05-20-02 PCITEM 3.2. A.
1140WI'"WaSir A$S®CMATID COMM-SULTANTS" MMIC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 15 May 2002
RE: Otsego - Barthel Feedlot; New Building CUP
FILE NO.: 176.08 - 02.14
BACKGROUND
Barthel Brothers Inc. operate a dairy feedlot located northeast of CSAH 19 and 80' Street
on PID# 118-800-243400 in Section 24, Range 24 -Township 121. This feedlot is
registered with the City under the provisions of Section 20-27-2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
In 2000, the operator constructed a new 37,150 square foot animal building and lagoon
to the northwest of the existing feedlot. Because the existing feedlot is within 1,000 feet
of existing residential dwellings, approval of a conditional use permit was necessary to
allow construction of the new building under Section 20-27-5.A.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
No such CUP was requested, processed, or approved by the City to allow construction of
the new animal building. The responsibility for making an appropriate application remains
with the property owner. Therefore, the building as it exists today is an illegal structure.
In order to bring the building into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, the City of
Otsego has initiated consideration of a retroactive conditional use permit for construction
of an animal building for a registered feedlot within 1,000 feet of an existing residential
use. The operator has cooperated with this application, meeting with City Staff on May 2,
2002 to discuss the location of the building, its operation, and possible measures that the
City could require to mitigate any negative impacts to surrounding properties.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Photos
C. Site Plan
Page 1 of 5
ANALYSIS
Registration. The operator registered their feedlot under Section 20-27-2. B of the Zoning
Ordinance providing information on the number of animals, buildings, and MPCA permits.
The registration identified the subject building that was constructed without necessary City
approvals.
Animal Units. The registration identifies that the feedlot was permitted for 225 animal
units. Under Section 20-27-4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the operator may increase the
number of animal units to 672 animal units. The operator should provide a current
population for the feedlot. A current MPCA certificate of compliance should also be
submitted.
New Building. Section 20-27-5.A of the Zoning Ordinance outlines requirements and
procedures for registered feedlots to construct new buildings, which is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Any new building intended to house farm animals is within three hundred (300) feet
of an existing building that houses farm animals, except by conditional use permit.
2. Any new building or expansion of an existing building intended to house farm
animals may not encroach within 1,000 feet of an existing residential use, except
by conditional use permit.
The subject building was constructed within approximately 200 feet of another existing
building used to house farm animals. The subject building is within 1,000 feet of the to
residences located to the southwest. As such a conditional use permit is required.
The subject building was located in order to be within 300 feet of an existing animal
building and in considration of site topography. The area northeast of the existing animal
buildings and east of the subject building is somewhat low, whereas the building site was
relatively flat. It must be noted that the number of residential lots along 80"' Street would
necessitate a CUP for a new building that is within 300 feet of existing buildings.
Section 20-27-5.C.3 conditions approval of the CUP upon the building being constructed
in such a manner so that the proposed building may not encroach closer to said residential
use and to minimize any impacts to surrounding properties. The proximity of the subject
building to the two residential lots within 1,000 feet to the southwest is shown below. The
subject building does not encroach closer than the existing feedlot.
Page 2 of 5
At the time the subject building was constructed, no other measures were taken to
minimize impacts to the dwellings to the southwest. In order to mitigate the noise and light
that comes from the subject building, we are recommending that a solid wood screening
wall be constructed along the south side of the building. This fence should be of sufficient
height to fully obstruct the sidewalls of the building from these two dwellings. To further
screen the building, two staggered rows of coniferous trees with a berm should be planted
on the operator's property adjacent to the two residential lots.
Criteria. Section 20-4-21 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines factors which the Planning
Commission and City Council are to consider in evaluating the CUP application. The
Planning Commission and City Council's decision is to be based upon (but not limited to)
the following criteria:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: At the time the building was constructed, the site was guided for
agricultural land uses within the Agriculture Preserve Area. Protecting and
preserving agriculture uses and the economic vitality of farming is a primary
community goal for this area (1998 Comprehensive Plan -Policy Plan, p. 24). The
1998 Comprehensive Plan outlined a specific strategy to promote a continuation of
farm activities as a viable land use with the rural areas of the City. This strategy
included a schedule for existing operators to increase their animal units and the
ability to build new buildings in order to modernize or repair existing buildings, and
separation requirements for residential uses and feedlots. The Zoning Ordinance
was amended on February 22, 1999 to implement this policy. The construction of
the subject building is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: The lands surrounding the subject site were guided for agriculture land
uses designated by the Comprehensive Plan within the rural service area. There
are five residential uses along 80"' Street within 1, 000 feet of the subject building.
There is also one feedlot to the southwest and one to the east of the subject
property.
The existence of residential uses within proximity to modern farms does present
certain compatibility issues. However, residential uses within agricultural areas must
have realistic expectations associated with modern farm practices including, noise,
odors, hours of operations, road traffic, etc. Provided that the proposed use meets
Page 3 of 5
all City or MPCA requirements, the parameters of its operation will not exceed those
which may have been reasonably expected based on the City's Comprehensive
plan.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment: The proposed use will be required to conform with all applicable City or
MPCA requirements.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment. The proposed use is within the framework established by the
Comprehensive Plan for agricultural uses. This policy framework and the resulting
performance standards incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance allow for the
construction of new buildings for existing feedlots in such a manner as to mitigate
any negative impacts. As such, no negative impacts are anticipated.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: No study of area property values has been completed. The proposed
use is not anticipated to negatively impact area property values in that such a
project is reasonable to expect under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance and the use complies with all applicable performance requirements.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic.
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.
CONCLUSION
The construction of a new animal building for a registered feedlot within 1,000 feet of
existing residential uses generally satisfies the criteria for such a use established by the
Zoning Ordinance. It must be emphasized that these regulations and the policies from the
Comprehensive Plan on which they are based are intended give preference to continuation
and limited expansion of existing feedlots.
Page 4 of 5
The fact that the building has already been constructed is a factor that the City will need
to consider in reviewing the CUP. Additional measures should be required as part of the
CUP to minimize any impacts to the two residential uses to the southwest, including
construction of a screening wall and plantings adjacent to the common property lines.
Based upon established City policies and applicable regulations, our office recommends
approval of the CUP subject to the conditions outlined below.
A. Motion to approve a conditional use permit for construction of a new animal building
for a registered feedlot within 1,000 feet of existing residential uses, subject to the
following conditions:
The operator fully comply with the terms and conditions of the MPCA
Certificate of Compliance dated , applicable MPCA
regulation, and provisions of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance.
2. The operator is to provide a current population for the animal feedlot.
3. The operator is to construct a solid screening wall to a height necessary to
fully screen the building from view of the two residential dwellings within
1,000 feet of the subject building to the southwest, subject to approval of City
Staff.
4. The operator is to install two staggered rows of coniferous trees along the
common property line of the two lots within 1,000 feet of the subject building
to the southwest, subject to approval of City Staff.
5. Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (Please cite specific findings)
C. Motion to table the request.
pc. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Joe Barthel
Page 5 of 5
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
Photograph 2
NAC
Locations from where the
photographs were taken
are shown on the site plan
attached as Exhibit C.
Date of Photographs: 8 May 2002
EXHIBIT B
FOR
BARTHEL FEED LOT
CITY OF OTSEGO
0ATE. 4/10/02 FILE: OT2500
LAW MAC T\07250 X\07250DE. D.G
FOR
BARTHEL FEED LOT
CITY OF OTSEGO
DATE: 4/10/02 FK.E: 012500
L. PAOAM0n500[xkou50 l—
...
ITEM 2. 1.
CITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
MAY 20, 2002
8 P
OTSEGO CITY HALL
1 . Chair Nichols will call the meeting to order.
Chair Nichols called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM.
Roll Call: Chair Richard Nichols; Commission Members: Carl Swenson, Ken Fry,
Christian Mbanefo, Patrick Moonen and David Thompson.
Excused absence: Jim Kolles and Steve Schuck.
Staff. Mike Robertson, City Administrator; Judy Hudson, City Clerk/Zoning
Administrator; Dan Licht, City Planner and Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney.
Councilmembers: Virginia Wendel, Jerry Struthers, Suzanne Ackerman and Mayor Larry
Fournier.
2. Consider the following minutes:
2.1. Mav 6, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Moonen motioned to accept as written. _Seconded by Commissioner
Fry. All in favor. Motion carried.
3. Planning Items:
3.1. Lefebvre's Carpet: (tabled from the 05-05-02 meeting
A. Administrative Permit to add on 1.3 acre to existing lot.
B. Rezone detached portion of Parcel to B-3 District.
C. Building and Site Plan Review.
Information was not received in time for this meeting.
3.2. Public Hearing for Barthel Feedlot
A. Conditional Use Permit for construction of an Animal BuildinR for
a Registered Feedlot within one thousand (1,000) feet of an
existing residential use.
Chair Nichols opened the Public Hearing at 8:03 PM.
City Planner, Dan Licht, presented the Planner's Report.
Judy Hudson attested the proper noticing and publishing was done.
Chair Nichols opened the Public Hearing for public comment.
Judy Vetsch, 8490 LaBeaux Avenue. Mrs. Vetsch stated her land adjoins the Barthel
land and she understands the Conditional Use Permit should have been done prior to
feedlot being built. She feels with the 1,000 -foot setback it does not allow her land as
much development rights and if the Conditional Use Permit were done prior to this, they
would have had the opportunity to comment. Because of this Mrs. Vetsch asked for the
City to re -look at the Comprehensive Plan because it doesn't say how far the barn has to
stay away from the property line. She feels she was penalized because of this and asked if
there will be special considerations for them.
Planning Commission Nleeting of May 20, 2002 cont'd. Page 2.
Randy Kartenson, 11364 80`h Street. Mr. Kartenson stated he lives next door to the dairy
barn. He questioned the requirement of a wood wall and a berm. He said they have the
issue to keep the cows cool. The Barthels employ a lot of people at dairy bam they are
good people and don't think its fair for the City to require them to put in the berm and the
wall and asked to reconsider the requirement for the wall and the berm.
NOTE: The following comment was called in prior to the meeting and to be included in
the minutes as amended: Mrs. Edmond DeMars called and complained the Barthels are
hauling in more cows and is concerned with the odors. (These concerns were addressed
at the Public Hearing).
Chair Nichols asked for Planning Commission comments.
Commissioner Fry questioned the applicant as to how many animal units would they be
expanding to. Mr. Barthel replied they would not be expanding and they currently have
320 cows but under the MPCA Permit they could have 650 cows.
Commissioner Swenson asked the Planner if the house directly across from the feedlot on
the south side of 80th Street would benefit with site barrier for this home. Mr. Licht
replied this could be considered but that they are currently looking at the old feedlot.
Commissioner Mbanefo asked for clarification on setbacks from property lines. Mr.
Licht explained the setback is measured from the feedlot building to the residential
property line and could go 30 feet from property line.
Chair Nichols asked Mr. Barthel if the requirements to build a screening wall to a height
to screen the building would be acceptable to him. Mr. Barthel replied it would be
acceptable.
CM Wendel stated she didn't like the requirement of building a solid wall. Mr. Licht
explained this requirement came up because the City received complaints from residents
living within the 1000 feet. Mr. Licht suggested that these residents might be satisfied
with trees rather than the wall. Chair Nichols also had concerns with the wall and feels
the berm with trees would serve the same purpose.
Chair Nichols asked for additional public comment.
Burns Doran, 11421 80`h Street. He stated he lives on the south side of 80`h Street,
directly across from the Barthel Feedlot. Mr. Doran stated they moved into their home
with this feedlot located there and they are not bothered by it.
Hearing no further comments, Chair Nichols closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 PM.
Commissioner Mbanefo suggested that on the issue of the fence the applicant should talk
to the two residents living next to the feedlot and try to resolve any complaints.
Mr. Licht suggested deleting Condition No.3 and add that the applicant add two rows of
trees or a wall to the southwest subject to approval from City Staff.
Planning Commission Meeting of May 20, 2002, cont'd. Page 3.
Commissioner Mbanefo motioned to recommend to approve the Conditional Use
Permit to allow construction of a new animal building for a registered feedlot within
1,000 feet of an existing residential use subject to the conditions listed in the
Planner's Report with deleting Condition No. 3 and replacing it with "The operator
is to install two staggered rows of coniferous trees and/or screening fence along the
common property line of the two lots within 1,000 feet of the subject building to the
southwest, subject to approval of City Staff. Seconded by Commissioner
Thompson. All in favor. Motion carried.
4. Any other Planning Commission Business
Dan Licht said the Council approved him to do some "housekeeping changes" to the
Zoning Ordinance and these will be on the June 17`h Planning Commission Meeting.
A. Update on Council actions by CM Heidner.
CM Wendel went over the recent Groundbreaking Ceremony for Blackwoods Restaurant
at the Waterfront Development.
5. Adiournment by 10 PM
Commissioner Moonen motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Mbanefo.
All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM.
Richard Nichols, Chair
ATTEST:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Adm/Clerk
ITEM 3.2.
H0lk"It" tST ASSOCIATto CONSUILTANT31, INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Darrow / Daniel Licht
RE: Otsego- Otsego Meadows Golf Club- Preliminary Plat / Rezoning
REPORT DATE: 30 May 2002 APPLICATION DATE: 13 May 2002
NAC FILE: 176.02-02.16 CITY FILE: 2002-18
BACKGROUND
Bulow Incorporated and Manley Brothers Construction have requested preliminary plat
approval for development of an 18 -hole championship golf course and residential
development located on 245 -acres southeast of CSAH 39 and Kadler Avenue. The golf
course includes clubhouse, driving range, and maintenance facilities, as well as a
proposed tunnel connection under CSAH 39 to the existing 18 -hole executive Vintage Golf
Course north of CSAH 39. The residential element of the development proposes 157
dwelling units with a mix of single-family dwellings (107 lots), small lot "detached
townhomes" (29 units), and two -unit and three -unit townhomes (21 units).
The property is located in the Rural Residential Preserve Area and is guided for rural
residential uses by the Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is zoned A-1, Agriculture
Rural Service District. The applicant's request is for rezoning to PUD District, PUD
Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat. A concept plan for development of the
proposed use was considered and approved by the City Council on 14 January 2002.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Concept Plan
C. Preliminary Plat
D. Grading Plan
E. Utility Plan
F. Townhouse Elevations and Floorplans
G. Clubhouse Concept Plans
ANALYSIS
Zoning. The development is being processed as a PUD District to accommodate mixed
commercial/residential use, a mix of residential dwelling types, flexibility on lot
requirements, and provision of sewer and water services. When considering a zoning
amendment, the Planning Commission and City Council are to consider the following
criteria from 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment. A concept plan was approved for the project on 14 January 2002 for the
golf course facilities and 143 residential units. The concept plan was reviewed under
the policies of an Agriculture Preserve Area established prior to the recent
Comprehensive Plan update. These policies allowed higher densities such as
proposed with City approval of sewer and water facilities.
