05-07-01 PC"ORTI M RST ASSOCIATRo CONSULTANTS* INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT -Review #2
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 1 May 2001
RE: Otsego - Meadowlands PUD; Rezoning/Preliminary Plat
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 01.04
BACKGROUND
S&Z Investments and Bulow Incorporated have submitted a preliminary plat for
development of 43 single family lots and one outlot entitled "Meadowlands" on 99 acres
located east of Nashua Avenue, across from City Hall. The subject site is within the Urban
Service Area Reserve designated by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update and is zoned
A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service District. The property is also within the Shoreland Overlay
District, as there is a designated natural environment lake identified by the DNR.
This property was the subject of two previous concept plans 50 and 75 residential lots that
would have provided for single family lots served by common septic and well systems.
The applicant is no longer pursuing common utilities as the concept plan approval limited
the number of lots to 54, which does not balance the cost of related storm water
improvements. As such, this application presents a significantly altered design with lot
sizes based upon rural service standards.
Implementation of this project requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to
expand the Long Range Service Area, base district rezoning from A-1 District to R-3
District and PUD -CUP to adapt development within the Shoreland District.
Exhibits:
A. Subject Site
B. Preliminary Plat
C. Grading Plan
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. This subject parcel is currently within the Urban Service Area
Reserve, which allows a maximum density of four units per 40 acres. Areas where one -
acre rural service development occurred were designated as a Long Range Urban Service
Area by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update. Therefore, the City must amend the
Comprehensive Plan to allowfor the proposed project, by including the property within the
Long Range Urban Service Area. The subject parcel abuts the Long Range Urban Service
Area on part of its north boundary and the length of its east boundary.
Provision of sanitary sewer service to Otsego was based in part upon the potential
environmental concerns created by the City's historic one -acre rural service development
pattern. The Comprehensive Plan did not anticipate further expansion of the Long Range
Urban Service Area due not only to these environmental concerns, but the financial
commitments made for sanitary sewer and water services. The Comprehensive Plan did
expect that remaining large parcels within these areas may be subject to further
development pressure. The City would allow infill development of the Long Range Urban
Service Areas only if at least one of the following criteria could be satisfied. These criteria
may also be used to decide if expanding the Long Range Urban Service Area is advisable
to accommodate this project.
a. Completion of an unfinished street network.
Comment. The project as presented does not provide for extension of any local
street network, although a future connection to 87' Street may be possible.
b. Such development shall have the result of the correction or improvement of a
demonstrated area drainage problem.
Comment: A drainage problem exists during high rainfall seasons where the lake
on the subject property overflows and floods existing residential areas to the east.
As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to correct this issue by paying for
and installing storm water drainage facilities on the subject property and Nashua
Avenue.
C. The dedication of lands to a legitimate public purpose (i.e., desired parks, public
facility structures, right-of-way dedication, etc.).
Comment. The project provides for the dedication of necessary storm water
drainage facilities.
-2-
The previous concept plans were more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
concerning the proliferation of on-site septic systems. The Planning Commission and City
Council must evaluate the public benefit of the storm water improvements against allowing
additional unsewered development in determining if this project is appropriate
Zoning. The applicant has designed the project based upon R-3 District and Shoreland
Overlay District Standards. As part of the subdivision design, the applicant is proposing
that the density within the project be based upon the PUD -CUP tier method outlined by
Section 20-92-19. Sections 20-3-2.F and 20-4-21 of the Zoning Ordinance outline
specific criteria the Planning Commission and City Council are to consider concerning the
zoning map amendment and PUD -CUP:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The Planning Commission and City Council's findings regarding the
Comprehensive Plan amendment largely determine the proposed project's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan discussed above.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: The subject property is surrounded to the east and northeast to by one
acre, non-sewered development, which are in the Long Range Urban Service Area.
Properties to the north and south are designated for continued agricultural/rural land
uses as part of the Urban Service Area Reserve. City Hall is west of the subject
site. The development of suburban single family lots on the subject site would be
compatible with these existing and planned uses.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment. The proposed project will be required to conform to all applicable
requirements of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment. The proposed development may have a positive effect on the area by
correcting the existing drainage problems. Potential negative impacts to the area
involve potentially siphoning development interest from the Sanitary Sewer Service
District and expansion of on-site septic systems.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Although no study has been completed, no negative impact to area
property values is anticipated to be caused by the project.
