04-02-01 PCHoINTIAW11131 ASSOCIAxI110 k"C.
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: 28 March 2001
RE: Otsego - Vetsch; Zoning Map Amendment
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 01.02
BACKGROUND
Todd Vetsch and Kristy Miller, on behalf of James and Judith Vetsch, are requesting a a
Zoning Map amendment to rezone 74.4 acres in the northeast quadrant of CSAH 19 and
80'hStreet from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to A-2, Agricultural Long Range
Urban Service District (General). The request is to establish additional development rights
allowed by the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of creating one new residential lot.
The subdivision is to be processed as a minor subdivision by the Zoning Administrator and
is therefore not part of this application.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Subdivision Sketch
ANALYSIS
Zoning. Applications for rezoning are to be evaluated based upon the criteria established
by Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance. The decision of the Planning Commission
and City Council on the request is to be based upon (but not limited to) the following
factors:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The subject property is within the Agricultural Preserve established by
the Comprehensive Plan. This area anticipated continued agricultural activities with
some allowance for rural residential use until such time as City approved sanitary
sewer and water service may be available. The Comprehensive Plan prescribes a
maximum density of four units per forty acres for parcels with public street frontage
and one unit per forty acres for parcels without public street frontage. Within the
Zoning Ordinance, the A-2 District is intended to implement the allowance of rural
residential development at four units per forty acres, whereas the A-1 District is
more restrictive one unit per forty acres for preservation purposes.
The subject site is 74.4 acres in size. There is one existing residential dwelling on
the property. Therefore, based upon the size of the parcel and existing
development, no additional building rights exist under the present A-1 District
zoning. Under the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, however, as many as six
additional building rights may be established by rezoning to A-2 District.
The proposal to rezone the subject site to A-2 District in order to allow for one new
residential lot to be created (at this time) is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan to allow a minimum level of rural residential development that
may compatibly exist with agricultural activities.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: The proposed rezoning will allow for creation of one and possibly more
residential lots at a density of four units per forty acres with street frontage. This
level of development is consistent with the rural character of the area, which is
expected to continue until such time as City approved sanitary sewer and water
services may be available.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment. The proposed division of one lot from the subject property can be
processed by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 2 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Although the subdivision is to be processed as a separate application
and is not be considered as part of this request, the following performance
standards apply to the anticipated minor subdivision request:
Access. The proposed lot is to access off of 80' Street, which is designated
a local street by the Comprehensive Plan. Local streets are intended to
provide access directly to individual properties. The width of the access to
80"' Street from the subject property must be in accordance with the
standards of the Engineering Manual, Standard Plate 109.
-2-
• Lot Area. The minimum lot size within the A-2 District is one acre in
accordance with Section 20-52-6.A.1. The proposed lot must be large
enough to provide for a building site within required setbacks and two septic
drainfield sites.
• Lot Width. Section 20-52-6.A.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that lots
within the A-2 District must have at least 150 feet of frontage to a public
street, measured at the front setback line.
• Lot Depth. Within the A-2 District, lots must be at least 150 feet deep as
required by Section 20-52-6. A. 3.
• Setbacks. Based upon the proposed lot fronting 801' Street, the required
setbacks are 35 feet front, 30 feet on each side yard and 50 feet in the rear
yard. A lot that meets the minimum lot area, width and depth requirements
of the A-2 District should not have any issue meeting setbacks.
• Feedlot Setbacks. There is a registered feedlot on the adjacent property
to the east. The farm to the south of the subject property is not a registered
feedlot. Section 20-27-9 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that new
residential lots be setback at least 1,000 feet from the facility. This
requirement dictates that the proposed lot must be located in the southwest
corner of the subject site.
• Drainage and Utility Easements. Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that a 10 foot drainage and utility easement be
established at the perimeter of the proposed lot. The need for any additional
drainage and utility easements are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
• Park and Trail Dedication. Section 21-7-18 of the Subdivision Ordinance
requires dedication of land for parks and trails as part of requests to
subdivide and develop property. As the City is not have plans for
establishment of parks or trails effecting the subject property, a cash fee in
lieu of land is required. The present cash fee is $1,075 per lot created. This
cash fee in lieu of land is to be paid at the time the administrative subdivision
is processed.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment. The requested rezoning is not anticipated to have any negative effects
to the area in which it is proposed as it is within the guidelines of the Comprehensive
Plan.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
-3-
Comment: Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not
anticipated to negatively impact area property values.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment. The rezoning will allow for division of a new residential lot accessing 80"'
Street. This street is designated as a local street by the Comprehensive Plan which
is being improved with an overlay project. The proposed use resulting from the
rezoning is not anticipated to generate traffic beyond the capabilities of this 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 as it is within the scope of development anticipated by the
Comprehensive Plan.
CONCLUSION
Decisions on applications for zoning map amendments are to be determined by the
Planning Commission and City Council as a matter of policy. City officials are to use the
criteria outlined by the Zoning Ordinance and other factors in evaluating whether the
requested action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with the area in
question and will be within existing service capacities. If a positive finding is made on
each of these considerations, the application may be approved as outlined under A below.
No conditions are included with the motion to approve as the actual subdivision is being
processed administratively and it is inappropriate to attach conditions to rezonings.
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1 to
A-2 District based upon a finding that the action is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the request based upon a finding that the action is inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. (Specific policies should be cited in support of the
motion).
C. Motion to table the request (Direction should be provided to the applicant and or
City Staff regarding additional information to be submitted).
PC Mike Robertson Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak/Ron Wagner
Applicant
-4-
N/- C
vv
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
12.z3o1
8302-62
1243202
8490-01
1234101
8337-62
1234106 8250-01
8283-62
3234400
8197-62
8250-01
150'
03
8250-01
A
1243200
1243200
LOT LOCATION/ DIMENSIONS
1161-01
1
SUBJECT SITE
1243403
1344-01 1 1364-01
1243400
1243400
1243401
11464-01
N.E. 8C
1252100 I #252100
EXHIBIT B