The Comprehensive Plan update nowguides the property forrural residential use within
the Rural Residential Preserve. The intent of the rural residential preserve is to allow
for preservation of rural character and open space while allowing clustered residential
development. A base density of 4:40 density is allowed, although increases may be
granted as a bonus to encourage superior site design or amenities.
The gross density of the project is 0.6 units per acre. If the area for the golf course is
factored out, the net density is 3.7 units per acre, which is within the City's definition of
low density residential land uses despite the additional 14 units from the concept plan
stage. The proposed development is generally consistent with both the approved
concept plan and the polices under which it was evaluated. The net density is higher
than what would be allowed under the current Comprehensive Plan in this area.
However, staff believes that the applicant may be granted some standing for the higher
density based upon the recent approval of the concept plan without creating a
precedent for future requests.
The project itself presents an opportunity to expand the City's housing stock upwards
in terms of value because if the integrated golf course as an amenity. The proposal to
include detached, two -unit, and three unit buildings also expands housing choice in
terms of type. Although the City has seen a significant amount of townhouse
development in the east sanitary sewer service district, these townhouse units may be
expected to be of higher value again because of the amenity involved with the project.
These are all policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment. The subject property is surrounded by rural residential uses or agriculture
fields to the east, south, and west. Uses to the north include Vintage Golf and single
family uses in the Grenins Mississippi Hills and Island View Estates. With the
exception of the detached townhouses on the east lot line, all of the residential uses are
clustered within the golf course creating separation from surrounding properties,
thereby creating an appropriate transition. Additional screening and controls on
operation of the practice range may be necessary to offset compatibility issues
associated with that specific element of the project.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e.,
parking, loading, noise, etc.)
Comment: The performance standards applicable to the project will be established by
the PUD Development Plan. These issues are discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: The project is in an area with a level of development that already exceeds
rural characteristics. The design of the project is such so as to off -set any impacts of
the increased density and the applicant will be required to provide adequate
infrastructure to accommodate the proposed use.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: The proposed use may not be anticipated to negatively impact area property
values, although no formal study has been completed.
6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
Comment: The applicant will be required to construct (at their cost) improvements to
CSAH 39 and/or Kadler Avenue to provide sufficient capacity for the development.
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 applicant will be required to provide adequate infrastructure to support
their project.
EAW. The proposed subdivision requires preparation of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) based on Minnesota Rules Section 4410.4300 Subp. 36.A for
permanent conversion of more than SO acres of agricultural land for a golf course or
3
residential development. Processing of EAWs is to be handled in accordance with Section
38 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has prepared an EAW and submitted it for
approval by the Zoning Administrator and publication in the EQB Monitor on 20 May 2002.
The EAW is subject to a 30 -day comment period from the date of publication. After the 30 -
day comment period, the City must respond to any comments that are received and make
findings as to whether preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is required within
ten days.
Access / Streets. The golf course club house will have access from CSAH 39 and the
residential area will have two accesses to Kadler Avenue. Access to CSAH 39 is subject
to Wright County approval.
Kadler exists as a gravel street within a 66 -foot wide easement, which is designated as a
collector street by the Comprehensive Plan. The preliminary plat must be revised to
dedicate an additional seven feet of right-of-way (total of 40ft.) consistent with collector
street standards. Due to the traffic generated by the project and the anticipated impact to
Kadler Avenue, the applicant should be required to surface Kadler Avenue from CSAH 39
to 85" Street at their cost.
Internal local streets are designed with a 60 foot right-of-way. Private drives have a 40
foot easement, which must be separated from the public right-of-way and platted as
outlots. The preliminary plat provides a through connection along 92" d Avenue to the east.
An additional connection from 88'" Circle to the south or east lot line would be possible,
but would disrupt the golf course.
There are three cul-de-sacs on public streets within the project. Section 21-7-6.A of the
Subdivision Ordinance .limits the length of cul-de-sacs to 500 feet. The cul-de-sac on
Kagen Avenue is 720 feet, 89th Circle is 1,150 feet, and 88'' Circle extends 1,100 feet from
its intersection with 891' Circle (the total length of 88°i Circle is 2,060 feet). Flexibility from
the cul-de-sac length limit was to be considered provided that measures were taken to
ensure access.. Such measures are not likely necessary on Kagen Avenue. However, the
concept plan provided for a divided boulevard for that portion of 89' Circle without lots
fronting it, which is shown on the grading plans. Plans for landscaping the median and
boulevard area should be submitted for approval.
A gateway treatment was also to be provided at the two entrances to the subdivision from
Kadler Avenue. Plans for landscaping and any monument type signage should be
provided for review with the final plat. The design and construction of all public streets
or private drives is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Street names are
to be consistent with the County grid. We would suggest renaming 88"' Circle and 891'
Circle as "Courts" because there is no second outlet from this two stage cul-de-sac.
No golf cart use will be allowed on public streets. A trail plan internal to the golf course
should be provided with designated street crossings. The only lots that do not abut the golf
course are Lots 3-13 of Block 12. Some provision must be made to allow these residents
4
access to the golf course without using public streets, which the applicant must address.
Lot Area and Width. The applicant is requesting flexibility on lot area as part of the PUD
District such that the minimum lot size is satisfied as an average for all of the lots. This
type of cluster development allows for an increase of green space for the golf course within
the overall project. We believe that this is an appropriate approach provided that all of
the lots have adequate buildable area to accommodate contemporary house styles and
useable yards, especially considering their relationship to the golf course.
Single Family Lots. The 12,000 square foot area and 75 foot width requirements of
the R-4, Urban Single Family Residential District are most applicable to the single
family lots. The single family lots (not including the existing farmstead) range in size
from 11,610 square feet to 17,777 square feet, with an average of 12,683 square feet.
All of these lots area at least 75 feet wide.
Townhouses. The townhouses are proposed to have at least 5,000 square feet of
lot area per unit. All of the townhouse units meet this requirement. Section 20-17-10
of the Zoning Ordinance requires townhouse units to be platted in a unit and base -lot
configuration with the common space between dwelling units overlaid by drainage and
utility easements. The preliminary plat will need to provide the townhouse lots in such
a configuration.
If the townhouses are not platted in a unit and base lot configuration, the preliminary
plat will need to be revised to provide a minimum 9,000 square foot lot for the detached
townhomes, 15, 000 square feet for the twin homes and 20, 000 square feet for the three
unit buildings consistent with the R-6 District requirements. The reason for the
additional lot area is that such lots tend to function more independently when the
occupant believes they control the land around their dwelling. Issues with outside
storage, detached accessory buildings, landscaping, and property maintenance may
be more likely.
Residential Setbacks. Below are the setback requirements for R-4 District applicable to
the residential lots and those proposed for the PUD District. The applicant is seeking
flexibility with regard to the side yard setback for an attached garage and for the principal
building on a comer lot. The flexibility on the garage setback basically increases the width
of the building envelope to allow for a wider house facade, which the City has previously
allowed. The request for the 20 foot side yard setback on a comer lot is the minimum
distance necessary to protect visibility. The standard requirement is a 35 foot setback,
which is intended not only to ensure visibility, but also to provide a consistent building line
along both sides of a block. In that the lot layout provides only one location where a
continuous row of lots wraps around a corner (Lots 4-6 of Block 12) such flexibility may be
appropriate. We would recommend that Lot 5 of Block 12 meet a 35 foot setback on both
street frontages in order to maintain a consistent building line. All other residential
setbacks are complied with.
Townhouse Designs. The applicant has provided conceptual designs for the townhouse
units. The detached townhouses are a one level building with an approximate 2,500
square foot floor area, including attached two stall garage. The two unit town house
buildings are also a one-story building, but with a steeper pitched roof. The concept plan
shows that the front facade has one unit with garage stall facing the street and the
entrance on the side and the other unit with an entrance on the front facade and side
loaded garage (just forward of and to the right of the door shown on the concept). No
concept plan is shown for the three unit building and some indication of how the third unit
would be attached should be provided.
