Discussion of Planning Commission Schedule for January
6. Adjourn b ly 0PM
**PLEASE NOTE:
THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED JANUARY 1 2001 P. C.
MEETING (MONDAY) AT 8PM HAS BEEN CANCELED DUE TO
LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS
THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY R GULARLY
SCHEDULED FOR JANTUARY 15, 2001 (WHICH IS A HOLIDAY1
WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY JANLTARY 16 2001 T 8PM.
T
1111,46IRTH IST ASSOCIATto 111II14c,
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: 13 December 2000
RE: Otsego - Riverboat Landing; Concept Plan
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.36
Background
Lida Construction, Inc. has submitted a concept plan for development of a mixed use
development east of T. H. 101 on property owned by Ms. Mary Dare. The project consists
of two commercial sites (29,300 sq. ft.), 40 townhouse units within 10 buildings and 276
apartment units within five buildings. A 5,100 sq. ft. private community center is also
shown on the concept plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped and used for
agricultural fields.
The subject site is within the sanitary sewer service district and is planned for future
commercial use. The subject site is currently zoned A-1 District in accordance with the
City's interim land use plan. The subject parcels are also within the WS Overlay District.
The concept plan is being presented for review and comment of City officials in advance
of necessary Comprehensive Plan amendment, Zoning and preliminary plat applications.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Concept Plan
Analysis
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject parcel for future
commercial use, taking advantage of the potential market capture from T.H. 101. The
submitted concept plan does include opportunities for a 24,000 square foot commercial
center and a 5,300 square foot restaurant use in the area adjacent to 90' Street and
Quantralle Avenue. The location of these uses creates a commercial corridor along
Quantralle Avenue from 90' Street to the Waterfront Concept to the north of the subject
site.
The majority of the site is proposed to be developed with at total of 316 residential units
consisting of 40 townhouse units and 276 apartment units. In order to proceed with this
project, the City would have to consider amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to change
the guided land use from commercial to medium-high density residential.
In considering changes to the Comprehensive Plan, it is best to refer to the more broad
goal and policy statements as a guide. One of the Comprehensive Plan's primary
objectives is to encourage development of commercial (and industrial) uses that take
advantage of the market potential provided by T. H. 101 in order to support the City's tax
base and increase service opportunities. On this basis alone, the necessary
Comprehensive Plan amendment should be viewed skeptically.
However, the Comprehensive Plan also encourages development of a range of housing
types, including townhomes and multiple family units, development that takes advantage
of the amenities offered by the Mississippi River, and residential development to support
desired commercial uses. The developer's concept plan may, in fact, complement the
planned commercial Waterfront project by providing market support in the form of nearby
residences. The proposed development would also introduce higher density apartments
to the City, which is a dwelling type that the City currently lacks.
Ultimately, this is a policy issue that the Planning Commission and City Council must
decide. There is a high burden of proof to be met in making such a change. The
Comprehensive Plan specifically states that changes in land use designations will only be
made when it can be demonstrated that the modification is in the best interests of the
community's established long term goals and will serve to promote land use compatibility.
PUD District. The subject parcel is currently zoned A-1 District. The project involves
integration of some commercial uses with a mix of residential dwelling types. Given that
the project would involve mixed uses, multiple principal buildings, common open space
and unique environmental protection issues, our office would recommend that the City
should consider application of a PUD District to the subject site if the project is to proceed.
Application of a PUD District will allow the City to fully address the issues noted above.
The use of a PUD District will also allow the City the opportunity to see that development
of this project is consistent with the design and character of the Waterfront PUD concept
Page 2
proposed to be developed on the abutting property to the north. Given that the small,
defined geographic area east of T.H. 101 consists mainly of these two parcels, consistency
between these developments is critical. The criteria for considering the rezoning will be
more fully evaluated as part of a future development stage application, should the project
WS District. The subject parcel is within Subdistrict C of the Wild and Scenic Overlay
District. Subdistrict C does not allowfor commercial uses and only allows for single family
residential uses at rural densities. As discussed previously, the City's position is that the
area should be allowed to develop with urban uses based upon existing development and
traffic volumes on T.H. 101 that is evident from the River. This is not to suggest that the
City believes that development may occur in this area without due regard for River
impacts.
