Loading...
01-16-01 PCNORT"WAST ASSOCUMID Not, 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: 10 January 2001 RE: Otsego - Farr Senior Housing PUD; Concept Plan NAC FILE.: 176.02 - 01.01 CITY FILE.: 2001-01 Background Darrell A. Farr Development Corporation has submitted a concept plan for development of a senior housing / medical center on property located at 8185 River Road NE, surrounded by Otsego Elementary School. The project consists of 60 senior independent living units, 60 congregate living units and a 12,000 square foot medical building. The five acre property is developed with a single family dwelling and accessory buildings. The property is within the sanitary sewer service district designated by the Comprehensive Plan and is guided for future institutional use. Currently, the property is zoned A-1 District. Exhibits: A. Site Location B. Concept Plan Analysis Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is surrounded on three sides by the Otsego Elementary School property. Given the property's location and size, it has been guided for future institutional use by the Comprehensive Plan, anticipating incorporation into the school property. In considering whether the proposed senior housing/medical center project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, City officials should consider policies calling for expansion of housing opportunities and the compatibility of the use. Otsego's present housing stock is limited to primarily single family dwellings. With the availability of sanitary sewer and water service, there are new owner -occupied townhouse options being developed. The proposed senior housing project would continue to broaden the housing choices within the City, while addressing a specific need identified during the Comprehensive Plan process. Designated senior housing projects include residency restrictions that ensure that the intended populations are being served by the unique facilities that can be offered within a project such as this. In addressing compatibility, the area of the surrounding school property directly adjacent to the subject property has been developed as natural prairie open space. This area creates a buffer between the subject property and the intensive school activities concentrated near the building. The open space area also separates the subject property from the medium density residential uses to the north and low to medium density residential uses to the south. The only negative with the site's location is that is isolated from other surrounding uses. Zoning. The subject property is zoned A-1 District consistent with the interim land use plan. To accommodate the proposed development, an application to rezone the site to PUD District would need to be considered along with a development stage PUD application. Staff is recommending use of a PUD District using base R-7 District requirements to accommodate the mixed residential and medical office use of the property. Lot Area. The subject site is approximately five acres, or 217,800 square feet in size. Section 20-67-6.4 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes that the minimum lot size for senior housing is 40,000 square feet or 1,000 square feet per unit, whichever is greater. Based on 120 units the minimum lot area is 120,000 square feet. The subject site exceeds the minimum requirements by 97,800 square feet, which allows more than sufficient area to accommodate the medical office on site. Lot Coverage. The total lot coverage of all buildings within a base R-7 District is limited to 30 percent. The approximate lot coverage of the buildings shown on the concept plan is 27.2 percent. The total floor area is also limited to 70 percent of the total lot area. As such, the floor area of all of the uses cannot exceed 152,460 square feet. Setbacks. The setbacks of the base R-6 District and the applicable dimensions from the development plan are shown in the following table. The medical office and independent living apartment building encroach within the 65 foot setback from CSAH 42. Planning Report - Farr Senior Housing PUD Page 2 Front Side Rear Parking Required 65 feet 10 feet 20 feet 15 feet from ROW Proposed 35 feet 30 feet 25 feet 25 feet Planning Report - Farr Senior Housing PUD Page 2 Access. The development is proposed to have two accesses onto CSAH 42, which is designated as a minor arterial street by the Comprehensive Plan. For better traffic management of the roadway, the number of accesses should be reduced to one. The City Engineer should provide additional comments regarding access, including the need for turn lanes and sight lines. Access to CSAH 42 is also subject to Wright County approval. Off -Street Parking. The concept plan provides for 119 underground parking stalls and 33 surface parking stalls for the residential use and 37 surface stalls for the medical office. The Zoning Ordinance requires sufficient area for at least one stall per unit for the residential use, but allows that only one-half of the stalls need to be installed unless there is a demonstrated need. The medical office use is required to provide three stalls plus one stall per 200 square feet or 57 stalls. Based upon these requirements, there will need to be modifications to the site plan to provide additional stalls for the medical office. Building Design. The applicant has not specified the building design or materials. Representative designs provided at a staff meeting would appear to meet the building material requirements and height