Building materials are not specified and must be. In allowing the townhouse uses within
the PUD, the City is seeking to establish these units at the higher end of the townhouse
market within the community. As such, high quality materials should be used in the
building, not only on the front, but all sides so as to create an attractive appearance from
the golf course. Four or five facade designs should also be provided for the detached
townhomes such that the same facade is not located closer than every third unit. Such a
requirement was made on Pheasant Ridge Vh to variety to this style of housing.
We would also recommend that the detached townhouses be located such that the garage
side of one unit abuts the garage side of one adjacent unit. This arrangement, similar to
that required in Pheasant Ridge 5' Addition creates a larger front yard between two units.
With a unit and base lot plat and the proposed building orientation, we would recommend
that the setback between each building be 15 feet. The two unit and three unit townhouse
buildings are already separated 20 feet, which is satisfactory.
Golf Course Facilities. The proposed golf course is a par 72, 18 -hole course with a
clubhouse, range tees and maintenance facilities. The course itself is laid out at the
perimeter of the property and with holes that go between blocks providing more lots with
direct views of the course than were proposed on the concept plan. The course design
will require some alteration such that the tee boxes on holes 7, 9, and 11 are at least 20
feet from a lot line. The tee boxes for holes 7 and 9 encroach into the 65 -foot setback
required from Kadler Avenue, but is acceptable as visibility will not be impacted and the
orientation of the holes is not likely to direct balls to the street.
Front I
Proposed
Rear
Required
65 ft. from CSAH 39/Kadler Avenue
10 ft. or same as
20ft.
35 ft. front to a public street
front for a comer lot
25 ft. front to a private street
Proposed
Same
10ft. for the
20ft.
principal building
5ft. for attached
garage
20ft. for side yard
on a corner lot
Townhouse Designs. The applicant has provided conceptual designs for the townhouse
units. The detached townhouses are a one level building with an approximate 2,500
square foot floor area, including attached two stall garage. The two unit town house
buildings are also a one-story building, but with a steeper pitched roof. The concept plan
shows that the front facade has one unit with garage stall facing the street and the
entrance on the side and the other unit with an entrance on the front facade and side
loaded garage (just forward of and to the right of the door shown on the concept). No
concept plan is shown for the three unit building and some indication of how the third unit
would be attached should be provided.
Building materials are not specified and must be. In allowing the townhouse uses within
the PUD, the City is seeking to establish these units at the higher end of the townhouse
market within the community. As such, high quality materials should be used in the
building, not only on the front, but all sides so as to create an attractive appearance from
the golf course. Four or five facade designs should also be provided for the detached
townhomes such that the same facade is not located closer than every third unit. Such a
requirement was made on Pheasant Ridge Vh to variety to this style of housing.
We would also recommend that the detached townhouses be located such that the garage
side of one unit abuts the garage side of one adjacent unit. This arrangement, similar to
that required in Pheasant Ridge 5' Addition creates a larger front yard between two units.
With a unit and base lot plat and the proposed building orientation, we would recommend
that the setback between each building be 15 feet. The two unit and three unit townhouse
buildings are already separated 20 feet, which is satisfactory.
Golf Course Facilities. The proposed golf course is a par 72, 18 -hole course with a
clubhouse, range tees and maintenance facilities. The course itself is laid out at the
perimeter of the property and with holes that go between blocks providing more lots with
direct views of the course than were proposed on the concept plan. The course design
will require some alteration such that the tee boxes on holes 7, 9, and 11 are at least 20
feet from a lot line. The tee boxes for holes 7 and 9 encroach into the 65 -foot setback
required from Kadler Avenue, but is acceptable as visibility will not be impacted and the
orientation of the holes is not likely to direct balls to the street.
The proposed clubhouse is located at the north edge of the site facing CSAH 39. The
facility includes a pro shop, business offices, full kitchen, dining room, snack bar, patio
area and car storagelwash, The building exterior features a stucco facade over a stone
base with cedar shingle roof. All of the proposed materials are classified as Grade "A" by
the Zoning Ordinance and exceed minimum requirements for commercial buildings. As
plans for the clubhouse facility are preliminary at this time, they will not be included in the
development plan approval and subject to subsequent submission of a complete
application.
The concept plan identified the location of a maintenance area and shed at the northwest
comer of Kadler Avenue and 90' Street, which would be on Outlot D. Building permits
may not be issued for outlots, so a lot will need to be established. The maintenance
facility is subject to a 65 -foot setback from Kadler Avenue and 35 -feet from 901 Street.
The facility must be designed to have access from 90'h Street. Site and building plans for
the maintenance facility will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
A practice range is included within the site plan at the northeast corner of the property.
The concept plan approval required that the range tees be setback 50 feet from the east
property line due to the proximity of existing uses. It is also recommended that the setback
area be landscaped to provide additional screening to supplement the existing tree line.
No plans for lighting the practice range have been submitted. Because the distance
between the practice tee box and lot lines of lots 8,9, 10 Block 4, is 330 yards the applicant
should provide landscaping as a buffer. Staff recommends a pine grove along those lots
that would act as a buffer between the lots and the practice range. We recommend that
the grove consist of either Red, Scotch, or White pine trees and should be 10-12 feet in
length at the time of planting. If the range tees are to be illuminated, plans showing the
location, type and illumination pattern of all proposed fixtures must be submitted for review
by the Planning Commission and approval of the City Council.
The applicant has proposed a connection from Otsego Meadows Golf Course to Vintage
Golf Course on the north side of CSAH 39 via a box culvert under the roadway. This will
allowthe two courses, which are under common ownership, to share maintenance facilities
and equipment, patron access to the driving range, etc. The proposed box culvert is
subject to review by the City Engineer and Wright County.
Lot 1 of Block 13. This lot is provided at the northwest comer of the subdivision to
accommodate the continued use of the existing farmstead building and outlots. This lot
will be included in the PUD District and subject to the base performance standards of the
R-4 District. Redevelopment of the lot will require a future PUD Development Plan.
The design of the lot is such that all of the buildings conform with the side or rear setback
requirements from the new lot lines. The dedication of additional right-of-way along Kadler
Avenue will require removal of any existing buildings that would be within the expanded
right-of-way. Several of the existing buildings will also become non -conforming with the
imposition of a 65 -foot setback from Kadler Avenue as a designated collector street.
Outlots. The preliminary plat includes five outlots. Outlots A - D shown on the preliminary
plat are provided for the golf course area. Outlot D is divided by the public right-of-way
for 891' Circle and should be divided in to two outlots. Outlot E is a sliver of land along the
east property line which it is assumed is provided to correct a property description error.
Utilities. The applicant has submitted two alternatives for provision of sewage treatment
and water facilities for the project. The first option is connection to the planned municipal
west water treatment via the forcemain discussed to serve Riverwood Conference Center.
This plan also identifies connecting Vintage Golf and the proposed B&B north of CSAH 39
to municipal sewer and water. This proposal would potentially make municipal sewer
available to Island View Estates should there be an environmentally mandated need. The
second option is provision of a package common septic system to serve only this
subdivision. Such a system would allow for future connection to municipal services at such
time as service expands outward from the initial west sanitary sewer service district.
Although this is a policy issue for the Planning Commission and City Council to decide,
City Staff does not support connection to municipal utilities. Extending forcemain to serve
a new residential development outside of the designated sewer district reduces available
capacities to meet expected demand within district and is not consistent with the City's
growth management policies. The residential units within this project alone would absorb
approximately nine percent of the initial residential capacity (70% of 600,000gpd.)