As part of the Waterfront concept review, it has been suggested that the City might amend
the WS District to designate the area east of T.H. 101 as being within Subdistrict B, which
would allow for a range of urban uses. The Zoning Ordinance provisions require DNR
approval of any plats or PUD approved within the WS District. DNR approval would also
likely be required for any amendment of the District. The possible changes to the WS
District have not been specifically discussed with DNR Staff. The developer may have had
preliminary discussions with DNR staff regarding their development proposal.
Access. The project is to be accessed primarily off of Quantralle Avenue. An extension
of 90th Street from the Quantralle Avenue intersection is proposed that would provide a
secondary access to the Waterfront development. Section 20-74-14 of the Zoning
Ordinance requires consideration of a CUP for public streets constructed within the WS
District. This application will need to be considered as part of any development stage
application.
The two commercial sites access from Quantralle Avenue and the 901' Street extension.
The spacing of the access points to the public streets is the maximum that can be achieved
based upon the current site design. The City Engineer should reviewthe proposed access
locations to determine if there is adequate spacing from the Quantralle Avenue/90th Street
intersection.
The proposed apartments are to be accessed off of Quantralle Avenue. The underground
garages and surface parking lots each have a direct access to the public street. Although
the street serves minimal traffic, the City Engineer should comment on the spacing and
number of access points onto Quantralle. It may be preferred that the garage entrances
be served from within the parking lots, thereby reducing the number of accesses to
Quantralle Avenue.
The townhouse element of the project is proposed to have one intersection with Quantralle
Avenue. Individual units are to be served by an internal private street. This street would
need to be designed to City specifications and likely include curb. The only concern with
the private street is the lack of a second access point onto a public street, which should
be provided to ensure emergency vehicle access.
Page 3
Site Design. The developer intends that the residential elements of this project are to take
advantage of the amenities provided by the Mississippi River. The majority of the
Townhouse units are oriented so as to have river view sheds. The 16 townhouse units
located behind the first tier of dwellings are oriented towards a ponding area that
separates the residential and commercial elements of the project.
The developer also intends that the apartment buildings are to be oriented to take
advantage of the river views. However, the size of the larger buildings and their layout
generally perpendicular to the Mississippi River means that views of the River will likely
be limited. Also, the location of the proposed private community center is poor in that it
is set far back from the River and it's view overlooks large surface parking areas. Of
particular concern for the apartment buildings is the potential impact of T. H. 101 which is
just over 200 feet from the closest building.
The two commercial sites have been located to take advantage of access and visibility
from T.H. 101. City Officials should give specific consideration to the amount of land
allocated for commercial uses in relation to any potential land use change. A secondary
consideration must be how the proposed commercial uses will related to the Waterfront
project to the north. One potential issue is the appearance of the rear of the commercial
strip center, which backs up to a drainage pond that is a central feature of the Waterfront
project.
With the proposed mix of uses, provision of adequate transitions and buffering are
important. The concept plan includes general landscaping and berm details intended to
separate the commercial, townhouse and apartment uses. Again, greater emphasis
needs to be given to buffering the apartment uses from T. H. 101. More specific
landscaping plans would be required as part of a development stage application.
Building Design. No details have been provided regarding building design, materials or
specific building height. Again, it is important that development of this project be sensitive
to potential shoreland impacts in the use of building scale, materials, colors and height.
It is also important that the project be consistent with the Waterfront project to the north.
As such, it would be suggested that the City consider application of the same or very
similar development standards used in the Waterfront project for development of this
parcel.
Setbacks. Within a PUD District, the City has flexibility in defining applicable setbacks
requirements. The City would require a 65 foot setback of all of the structures from public
streets as well as a minimum 100 foot setback from the Mississippi River. The proposed
apartment buildings do not meet the proposed setback requirements and several
townhouse units are within 100 feet of the Mississippi River ordinary highwater mark
illustrated on the Concept Plan. Interior setbacks are typically based upon building height,
which is not sufficiently defined at this point.
Page 4
Parking. Townhouse residential uses require two stalls per unit, which is typically
satisfied by an attached garage. Additional parking spaces are considered to exist in front
of each unit's garage. The City has been requiring specific guest parking areas to be
provided at a ratio of one-half stall per unit. The concept plan provides 12 guest parking
stalls, whereas 20 should be provided using the City's ratio.