limitation of three stories or 35 feet. This issue will be subject to further review as part of a development stage PUD application. Landscaping. The submitted concept does not include detailed landscaping plans, which will be required as part of a development stage PUD application. Specific attention must be given in the landscaping plan to minimizing the impact of traffic volumes on CSAH 42 to the development, as well as the impact of the project to the school. Attention should also be given to addressing the bulk of the development in such an isolated location using landscaping to breakup the visual mass of the structures. Lighting. The development stage PUD application should include a detailed lighting plan indicating the type, location and illumination pattern of all site lighting. Site lighting should be downcast with a 90 -degree horizontal cutoff to minimize glare to rights-of-way and adjacent properties. Sewer Capacity. An issue to be addressed is the timing of project construction due to the impact on available sewer capacity. Engineering. The applicant will be required to provide all necessary plans and specifications regarding site grading and drainage, utilities, easements and other information required by the Engineering Manual as part of the development stage application. All engineering issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Financial Assistance. The applicant will be requesting financial assistance from the City in order to implement this project. This is a policy issue the City Council will need to evaluate and decide upon along with any land use issues. Planning Report - Farr Senior Housing PUD Page 3 Conclusion and Recommendations The proposed development of a senior housing project along CSAH 42 represents a good opportunity to expand the housing choices within the City to a demographic that is the most under served. Furthermore, the while the location of the development is somewhat isolated, it does offer appropriate buffers between the existing school and other residential development. The applicant should address the site issues outlined herein and incorporate necessary changes as part of a development stage PUD application. The City must determine prior to a development stage application if adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. As a separate matter, the City Council must also make a determination as to whether any financial assistance may be made available for this project. If the Planning Commission and City Council view the concept for a senior housing project favorably in consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, our office would recommend approval of the plan subject to the conditions outlined under Option A below. A. Motion to approve a PUD concept plan for a senior housing development and medical center subject to the following conditions: Approval of the concept plan is subject to submission and approval of complete applications for zoning amendment, development stage PUD and preliminary plat within one (1) year of the date of approval. 2. The site plan is revised such that all buildings are within minimum required setbacks. 3. Access to CSAH 42 is to be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Wright County. 4. Adequate off-street parking stalls are provided in conformance with Chapter 21 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Detailed plans for building design, landscaping and lighting are provided for review and approval with the PUD development plan application. 6. The City determines that there is adequate sanitary sewer capacity to service the project. 7. All grading and drainage plans, utility plans, easements, construction plans or other engineering issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Planning Report - Farr Senior Housing PUD Page 4 8. Comments of other City Staff. B. Motion to deny a PUD concept plan application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (Specific policies should be referenced) C. Motion to table the application. (Direction should be given to the applicant or City staff regarding additional information to be provided) pc. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Lary Koshak Ron Wagner Lucinda Gardner Merrili Asleson Planning Report - Fair Senior Housing PUD Page 5 �u N►. C vv ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD �fT7�Cl4-717M1 - - - W -X Q_24Q s� 4i N �o / _ 3D o ��o711�wdvlanao_�1�!'b 13�ba_ .nt2Q o� �N� n �6 n ;"ft,; 3 -w --Wry, %I S'n WS 3,"f o 1 M �I ,c, 000'21 I — Al 4,41103W NORTIAWItS ' ASSOCI ATIto CONSULTA"M 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 Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht DATE: 10 January 2001 RE: Otsego - Vetch; Subdivision Sketch Plan FILE NO.: 176.02 - 01.02 Background Jim and Judy Vetch have been exploring the possibility of creating one or two lots from their property located northeast of CSAH 19 and 80"' Street. The approximate 74 acre property is currently rented for crop production and there is an existing dwelling on the site. The property is located within the Agricultural Preserve area defined by the Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned A-1 District. This potential request has been discussed at a staff level and with the City Council because of related Feedlot setback issues. The Vetch property is adjacent to the Barthel and Beaudry properties, which have registered feedlots. The Zoning Ordinance requires that new residential uses be setback at least 1,000 feet from any registered