Staff is also concerned about the perception of such a decision by MPCA as an inability
of the City to manage growth when reviewing the present permit application or future
expansion requests. Any future agreement on connecting Riverwood to the municipal
system may be supported as an existing commercial use with known serious environmental
problems with their existing on-site system. Riverwood must likely have access to sanitary
sewer service in the near future to continue operations, much less consider any expansion.
A decision to allow connection to the proposed west municipal sewer system cannot be
formally approved until after the permit has been issued. The decision to service the
subdivision with a private on-site system may be determined at this time. The private on-
site system would require approval of MPCA. Further, the design of the alternative
sewage treatment facilities and all utilities is subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer. Provision should be made on either of the utility plans to extend service to Lot
1 of Block 13 for future redevelopment.
Parks and Trail Dedication. No parks are identified in the area of the subject property
by the Parks and Trails Plan. Park and trail dedication is to be satisfied by a cash fee in
lieu of land equal to $1,075 per unit. The golf course itself provides a recreational amenity
that is beneficial to the City and therefore may be exempted from the park and trail
dedication requirements. The need for a trail to be provided along Kadler Avenue should
be reviewed by the Parks and Trails Committee. This trail would connect to the one on
Kadler Avenue north of CSAH 39 and provide access to the future City park at Kadler
Avenue and 101 " Street.
Grading/Drainage/Wetland. Grading and drainage plans for the golf course and
residential areas have been submitted. The site includes numerous wetlands, which must
be overlaid with drainage and utility easements. Specific measures should be
implemented to create a bufferfor existing wetlands to prevent intrusion and maintain their
quality. All grading plans are subject to review of the City Engineer.
Easements. In addition to the easements addressed above, perimeter easements around
each lot equal to 10 feet or 5 feet on each side of a common side lot line must be provided
at the perimeter of each lot. The preliminary plat must be revised to show the easements
on each lot. All easements are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Otsego Meadows Golf Club PUD Development Stage Plan and Preliminary
are generally consistent with the approved concept plan and applicable conditions.
Although the Comprehensive Plan was updated since approval of the concept plan, we
would offer that application is consistent with the policies that were in effect at that time
and that the Planning Commission and City Council may give consideration to the time
short time period between applications. Our only policy concern is that of the proposed
connection to the proposed west sanitary sewer system. Such a connection takes needed
capacity out of the designated service area, is generally inconsistent with the City's growth
management policies, and may represent the City poorly before -the MPCA.
The PUD Development Plan include a number of detail items that must be revised or
clarified. These issues include more detailed landscape plans, trail plans, more detail on
the proposed townhouse buildings, etc. The preliminary plat must also be revised to
dedicate additional right-of-way and adjust some proposed setbacks. All of these issues
are relatively minor, but their number does raise concern. Further, several of the
outstanding issues are subjective decisions which should be determined by City Officials.
We would recommend that approval of the development be subject the conditions outlined
below with revised plans submitted for further review and resolution.
Decision 1 - Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment to rezone the subject site from A-1
District to PUD District based upon a finding that the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
B. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table the request.
Decision 2 - PUD Development Stage PIan/Preliminary Plat
A. Motion to approve the PUD Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat for Otsego
Meadows Golf Club, subject to the following conditions:
The submitted EAW is processed in accordance with Section 38 of the Zoning
Ordinance, including adoption of findings on the need to prepare an EIS ten days
from the end of the comment period.
2. The PUD District is subject to the uses and performance standards of the R-4
District except as modified on the approved development plans.
3. The applicant dedicate a total of 40 -feet of right-of-way for Kadler Avenue as a
designated collector street. The applicant will be required at their cost to pave
Kadler Avenue from CSAH 39 to 8Vh Street, subject to approval of the City
Engineer.
4. The Preliminary Plat is revised to establish all private drives as outlots separate
from the public right-of-way. All street and access issues are subject to approval
of the City Engineer and/or Wright County.
5. Landscape Plans are to be provided for the gateways at 90th Street, 92"d Street, and
891' Circle, and the buffer to the east and south of the range tees..
6. Golf cart use is prohibited on public streets or trails. A trail plan for internal
circulation of golf carts is provided which also addresses cart access to Lots 3-13
of Block 12. Crossing of public streets by golf carts is to occur only at designated
locations to be shown on the trail plan.
7. The preliminary plat is revised to provide the location of the single, two unit and
three unit townhouse dwellings in a unit and base lot configuration. All areas
beyond the dwelling shall be held in common by a homeowners association and
!� overlaid by drainage and utility easements.
8. The mean area of the single family lots shall be 12,000 square feet, except that no
lot shall be smaller than 11,500 square feet.
9. Side yard setbacks for single family lots within the PUD District shall be 10 -feet for
the principal building and 5 -feet for an attached garage from an interior lot line. The
side yard setback on a corner for single family lots within the PUD District shall be
20 -feet, except for Lot 5 of Block 12, which shall provide a 35 -foot setback to all
street frontages.
10. Exterior elevations for the three -unit building, building material
specifications, and floorplans for the proposed townhouse units are to be
10
provided for approval. The detached townhomes shall provide a variety of
exterior facades, with the same facade located no closer than every third unit
lot. The detached townhomes shall also be revised such that the garage of
one unit abuts that of one adjacent unit.
11. The course design will require some alteration such that the tee boxes on
holes 7, 9, and 11 are at least 20 feet from a lot line.
12. Outlot D is designated as two parcels based on its division by 89' Circle.
13. The clubhouse and maintenance facilities are subject to site and building
plan review subject to submission of complete plans.
14. Illumination of the range tees and their hours of operation is subject to
review of the Planning Commission and approval of the City Council.
15. Any existing structure within the expanded right-of-way for Kadler Avenue
shall be removed.
16. Sewage treatment shall be provided via a private on-site system subject to
an agreement with the City. All utility plans are subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
17. All grading, drainage, utilities, and easements are subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
18. Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
pc: Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Wayne Fingleson
Chris Bulow
Kevin Manley
Lynn Caswell
11
Q
NFNC
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
T:
n
I
o.
w
3"
J
fb1
11111
SCORECARD
m
v11
i
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
IIAIL �U 11A1'7 111.1'1:
HillT1. IIfO
Coll)llrGIJ:
IAJIII.Y D/TMNl,I. 1M
!11
11- 7'11
714
TOI,'�'N041,(a UNITS, AVAIt. !e
1 7 1p. 771
]i1 1M
1- 1
iWrAI.fI'31,1'.Nl1 Al. 1n1TY. 1p
�
J
fb1
11111
1]v
m
v11
i
!
3
3+7
!1r
I 1
!!6
11f
f
!
f1!
M
161
:1
re]
!
]r
lee
17+
+N
f3/
1
1
Iae
3-
76+
!Il
+-1
l
99
M
lee
47e
3"
oVT
31
3Nf
]++/
loaf
+1111
13111
36-
731
n
1
117
3M
Jet
1J]
H7
1f
7
nJ
1q
lee
11!
111!
17
!
741
le!
]]1
+111
rP
111 3 !n 1I] u1 ]1111
13 ! as m 3J -
;,4
r
J1e 7sr +v!
rye 137 q+ 107
M® 1 1 le!
36 7A1 ]+11 lose tm 1a _ — •.
I. W IW� I.`��� TOTAIs M7J etre 111111 Ne+ 1401 -�-�-�
or ; a
J o 0
},r• U ❑ -a� O .. _. Qom. 1 -O _ O 0.O - 1� + ._
r C�'
P 6'i --- •`�uwsr
1 f J
416
f23:
n:oma1O01j"f���ooKrw i°•0O1•Mr
nMf br u.+•+fm rYm . � af.