-3-
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The property is served by Nashua Avenue, which is designated as a
minor arterial street by the Comprehensive Plan. This street has adequate access
to serve traffic generated by the project. Provision of a second access to the project
is an issue.
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: Of primary concern in allowing on-site septic systems is the potential
future need for municipal sanitary sewer service. Outside of utilities, the
development is located in close proximity to other developed areas requiring City
services such as street maintenance, park facilities, policelfire protection, etc.
Access. All lots are to have access via an internal local street. This local street has one
intersection with Nashua Avenue, which is a designated minor arterial roadway. The
intersection is located directly across from the north entrance to City Hall. City Staff has
reviewed the spacing needs along this roadway in consideration of the planned extension
of 90"' Street as part of the proposed Hidden Trails subdivision. If 90th Street is
constructed, these two intersections would be approximately 400 feet apart. Although
Section 21-7-7.N would require at least 500 feet between these intersections, the physical
limitations of an access to the south or one that aligns at 90th Street are problematic.
Because the access to City Hall is not likely to be removed, City Staff is comfortable with
the proposed intersection alignment.
An additional concern remains secondary access to the subdivision. The City Council
directed that the extension of 90'hStreet east to O'Brian Avenue be removed, as part of
the concept plan review. In place of a full street, a 20 foot corridor has been proposed.
We concur with the City Engineer's concerns that such a corridor does not allow for
sufficient emergency vehicle access to what is a 3,000 foot cul-de-sac and that a full street
section is necessary. An alternative to provide adequate access is connection through to
87' Street at the southeast corner of the property, although this would require acquisition
of land from two property owners.
Consistent with the previous concept plan approval, a future street connection has been
provided from this subdivision to the property to the north.
Blocks. Section 21-7-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance limits block length to 1,200 feet to
allowfor intra neighborhood connections and access. Within this project, Block 1 exceeds
this requirement due to the location of the lake. Block 2 also exceeds the block length
standard due to existing development to the north and east.
-4-
Lot Design. The subdivision design is based on the Shoreland PUD allowances outlined
in Section 20-92-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, which bases the number of lots that may be
included within the project on density and location proximate to the waterbody, versus the
a defined minimum lot size or width. The density calculation is based on defined 400 foot
wide tiers that radiate outward from the ordinary high watermark (OHWM). The buildable
area within each tier is calculated and then divided by the 80,000 square foot minimum lot
size required of a standard rural service subdivision adjacent to a natural environment lake
to determine the maximum number of dwelling sites that may be located within each tier.
The dwelling sites allowed within each tier may be transferred to other tiers away from the
waterbody, but not closer. As shown in the table below, the project conforms to the tier
allocation requirements and the overall allowed density with 43 lots.
Tier
Suitable
Area
Maximum #
of Lots
Proposed # of
Lots
Difference
1
31.5 acres
17
12
-5
2
36.8 acres
20
25
-1
3
12.0 acres
6
6
- -
The lots have been designed with minimum lot size of one acre and 170 foot width. The
average lot size is 1.6 acres. Section 21-7-5 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that
provisions are made for resubdivision of large, unsewered lots with future availability of
sanitary sewer service. The grading plan illustrates that all of the lots except 8-10, Block
2 have the ability to be split. The three lots that cannot be resubdivided may be allowed,
but notice should be recorded on their deeds acknowledging this.
Setbacks. The following setbacks apply to the proposed subdivision under the
performance standards of the R-3 District and Shoreland Overlay District:
Front
Side
Rear
OHWM
Structures Septic
35 feet (local)
65 feet (Nashua)
15 feet
20 feet
150 feet 150 feet
All of the proposed lots have suitable building pads located within required setbacks of the
base R-3 District. The applicant has requested that the side yard setback be reduced to
10 feet, which will facilitate future resubdivision of the lots. The side yard setback in the
R-4 District is 10 feet, which is the zoning that would be applied if sewer and water were
made available. As such, the reduced side yard setback is likely appropriate.