feedlot facilities. The imposition of the feedlot setback limits potential building sites on the Vetch property and would not allow the Vetch's preferred lot locations. The feedlot provisions within the Zoning Ordinance do not include an exception provision to the setback requirement, except by variance. Processing a subdivision request would also involve an application for rezoning the property to an A-2 District and possibly a preliminary plat if more than one lot is created. Attached for Reference: Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Vetch letter dated January 8, 2001 Analysis Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is within the Agricultural Preserve area defined by the Comprehensive Plan. This area of the City has been guided for continued agricultural activity until such time as urban development may expand outward from either the Highway 101 corridor or from Albertville. In order to sustain existing agricultural operations, the Comprehensive Plan directed specific measures to allow limited feedlot expansion opportunities and the concept of reciprocal setbacks between such uses and residential dwellings. To further address compatibility issues, residential densities in this area are limited to four units per forty acres for parcels with street frontage. Zoning. The subject property is currently zoned A-1 District, which allows for residential uses at a density of one unit per forty acres. The subject property has utilized all of its current development rights under this district. However, based upon the densities allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, additional development rights may be allowed if the property is rezoned to A-2 District. Rezoning applications are subject to the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance, which would be evaluated as part of a formal application. Feedlot Setback. Section 20-27-9 of the Zoning Ordinance states that no new dwelling is to be constructed within 1,000 feet of a registered feedlot. The subject property is adjacent to the Barthel property to the east and the Beaudry property to the south- southeast, which both have registered feedlots. The City needs to obtain more accurate information regarding the location of these feedlot buildings to determine the impact of the setback on the Vetch property. However, the 1,000 foot setback requirement likely limits potential building sites on the Vetch property to the western side of their property. Based upon the sketch attached to the Vetch's letter of January 8. 2001, the setback may eliminate their preferred lot location in the southwest corner of the property and possibly the lot location in the southeast corner, as well. Exceptions to the feedlot setback requirements can only be accommodated by a variance request. The potential variance application is subject to the City Council and Planning Commission making a finding of undue hardship based upon the criteria outlined in Section 20-6-2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance. In considering a possible variance application, the Planning Commission and City Council may evaluate the following factors as a basis for finding hardship: The ability to utilize the density allowances provided by the Comprehensive Plan is dependent on an ability to meet applicable performance standards. Variances from an established performance standard should only be granted when a finding is made that a performance standard prohibits a reasonable use of the property and not simply the highest and best use of a property. -2- • CSAH 19 is designated as a minor arterial street. The Comprehensive Plan discourages direct lot access onto minor arterial street because of the potential traffic hazzard caused by numerous intersections on what is to be a major transportation corridor. For this reason, the City may prefer that any new lot(s) divided from the Vetch property have access from 80th Street. • The property is currently rented for crop production. Any division should take into consideration preserving as large a contiguous tract of land as possible so as to not impede this activity. Therefore, any lot(s) that are created should be clustered in a corner of the property or clustered with other existing lots. • There are two existing dwellings that were originally divided from the southwest corner of the Barthel, prior to adoption of the newfeedlot regulations, that are within 1,000 feet of the existing, as well as new buildings on the Barthel feedlot. It may be suggested that the Vetch property is being denied a right enjoyed by other properties within the same area with the imposition of the 1,000 foot setback. We suggest that this factor only be cited in conjunction with the two previous factors that suggest a potential lot location on 80' Street is the only reasonable option in consideration of the City's agriculture preservation and transportation policies. Lot Standards. The proposed division of one or two lots would need to demonstrate an ability to conform to the applicable lot performance standards of the A-2 District. Each lot would need to be at least one acre in size (with area for primary and secondary septic systems) with 150 feet of frontage to a public street. The proposed building locations would also need to conform to the minimum principal building setbacks outlined in Section 20-52-6.