Apartment buildings are required to provide 2.5 stalls per unit, plus an additional stall for
each unit with three or more bedrooms. Based upon the number of units and City
standard, a total of 690 parking stalls are required. The concept plan provides 316 surface
parking stalls and 316 underground stalls. An additional 58 stalls should be provided
based upon the City's parking requirements.
Separate off-street parking is proposed for the commercial elements of the project. Based
upon the Zoning Ordinance standards for the respective uses,t he commercial center
would need to provide 87 stalls and the restaurant would need to provide approximately
111 stalls. The commercial center provides 141 stalls and the restaurant site provides 52
stalls for a total of 193 stalls. The City may consider a shared parking arrangements for
the two uses under the PUD District, although six additional stalls need to be provided.
Signage. Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a comprehensive sign plan for
PUD projects, which will be required as part of the development stage application. Again,
signage allowances for this project should be similar to the standards allowed for highway
oriented buildings/uses within the Waterfront project.
Lighting. The concept plan does not illustrate the type or location of site lighting at this
time, which will be required as part of a development stage application. A specific issue
is that all lighting should be provided with a 90 degree horizontal cutoff to minimize glare.
Park Dedication. The concept plan includes at trail corridor along the River that is
intended to connect to the trail corridor provided within the Waterfront project. We would
also encourage provision of a sidewalk along the public streets to encourage pedestrian
access to the Waterfront commercial area. What is not clear is the extent to which the
developer intends to dedicate land to the City. In that the area along the River is primarily
flood plain, its value to the City in terms of park dedication is minimal.
Engineering. The applicant has utility or grading plans at this time. Detailed engineering
plans as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering
Manual will be required as part of a development stage application. As with the Waterfront
project, a significant issue will be the amount of impervious surface. All engineering issues
are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Phasing. If the project is to be developed in stages, the developer should provide a
preliminary schedule for construction. Such a schedule would, in part, aid the City in its
utility planning. It should be noted that each phase of the project would be subject to a
separate development stage PUD application review.
Page 5
Conclusion and Recommendations
The concept plan for development of a mixed use development east of T. H. 101 is being
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council to provide direction to the
developer on the policy issue of amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow introduction
of residential uses in this area. While there is no application to take formal action
regarding this issue, City Officials may provide general indications as to whether they view
such an amendment positively.
The concept plan itself is fairly generalized at this point, which is acceptable. Sufficient
detail has been provided to obtain an understanding of the development proposal to
evaluate if further plan preparation is warranted. If the Planning Commission and City
Council consider the concept plan favorable, we would recommend any approval be
subject to the following conditions.
1. Approval of the concept plan is subject to submission and approval of applications
for Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning amendment, development stage PUD
and preliminary plat, and submission of all required information for said
applications.
2. All accesses and street designs are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer, Wright County or MNDoT as appropriate.
3. All construction plans and grading/drainage, utility and easement issues are subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
4. Comments of other City Staff.
pc. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Lida Construction, Inc.
Page 6
#1
■ \�. C
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
MORTOWRST AS$OCIATRO CONSULTANx$h INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 13 December 2000
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Update/Recodification
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 00.01
This memorandum forwards the recodified edition of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance. The
recodification of the document involved incorporation of amendments made since the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in September 1998 as well as a general reorganization.
Generally, the recodification is intended to allow for relocation of various sections within
the Ordinance to more logical locations, as well as correction of omissions or typos. The
Ordinance has been reformatted to be numbered based on each section. This change
makes it easier to insert amended sections without renumbering the entire document.
The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing accepting the revised
Ordinance on December 18, 2000. Copies of the revised document have been provided
for distribution that anticipates City Council approval on January 8, 2001. A summary of
the significant Ordinance changes by section is outlined below.
Section 1:
No changes.
Section 2:
Modifications to definitions of farm, R -C Developments.
Section 3:
No changes.
Section 4:
No changes.
Section 5:
Interim uses administration relocated from Section 35.
Section 6:
Variances moved from Section 5.
Section 7:
Board of adjustment retitled as Appeals and moved from Section 6.
Section 8:
Administrative permits relocated from Section 9.
Section 9:
Site plan review administration relocated from Section 21.
Section 10:
Certificate of Compliance relocated from Section 7.
Section 11:
Enforcement and Penalties relocated from Section 8.