The Shoreland PUD performance standards also include design requirements that the
project include minimum required open space and preservation of the shoreland impact
area in its natural state. The applicant is providing an easement over the 150 foot setback
-5-
area and a second easement 75 feet from the OHWM as a "no mow' zone meaning the
area must remain undisturbed. The provision of these easements are consistent with the
intent of the PUD requirements to protect as much of the waterbody and shoreland in a
natural state. 1'
Cemetery Site. At their meeting on January 25, 2001, the Historic Preservation
Commission discussed information that there may be grave sites on the subject property.
Apparently, a section of the subject site were used as a cemetery prior to relocation to the
present site of the Otsego Cemetery. The applicant has said that their inquiries into the
matter suggest that plat maps indicating a cemetery on the, property were an error. Further
research can be done on this prior to a final plat application.
Park and Trail Dedication. Based on the proximity of the subject site to Prairie Park, the
City is likely not interested in land dedication as part of this subdivision. As such, the
applicant would be required to make a cash fee dedication in lieu of land at the time of final
plat approval. Park and trail dedication issues are subject to further comment from the
Parks and Recreation Commission.
Easements. Section 21-7-15.A requires ten foot drainage and utility easement at the
perimeter of all lots, which may overly side lot lines. These easements are illustrated on
the submitted plans. The applicant has also provided a drainage and utility easement over
the lake and shoreland impact area (noted above) and for the access corridor at the
northeast corner of the property. All easements are subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer.
Grading and Utility Plans. The applicant has submitted preliminary grading plans for the
project. Most of the drainage from the project will move to the lake and any overflow
channeled to Otsego Creek via the proposed storm water improvement. A ponding area
has also been provided along the east property line to retain any runoff from the northern
cul-de-sac that moves that direction, preventing runoff to existing developed areas. The
grading plans includes primary and secondary septic drainfield sites for each lot. The
grading plan also illustrates plans for the storm water improvements that will divert
drainage overflowfrom the pond towards Otsego Creek. These plans are subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer. The storm water improvements are also subject to DNR
review and approval.
Development Contract. If the preliminary plat is approved, the applicant must submit a
request for final plat approval within 100 days. After approval of the final plat, the
applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and pay all required
fees and securities. The development contract is subject to review and approval of the
City Attorney.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary issue with the project is the Comprehensive Plan amendment to expand the
Long Range Urban Service Area for additional one -acre rural service development outside
of the Sanitary Sewer Service District. The Planning Commission and City Council must
decide as a matter of policy if such action is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan in consideration of the area storm water improvement to be installed
by the applicant. The subsequent action on the Zoning Map amendment would be decided
on the same findings.
In a technical review of the project, the proposed preliminary plat meets the Shoreland
Overlay District density and setbacks requirements and other applicable performance
standards. Our office would also support reduction of the side yard setback requirement
from 15 feet to 10 feet to allow for future resubdivision in consideration of likely
performance standards if sanitary sewer is made available. As such our office would
recommend approval of the requested PUD -CUP and preliminary plat subject to the
conditions outlined below, assuming a positive finding is made on the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map amendments.
Decision 1 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
A. Motion to adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the
subject property within the Long Range Urban Service Area based upon a finding
that the action is consistent with the cited policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the request based upon a finding that the action is not consistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table the application.
Decision 2 - Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1
District to R-3 District based upon a finding that the action is consistent with the
cited policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the request based upon a finding that the action is not consistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Decision 3 - PUD -CUP and Preliminary Plat
A Motion to approve a PUD -CUP and preliminary plat entitled "Meadowlands" subject
to the following conditions:
-7-
The developer install storm water improvements shown on the submitted
plans to correct area drainage problems, as approved by the City Engineer.
2. The design and construction of all streets is subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer.
3. Secondary access to the subdivision is provided as determined by the City
Council with recommendations from the Planning Commission.
4. Notation is made on the deeds to Lots 8-10, Block 2 that no provision for
resubdivision of the lot has been made if sanitary sewer and water services
are made available.
5. Side yard setbacks for the principal buildings shall be ten (10) feet.
6. Documentation of a cemetery site on the property is subject to further review
and comment regarding significance by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
7. Easements are provided over the lake, no -mow zone and 150 foot shoreland
impact area and all easements are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
8. All grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval of
the City Engineer.
9 Park and trail dedication shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Council.
10. Application for final plat approval shall be made within 100 days and
approval of the final plat shall require execution of a development contract.