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision Processing. An application to divide a single lot from the subject property could be processed administratively, subject to approval of the necessary rezoning and variance applications. If two lots are ultimately to be divided, staff has recommended processing a preliminary/final plat to create both lots at this time. This approach will save time and future expense. Is must also be noted that an administrative subdivision can only be processed once within a five year period for any given property. Later consideration of a second lot may also be subject to the need for a similar variance application. Processing of the subdivision is subject to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, including park dedication. Conclusion The potential subdivision of one or two lots from the Vetch property is being presented to the Planning Commission for informal comment. The issues outlined herein have already been discussed initially with the City Council, in response to Ms. Vetch's concerns about the feedlot setback expressed during open forum at a recent Council meeting. -3- The primary issue with the subdivision request is the need for variance from the feedlot setback requirements. In the absence of a formal application, detailed site information regarding the Vetch property and more accurate information on the Barthel property, we have limited our comments to possible considerations for granting a variance. Similarly, the Planning Commission should limit their comments to whether the individual members believe that the factors outlined herein suggest that a variance may be warranted. No formal motion or action should be taken on the sketch plan. pc. Mayor and City Council Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Ron Wagner Jim and Judy Vetch -4- N►. C ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD I T 1-8-01 Members of the Planning Commission: I would like the opportunity to speak with you at your meeting on Jan. 16th about our plans to build a house on our property. We are Jim and Judy Vetsch and the property we are talking about is the southwest corner on county road 19 and the land on 80th street between Jim Cook's residence and Alfred Barthel. I met with Mike Robertson, Dan Licht and Elaine Beatty in June of 2000. At that time they gave me the application I will need to fill out. Because we are in the farming end of Otsego, we will need to apply for a rezoning to A-2 district. In October, we started to work on our property along 80th street so we could begin the application process. We ran into a problem. The comprehensive plan has the rule that a residence must be 1000 feet from a feed lot. We can't meet this rule along 80th street because of the feedlot that the Barthel Brother's have just put up. On the other side of 80th street is Lloyd Beaudry who has started the application to register for a feed lot. If he were to complete the application we would not be 1000 feet from him either. I attended the City Council meeting in November and explained my situation. Because of issues brought up through the meeting, the staff recommends that a variance be made for our situation. I have attached a sketch of our property and what we have. Our original plan was to put 1 lot next to the property line by Alfred Barthel's and the other lot next to the Cook's property line along 80th street. When we measured 1000 feet from Barthel's feedlot, we would have to goto the middle of the road, or we would have to move the lot into the middle of the field of 80th street. When we measured the 1000 feet from Beaudry's barn, we also ran into problems. It is approximately 200 feet from the barn to the road, so to put a house across the street from Lloyd Beaudry's we would have to have a 800 foot driveway. We would not make the 1000 feet rule by putting the house behind the Cook's either. 1000 from Beaudry's barn puts us approximately across the street from the Davis residence on county road 19. This would also put the house in the middle of the field we own on county road 19. We rent our land out, and wish to continue so. Therefore, we are looking for the lot that will cause the least interference with the farming of the land. We understand that the comprehensive plan was written to protect the farmers who wanted to continue farming. It was also written so a property owner could develop with the 4 pre 40 split option. What we have found out so far, is if we have to follow the comprehensive plan as is, our land on 80th street is land locked. EXHIBIT B We would still like to build a house either on county road 19 north of Cook's residence or on 80th street east of Cook's residence between them and Alfred Barthel's. Our plan is to plot out an acre to build on now, and an acre to build on in the future. We would leave the rest of the farmland as an outlot, because we want to continue renting the rest of the land. We are asking for the planning commission to look at our situation and go along with the recommendation that a variance from the 1000 foot rule from a feed lot be granted. We would also like your feelings about the rezoning to a A-2 district. We understand that you can't give us a definant answer until we would complete the application process. We are asking for your questions, opinions or requests that would need to be fulfilled, before we go any further in our process. Our goal is not to waste anymore money or time, both on our part and the cities. Thank you in advance for looking at our situation, and hopefully we can answer each others questions on January 16th. Jim and Judy Vetsch 8490 La Beaux Ave Ne Monticello Mn 55362 CIA w+ 3 a p �2 X