,w
rKY:
r�W YM lSy��'•
wro� a te..,.,.f sQarst
Mpq: �-bl.jlH
z
Yoo
f !W p1Qf1
• :wra � rrMf .i0a,,ta SR.
lbrrp wufnr C Tl 4fr .Ipl upYupr.
••
\�-LESS-9-^ u. ••.L ee
- ,
f�1L
YfEY
� I
b
f
i
�X f.nY .Y.f .•,f. fWfrrYW •ti Y.W�rYs IY+nlh
n'.b Iwc .�_ ,�..Iu140 M1w�4vW� � � �• a G
Y.• r W �r
A M ! f.l•�
rte 4 Mn M lir
LEMM
O�Ce�w
I
T#P" LOT
ry u[
SEE SHEET 3 LEGEND
13
T -T -^-/
wr
;f+ - ----------
12
---------
'�.
_�y I 'i
a {�
f •1 � 'lam 1
I �
_. � .I .-. SII I) ii111.1 �-_ � / � :.1.� I; 7 � Nr•��. �� �/�
IL 1 •� 3 J /%�� lu
rl
�- - -- _ ��_ — „��r_'� � �`�''�` ,' ��� �,% � / f. ( w•t3! fry as
7.1
SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 4
1�CK O[rpp� lorypyL Lor
r A;
nnu
�
o
i
wo zaa �p
j I
�
LEGEND
Ommwr.ru
w
r
/
1�CK O[rpp� lorypyL Lor
r A;
nnu
fl
o
o
Mm
RINK
3 g�
- tT-�C r, -D -twO o
200 Sl6V#T10A
249r U-OIA(TOO .
LV , I
' {
•
PAINT
`CECAR SHINGLE ROOF
_.
•
y BASH UNE INDICATES --'
• -
.
Lu -
n
STUCCO:.
"
}
`8 ONE WATER TABLE
.+<'..
f.
is .:. � tip.,• t^
s ,
,��EV�T�OiYC+
i,W
d
't•�b;f I.a kk {?
�ti.. C,M1 s T'•t. F•.f:� w,;. ..you �' s_. 'y'^d'' b..
ow
N F s t • r} s''�y,,��,, .k+'may �r^Q'S,.rsr "�F Fsi'^ '` {•.� t y '"'1 '" r:
+ux m
ob
a. _ 'car { a- LE •qt -� .r *..� s.. s • .+Tr* _ 13�'`� '>�igy. S'
>F SA LIa iv'Sfi S -aY l y 4y �, wyyy c .r.3
F ,.�d�IS, ��� 3ry3} yrs
� '�� �l'r ,t :, t _.' h. t �� "rM1.'+.s »,'x r�"� �a^i F. _^'�J r.a�,lrt i ER+t'�S,,,yic''d� .�*r✓-yF � "
i w t a ': f?' L .•,T . ��' H, K�L1r+ s f sr. •ems i rrr �¢ � �'� s I.r -
�i—UE
�
rkWWI
Y"H
�. d I ^3a3H06�'31LQ�d f. F F, a
.00
77
Pii
F - �I�osoad•
L
019 fl Y
�• PiO/N .._...e
.. Q m _ `s� ., s i�"'.•. d "" ..s t � T {a �xX t �+ }�f a ;
y�,,, kyi dW17li1iryJ" s �i 4°+rvlRf,,.YYf �,;i uK,``.�afY *i✓ ta"�,:
ouud -
..
',.:r Y 1` 1 '� w � 'by t-. s 3r•s � �L =••� Z`tx yryy _y
,x Gryiw_v�'
. s i .� - }x's;�s � �.,A.? � x• +� L Yk e -is x� �,J {���. - F +s � E` E`
� '�$` •_ t 4AFF - - 4 ,�'. •e b`is .r y � 'tip .7,{i •+r >b., e.., v i i.t, �,
- -' �?' ' .L � - - •:3 { AN S b >. �t.' % LL ]�1Y '.. r 4. �f` f• h 6 f.
s vrs s
.w }•k�, r � r ..,� as rrxa. a i
_ .e.. .J♦. ".. �. .a �. ..�... 1. .. ... .i. �+. ...t,. r. ._�.-. ... tiw r..-.. .r. s-..... .- � ..r ,�: K:ti_P k: ..., .,." .... ..r_r..r. r..1..r-R_
� t
_
�,m
ART,IYA!'1
77,
!�
rl
O
t
t
17
DART STOR4 E'
-
r {
4
_
i
sf
+;,�' t� ., 1'� s. T• tit
,� .. 1
- -
r
CORICEPTUAL DESIGN LOWER)t EVEL.I.: :
'.
yy 1r:: aY•i jC � �f � . !!.
'ti•
r¢ zm•
.y.,'^ ry, 'a.
ry}y
ice'.
ITEM 3.3.
Hakanson
1 Anderson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303
ASSOC., Inc. Phone:763/427-5860 Fax:763/427.0520
MEMORANDUM
To: Mike Robertson, Administrator
From: Ron Wagner, P.E.
ec: Judy Hudson, Clerk
Dan Licht, NAC
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Darrel Watkins .
Dwight Grpnnarson
Date: May 29, 2002
Re: Watkins Business Park
Flood Fringe Fill
We have reviewed the Flood Fringe Fill Plan and after a revision, the plan appears to meet all
flood fringe standards required by the City's Flood Plain Overlay. District (Section 20-94)
Ordinance and by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Due to filling of this flood fringe, the regulatory flood protection elevation is increased form
865.7 to 865.9. The building pads, proposed and existing are all at least 1.5 feet above this. the
plan also shows required erosion control and temporary sediment pond until vegetation can be
re-established.
I have included our two previous reviews and we recommend approval of a Flood Plain Use
Permit.
Civil d -Municipal
Engineering
2
wA*M F
G:\ManiciPBMCYTSM0200012500UA0ZoU500 !
--yang for
ITEM 3.4.
HORTHWIST ASSOfI.ATE,D CO"$Uk.TAKTS,. INC..
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 plannersngnacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Aaron Jones/ Daniel Licht
RE: Otsego — Church of LDS; Rezoning/Site Plan Review
REPORT DATE: 30 May 2002 APPLICATION DATE: 15 May 2002
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 02.17 CITY FILE:
Background
Mr. Dennis Allsop, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is
proposing a 16,558 square foot meeting hall on Lot 1, Block 1, Hidden Creek Trails. The
6.35 acre parcel is located southeast of CSAH 39 and Naber Avenue.
The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for agricultural uses within the Urban
Service Area Reserve. The subject property is currently zoned A-2, Agricultural Long
Range Urban Service District and is partially within the Shoreland Overlay District.
Development of the proposed use requires consideration of a rezoning to INS,
Institutional District to accommodate the proposed use. Site and building plan review is
also required for all institutional use.
Attachments:
Exhibit A:
Site Location
Exhibit B:
Site Plan
Exhibit C:
Building Plan
Exhibit D:
Landscape Plan
Analysis
Zoning. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to INS, Institutional to accommodate a
religious facility use. Section 20-3-21 of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider the possible adverse impacts of the proposed
amendment, with judgment 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:
a. The Comprehensive Plan discourages removal of land from tax rolls. This is
not a tax paying land use, therefore developing it at the requested site
reserves land within the SSSD for taxpaying uses. (Comprehensive Plan,
Community Issues, page 15 and Policy Plan, page 35).
b. This location preserves land and sewer capacity within the SSSD while
providing important communityfacilities. Land and sewer capacity are left
within the SSSD for uses that would help pay for the sewer use, yet a facility is
built that enhances the community.
c. Also provides a transitional use. Being that this use is upon a large lot, it
separates the denser urban development from the agricultural area within the
city.
d. Therefore the rezoning is consistent. The above stated criteria demonstrate a
positive momentum for rezoning the land and allowing the use.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: As a land use, the placement of this site between urban and rural or
agricultural areas, creates a boundary that reinforces the concept of land use
transition by presenting a gradual intensification of uses between the less
intensive farming and urban uses. (p. 107 Otsego Comprehensive Plan 1998))
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.)