11. Comments of other City Staff or DNR Staff as appropriate.
B. Motion to deny the request based upon a finding that the action is not consistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak / Ron Wagner
Patty Fowler (DNR)
George Sanford / Chris Bulow
10
N/. C
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
DJOCOu-in 'Aw-o 146i m
06-610 ;0
ON 'euvoosev T
Iruu�txmosmagad'INVOGG SG1,1V1MOGV3m
JO I Id A,.Ul-llgJd X
LLJ
thrl gal I
it V j I I j i I j J j j I j
L
IgdH NYC
/A
Ali
r.j
17,
, A
F
XF
4Z
N.j z
p
1,4 5 1 - , ., 1 . 1, , - , 0
n
II
do
:::AAHM
I W
PAkt!
-7
- - - - - - - - - -
-rum M.'Wa* I.S.—In '(luno I46ljM 0
=Cff—= o6..jo )o A113 F -
i T: %VWmi
v%r
Do
U01d 104uOD uOlGoJ3 V
6u1P-1j /M J.1d J. -to AlDu!wIIGJd
p @
X
x
F.
91 6
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 1 May 2001
RE: Otsego - Commercial Riding Stables
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 01.09
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved a commercial riding stable CUP for Hoofbeats & Heartbeats,
Inc., which includes construction of a 9,500 square foot pole bam for use as a riding
stable. In processing this request, concern had been noted about the ability to distinguish
between such buildings used for commercial stables and those that would be accessory
to residential uses. City Staff already will receive occasionally inquiries about building
personal riding stables and these inquiries are likely to be more frequent after Hoofbeats
& Heartbeats has constructed their building. For this reason, the City Council has directed
the Planning Commission to consider and recommend changes to the existing Ordinance
that resolve this matter before it becomes an issue.
ANALYSIS
Existing Standards. Section 20-26-5 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines standards for
commercial stables, which are allowed as a conditional use within the A-1 District. This
section is attached as Exhibit A for reference. As a conditional use, the City does have the
ability to review any proposed use for compatibility with applicable performance standards
as well as surrounding uses and supporting infrastructure.
As noted in the April 11, 2001 Planning Report, the size and construction of Hoofbeats &
Heartbeats, Inc.'s building is allowed because the use is considered agricultural. The
maximum size of a residential accessory building is 1,500 square feet, with total detached
accessory building area not larger than 3,000 square feet, based on lot size. Residential
accessory pole buildings are only allowed in the Rural Service Area on parcels five acres
in size or larger, yet such buildings are still restricted to area limitations.
Options. Forthe benefit of the Planning Commission's initial discussion, we have outlined
a number of options that could be considered to more clearly define what is a commercial
stable as opposed to residential accessory buildings for the purpose of regulating. each.
• Residential Accessory Buildings. Based upon the number of inquiries, the City
may consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow larger accessory buildings
for properties in the Agricultural Preserve with the intent to accommodate hobby
farm users that are encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. It is not necessarily
a requirement of a hobby farm to have a riding stable as the present residential
accessory building standards allow sufficient building area in consideration of
animal unit limits. In allowing any increased building size, additional performance
standards including a minimum lot size (considered in relation to potential
development rights), increased setbacks, screening requirements, etc.
• Definition. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition of commercial
riding stable that would serve to separate such uses from accessory residential
buildings. Reading the performance standards of 20-26-5, certain characteristics
can be inferred, but are not explicitly stated. Example language that could be
inserted into the Zoning Ordinance is outlined below. Including a definition within
the Zoning Ordinance would allow the City greater legal discretion in interpreting
what is and what isn't a commercial stable.
Commercial Stable: An agricultural use involving the keeping
horses or other farm animals, in numbers that do not constitute an
animal feedlot, by providing services and facilities for boarding and
care of animals not belonging to the property owner or tenant,
breeding, and recreational or therapeutic riding programs for hire as
part of a commercial enterprise.
• Performance Standards. The performance standards for commercial stables
could be expanded to be more restrictive or exclude smaller properties. For
example, the minimum lot size could be increased, setbacks from property lines for
all buildings changed to 200 feet (currently only those used to house animals must
be 200 feet from a property line), limitations on building size, increased construction
standards, etc., may all be considered. Midwest Station and Hoofbeats &
Heartbeats are the only known commercial stables. Any changes to the
performance standards would likely make Hoofbeats & Heartbeats, Inc. non-
conforming, whereas Midwest Station (located at CSAH 42 and 70th Street, east of
T.H. 101) is a larger operation that likely well exceeds most of these standards.