Sections 12-14: Reserved for future use.
Section 15: No changes.
Section 16: Amendments regarding accessory buildings, tree preservation.
Section 17: Amendments regarding building material requirements, district references
for height standards.
Section 18: No changes.
Section 19: No changes.
Section 20: No changes.
Section 21: Off-street parking relocated from Section 22.
Section 22: Off-street loading relocated from Section 23.
Section 23: Land filling operations relocated from Section 24.
Section 24: Land excavation/grading relocated from Section 25.
Section 25: Farms relocated from Section 26.
Section 26: Animals relocated from Section 27.
Section 27: Feedlots relocated from Section 38 and includes all amendments.
Section 28: No changes.
Section 29: No changes.
Section 30: No changes.
Section 31: No changes.
Section 32: No changes.
Section 33: No changes.
Section 34: No changes.
Section 35: Reserved.
Section 36: No changes.
Section 37: No changes.
Section 38: New section on environmental review.
Section 39-49: Reserved.
Section 50: Include R -C and 1-3 Districts, retitle R-1 to R-3 Districts.
Section 51: Amendment allowing seasonal produce as an interim use.
Section 52:
No changes.
Section 53-59: Reserved.
Section 60:
Relocate R -C District from Section 77 and reduce side yard setback to 15'.
Section 61:
R-1 District renamed and relocated from Section 53.
Section 62:
R-2 District renamed and relocated from Section 54.
Section 63:
R-3 District renamed and relocated from Section 55.
Section 64:
R-4 District relocated from Section 56.
Section 65:
R-5 District relocated from Section 57.
Section 66:
R-6 District relocated from Section 58.
Section 67:
R-7 District relocated from Section 59.
Section 68:
R -MH District relocated from Section 60.
Section 69:
R -B District relocated from Section 61.
Section 70-74: Reserved.
Section 75:
B-1 District relocated from Section 62.
Section 76:
B-2 District relocated from Section 63.
Section 77:
B-3 District relocated from Section 64.
Section 78:
B—W District relocated from Section 65.
-2-
Section 79: B -C District relocated from Section 66.
Section 80-84: Reserved.
Section 85: 1-1 District relocated from Section 67 and revised purpose statement.
Section 86: 1-2 District relocated from Section 68, includes amendment for temporary
structures as an interim use.
Section 87: 1-3 District relocated from Section 77.
Section 88-89: Reserved.
Section 90: INS District relocated from Section 69.
Section 91: PUD District relocated from Section 70, incorporates reference of new
districts.
Section 92: S District relocated from Section 71, incorporates reference of new districts.
Section 93: W District relocated from Section 72, incorporates reference of new districts.
Section 94: FP District relocated from Section 73, incorporates reference of new districts.
Section 95: WS District relocated from Section 74, incorporates reference of new
districts.
Section 96: Historic Preservation Sites relocated from Section 75.
Appendix A: Index of numbered amendment footnotes in place of an asterisk and footnote
on each page that had been amended.
pc. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
-3-
PLANNING COMMISSION PAY - FIGURED JULY - DECEMBER 2000
(FIGURED AT $20.00 PER REG. MEET- $10.00 PER SITE INSPECTION)
P.C. MEMBER NO. OF MEET REG PAY SITE I. TOTAL
CARL SWENSON
TEN
10x$20=$200
0
$200.00
RICHARD NICHOLS
ONE
1x$20=$20
0
$ 20.00
JIM KOLLES
EIGHT
8x$20=$160
0
$160.00
ARLEEN NAGEL
TEN
10x$20=$200
0
$200.00
PATRICK MOONEN
EIGHT
8x$20=$160
0
$160.00
STEVE SCHUCK
ELEVEN
11x$20=$220
0
$220.00
KEN FRY
TEN
10x$20=$200
0
$200.00
CHRISTIAN MBANEFO
SIX
6x$20=$120
0
$120.00
EUGENE GOENNER
FIVE
5x$20=$100
10
$100.00
P.C. TOTAL AMOUNT PAID
$1,380.00
Prepared by: Elaine Beatty 12/19/2000
Note: The following Planning Commission Meetings were canceled:
11- Meetings total
1 - Meeting was canceled due to lack of Agenda Items
(July 17, 2000)
FII E: PC-PAY.wPS
rj