Comment: This issue will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: This specific type of use is beneficial in regards to gradual
intensification from urban to rurallagricultural uses. The building design and
landscaping should serve to mitigate potential impacts to adjacent residential
uses.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is
proposed.
Comment: Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not
anticipated to negatively impact area property values.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
2
Comment: The subject property is served by CSAH 39 and Naber Avenue. CSAH
39 is a minor arterial and Naber Avenue is a local street. Turn lanes were added
to CSAH 39 when Naber Avenue was constructed These roadways should have
adequate capacity to handle traffic generated by the proposed use.
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 overall service capacity.
Lot Standards. The following table illustrates the required performance standards for
lots and uses within the INS District. The proposed site and site design meets or
exceeds all of the applicable performance standards for lots and uses within the
INS District.
Building Construction. The proposed 16,558 square foot building consists of one floor.
The building will have an exterior finish constructed of brick. There will be
aluminum windows and doors and synthetic stucco accent above the primary
entrances. According to the provided drawing, the exterior brick will have a red
tint. The brick exterior meets the requirements and is in conformance to Section
17 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires institutional uses to provide 75%
grade A materials, such as brick. The building will also have a 64 foot steeple,
which has a height exemption as defined in Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance.
A 280 sq. ft. accessory building is planned to be built in the southeast corner of
the parking lot. This building should be built with reference to Section 16 with
the design for such building being compatible to the principal building.
Landscaping. A plan illustrating the location, type and quantities of proposed
landscaping has been submitted. The size of proposed plantings has been
included. In review of the landscape plan, our office has the following comments:
Due to eventual size issues, it is recommended that the Norway Pine be planted a
minimum of 15 feet from the parking lot. Also to use the Thornless Hawthorn
within the parking lot medians instead of the Norway Pine because of future size
concerns within traffic sightlines.
Plantings along the east property line should act to buffer the parking lot from the
residence. The Black Hills spruce trees should provide adequate year round
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Setbacks
Maximum
Impervious
Surface w/in
Shoreland
District
Bldg. Height
Front
Side
Rear
Parking
Front
Side/Rear
Required
3.0 ac.
N/A
65 ft.
50 ft.
50 ft.
10 ft.
5 ft.
25%
40 ft
Proposed
6.3 ac
N/A
65 ft.
85 ft.
50 ft.
15 ft.
15i 0 ft.
23.2%
j 27 ft.
64 ft st le
Building Construction. The proposed 16,558 square foot building consists of one floor.
The building will have an exterior finish constructed of brick. There will be
aluminum windows and doors and synthetic stucco accent above the primary
entrances. According to the provided drawing, the exterior brick will have a red
tint. The brick exterior meets the requirements and is in conformance to Section
17 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires institutional uses to provide 75%
grade A materials, such as brick. The building will also have a 64 foot steeple,
which has a height exemption as defined in Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance.
A 280 sq. ft. accessory building is planned to be built in the southeast corner of
the parking lot. This building should be built with reference to Section 16 with
the design for such building being compatible to the principal building.
Landscaping. A plan illustrating the location, type and quantities of proposed
landscaping has been submitted. The size of proposed plantings has been
included. In review of the landscape plan, our office has the following comments:
Due to eventual size issues, it is recommended that the Norway Pine be planted a
minimum of 15 feet from the parking lot. Also to use the Thornless Hawthorn
within the parking lot medians instead of the Norway Pine because of future size
concerns within traffic sightlines.
Plantings along the east property line should act to buffer the parking lot from the
residence. The Black Hills spruce trees should provide adequate year round
screening and it is suggested that they be planted in a staggered line to provide a
more complete screen. It is also suggested to plant Arborvitae under the oak trees
along this property line for additional buffering.
Other trees along the outer parking perimeter include Hackberry, Bur Oak and
Thornless Hawthorn. It is suggested that additional trees be planted along Naber
Avenue and the outside parking perimeter to provide a boulevard feel.
Access. The subject site is proposed to have two curb cuts to Naber Ave. The two
proposed curb cuts are more than 200 feet apart and not closer than 10 feet to a
side lot line, which is consistent with Zoning Ordinance provisions. The curb cuts
are also more than 100 feet from the CSAH 39 and Naber Ave. intersection. Each
of the curb cuts is approximately 28 feet wide. The maximum width for an access
per Section 20-21-4.11.7 is 24 feet, unless approved by the City Engineer. As
large trucks are not expected to circulate to/from the site, the access should be
revised to 24 feet.
Parking. Parking for churches requires one off-street parking stall per four (4) seats
within the main assembly hall plus one (1) space for each church employee. The
specific parking requirement calculation for this proposal is as follows:
171 pew seats + 4 disability seats + 42 fixed seats = 217 occupants
217/4 = 55 Parking Spaces (plus one space per church employee)
This site plan does not mention the number of employees at the church, which
would increase the required number of stalls. Regardless, there are 191 parking
spaces provided, including 4 disability spaces. 6 disability spaces are required.
The proposed parking stalls are at 90 degree angles, measuring 9 feet by 18 feet
long with 27 foot aisles. For 90 degree angled parking, the parking lot
dimensions table in Section 21 of the Zoning Ordinance calls for 9 foot by 20 foot
parking stalls with 22 foot aisles. The parking lot islands should be designed to a
20 foot depth and stalls painted at dimensions that meet ordinance requirements.
There will be no commercial type loading other than perhaps garbage truck
loading.
Lighting. The lighting information provided within the proposal suggests 18 foot poles
with boxhead luminaire casing. Locations for the lightposts will be primarily
along the perimeter of the parking lot. Lighting should be positioned so as to emit
only upon the proposed property. A photometric light plan showing the location
of all fixtures and their illumination field upon the site plan.
Utilities. No utilities exist at the site. The parcel will be serviced by a well for domestic
water and a septic system for sanitary sewer. Exact locations of the septic system
and well have not been determined, but the approximate location of each will be
on the western portion of the site beyond the parking lot and storage shed/trash
enclosure. All utilities are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
4
Trash. Exterior trash storage has been located within an enclosure next to the accessory
building. The enclosure would be constructed of cedar pickets along a painted
steel frame. It is recommended that the enclosure be constructed of cement block
of a color to match the principal building.
Signage. The only proposed sign consists of an engraved granite sign set into the brick
of the building. It is suggested that the date of construction also be engraved.
The size would be approximately two feet, ten inches by four feet, seven inches
(approx. 9 sq. ft.) Any other signs must conform to Section 37 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Grading and Drainage. A grading and erosion control plan has been submitted for
review. Said plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
CONCLUSION
Decisions regarding Zoning Ordinance amendments are policy decisions that must be
made by City Officials. The rezoning would allow for establishment of a facility
important to community identity and connectivity. According to the Comprehensive
Plan, development that removes land from the tax rolls is to be discouraged. The
requested rezoning enables the church to be built while preserving land and sewer
capacity within the sanitary sewer district area for development that would increase the
City's tax base. If the Planning Commission and City Council make a similar finding,
the requested rezoning is appropriate and may be approved.