-2-
CONCLUSION
The information outlined herein is for preliminary discussion by the Planning Commission
on how to approach regulation of commercial stables and residential accessory structures.
The primary issue is creating clear separation between what is considered a commercial
stable and what is a residential accessory building for the integrity of existing performance
standards. The Planning Commission should review the information herein, provide
direction to staff on additional information or preparation of Ordinance amendment, or call
for a public hearing.
pc. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Ron Wagner
-3-
5. The keeping and care of horses is provided as regulated by the City Code.
6. The density of horses does not exceed one (1) horse per acre.,,
7. A shelter or stabling facility shall provide a minimum of one hundred (100)
square feet of enclosed are per horse.
20-26-5: COMMERCIAL STABLES:
A. Commercial stables (operations involving the boarding and care of two (2) or more
horses not belonging to the property owner or tenant) shall be allowed only in the
City's A-1 Zoning District by conditional use permit.
B. The minimum lot size for a commercial stable shall be ten (10) acres.
C. The density of equine allowed on a commercial riding stable shall be in accordance
with Section 20-26-4.
17 D. Manure and other waste materials shall be removed and distributed so as to
eliminate unsightly odors, insect, and rodent problems or any condition which
otherwise operates as a public or private nuisance. The storage of manure and
other waste materials shall be in compliance with Section 27 of this Chapter.
E. All areas designated for equine sheltering shall be located at least two hundred
(200) feet from the property line. Any agricultural building or shelter which was
being used in a commercial stable prior to the effective date of this Section is not
required to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph, provided, however,
that such agricultural building or shelter does not constitute a public nuisance as
determined by the City Council
F. Fences as regulated by Section 20-16-6 of this Chapter shall be constructed and
maintained so as to adequately and safely contain equine at all times.
G. One agricultural building upon the commercial stable property shall be permitted
to contain no more than one caretaker's unit, subject to a demonstrated need and
to the approval of a conditional use permit as regulated by Section 4 of this
Chapter.
H. All equine shall be provided shelter sufficient to protect against potentially injurious
weather. All such shelters shall be structurally sound, provide sufficient ventilation,
and be maintained in good repair.
Equine stalls shall provide sufficient space for the equine to lie or roll with a
minimum danger of injury to itself. Stalls shall be cleaned and kept dry to the extent
that the animal is not required to lie or stand in fluids. Bedding shall be provided
26-4
EXHIBIT A
in all stalls, kept reasonably clean, and periodically changed. The nature of the
bedding shall not pose a health hazard to the animal.
J. The Zoning Administrator shall inspect every commercial stable as frequently as the
city may deem necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of this Section and
any conditions of the license for such commercial stable. Any person who operates
a commercial stable shall, upon request of the Zoning Administrator and/or City
Building Official, permit access to all parts of the commercial stable for the purpose
of inspection. The Zoning Administrator shall prepare a report of every inspection
of a commercial stable. A copy of such report shall be mailed to the person
operating the commercial stable and forwarded to the City Council.
20-26-6: ANIMALS OTHER THAN FARM OR DOMESTIC:
A. Conditional Use Permit:
1. Other than may be herein exempted, any animal which does not qualify as
a farm animal or domestic animal as defined in Section 2 of this Chapter
shall require a conditional use permit prior to its being kept in the City.
2. Determination of acceptability shall include but not be limited to:
a. The potential health or safety hazard posed.
b. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.F are considered and determined to
be satisfied.
3. Conditions and limitations governing other animals shall include but not be
limited to:
a. Full compliance with State Statutes and federal regulations governing
such species.
b. Provisions for the adequate and safe confinement of such animal, as
may be warranted by the potential adverse impact upon neighboring
properties and by safe consideration of the property residents and
neighboring uses.
C. Adequate screening, noise, and visual controls as deemed necessary
by the City Council to maintain compatibility and protect the health,
safety, and general welfare of the public.
d. Additional requirements and limitations as may be deemed necessary
by the City Council so as to insure compatibility and maintain the
health, safety and general welfare of the public.
26-5