If the requested rezoning application is determined to be appropriate, the Planning
Commission and City Council may then.act on the specific site plan design. The subject
site and proposed use are generally consistent with all applicable performance standards
outlined by the Zoning Ordinance. Based upon the consistency with adopted plans,
policies and ordinances, our office would recommend approval of the submitted site
plans as outlined below.
A. Zoning Map Amendment
1. Motion to approve a Zoning Ordinance amendment to rezone the subject site
from A-2 District to INS District based upon a finding that the request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
2. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is
inconsistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Motion to table the request.
B. Site and Building Plan
1. Motion to approve the site and building plan of Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints subject to the following conditions:
a. Landscaping should include proper screening using trees including
staggered spruce trees to provide a buffer between the parking lot and the
residence that lies to the east of the property.
b. The site plan is revised to provide a maximum curb cut width of 24 feet for
both entrances along Naber Avenue. (Zoning Ordinance Section 20-21-
4.H.7)
c. The site plan is revised to encompass the following:
• Provide 6 disability parking spots.
• Provide parking stall and aisle sizes in accordance to the table in
Section 21 of the Zoning Ordinance.
d. A photometric plan showing the location and illumination of all lighting
upon the site plan is submitted, subject to review and approval of city
staff.
e. All exterior signage shall conform to the provisions of Section 37 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
f. The trash enclosure and accessory building -be built with materials
comparable to the principal building.
g. All grading, drainage, and erosion plans shall be subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
2. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is
inconsistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
pc Mike Robertson, Judy Hudson, Andy MacArthur, Ron Wagner, Dennis Allsop
and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
6
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
—.. JlW
P
/ Site Poa
ED MI
i-
Architectural Group Ltd.
is c....i...r i. ss•ss-tis•
ra.... •. si x.s rr.nsr .r.<a..u. six�srr.. ss�
Elk River Ward, Anoka MI
Th. Clinch of Jaw Christ of Laft—day Saln
M.P. MN
E 2 - Ol - D
_ s
1
lb41
of%VgN h � i J y r.♦ 4•z, T •R e� 1 e
57• rf •i rs s. CLt\'�, 1,�` I f{'YA Aq°•
t I�� �e?" l '� \ r 1 ♦� a'jv �♦�♦S�f,... .; p,C�1i' .+•'s. ,V r } � \ e4 �
9, • �f ♦ .� ~ `rN/ amu\ �� q•` .c-.y'.�-.
' r Y j �� 5 /- �i : \ of j. fir/ �C:, : \,-�•+ V •�' • .r\ __.
At
! • -v ��• 5 Arc _ ' Y
LU
11. 46
It
FAL 1"2_50
�l ti .. ITA W / , � .i 1 ` �i•A%�
�o-E i Y.•.. >e' -�
�- t.� O�� {+�' •( SAN^ I I \- W
ow
r \ `
r
t�
1 q'
�� t Sr._L�- t.�--- -=-F ..� :V : � iw_` ' -- �-�'.Ks- _♦ -'+ �S, y \ �R%� � � iY
\( 4 O
� .' •'A .° . �• • Q%/ 4�3• W _. ,. -CAT _. a > -, ;< ''--��.'`.��'i I z
r\ C;RAf11N1F: R noslrler_o 01 AL1
mA r•Ava - - -
PROPOSED PI AN
NROERTY LYE —
PROPOSED CONTOUR —
SPOT EUVANON
iTORN SEM
CATCH &SW/NANINXE
R.NaD CAD SE TON
OuuNACE FLOR ARROR
SETAOCN FEN¢
GNAONC NOTE&
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO MST M
M ERSOmG CONOITIORS RRIOR TO
1RORX THAT COLO NAW SEDT IDEM
1 M CONTRACTOR 3m LL IJYT D
1 M DAC'GRO-D SU.WY• YQV
n — & A =N CD. YC Al
A IT n M CONiRAC10R•S R[9VN
M COITRACTOR 91ALL
HOURS ARE ALL
THE E C45TIc
.XTNCm STAR
THAT ALL uTUTIES HARP[
CAE AT DSI-ASFOOOE NOIR RLD t
DCCulli ouE 10 CONSTRUCIIOI
& PROTECT ALL EDTSTRIG STRUCTUII
a Nom Dn euan.c RwccloR
CON RIACTOt 91µL aTAY Aly M
7. ALL S -OT EILVATOYS Siam AS
L REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL ORA.
oNO �oPR ARE TO EXCEED 11
tO NANONN RMXYG AREAS SIAL
Rt. NO SKRRALRS ARE TO HAW A
GREATER — -
11 PROVO[ PD -E ORAYALE IRC
REYEn Ne
Au KEYEDNOTES ARE DENOTED V
Qi CONTRACTOR a TO —NE M
AND moTmE A N—N s E
p —TALL APPROX Ml fs IOC
WTREMORCENDIT YA-1
ER- n TO LYE THE .
ROAD AND EXTEND DOW TD T,
p TREES ARE NOT m DE OSTua
Q RENO'.( TREES AND DEPOSE O
0 RENOW CONCRETE FOUNDATION
Fl N EXCAVATED AREA YTH
STANDARD PROCTOR omw N
p AMROWATE LOCATION OF PRY
SEPTIC FIELD (S}
p MRD -AIF LOCATION OF oa
p CONTRACTOR n TO m STRl1CT
AT A ORX SLDPL
GRA�INC
1/7* NEAR
1�D oNOER
6 Yw CA
SUDORADE:
RDNF�+N
12 RE.iCRK
11• CL
SIOCRADE.
A, NiwuN
SUDGA.0
A Ewa ET
R SAND
aeaAOE:
0
i
PROOAQn .N ewgq 1
scar m
CAM WI/Idaal(ra
rblwa on lCIM
SLIA100 FD=
� � t .0 smr a+al nc suu t rr o -w rral® awsn w1c a� s wm K
it me In1ew r[ wr K aMa ar +ouera Ie aMml a mlucrc
`� I i� ; �. � � 1 rR rsef u aun w alra[ sola[ loan s rtiam a =ero.
i� 1
4
- I;
r� a mawella� r .raw r
1
/L✓(t
r 1
�
-
• aaun art w.s w. s amu
I
a aw a.1+.r auu a eq Ira
�it
Il7
1
It
l r
i
!•
~ I
• t
\ -
\
io"sr nr�ewmwariowl.'
iOyraYp N! Oa�1 19at
.:T I
;IT;I
C
I
I 1
�
�
1
j
J1
r11vo®
►It fILa1
r
� alar rt an a� e10 r rolr a
�
�
r
ALL aowrcon= VC30ua
! I I
I�
�
Q �/ S i''
"`���'•.'._•
m ai�nlnn•ms �w.1 m riilwii
1 ;�I
�Er
�• �
�
1 °
11
I
/ i
/� .:� t1• /
mur'arra ue.rararr are
mrrawruwela�
� '_r/
--•
j �II
j
._._. .._ _
_:1 _ _ '_ �._ _------'c%.
L'EI
i
`1
III
I
- _.
._.._ �_. _.�. ._ _.� ___.— _
--- 1•
I
I
�I
If
, Storage/rrash Building
`f ve , a -
South Elevation
v, s- - ra
East Elevation
�s1 West Elevation
a v,a ,a
at Mry15.1002
rTr.•, saris
—ft, JAW aa.•y.
n No Elevation
v,e•. ra
=Architectural Group Ltd. Elk River Ward, AnokaM
rf c...•r.•a r•...•.. r r.• .•U•, MN ff.03-11x• The Ch—h of Jaauf Christ of Lalurday Ssi
a r•.ri .•..,�i...•r.•..••,.. +.efi.• . �..••...<•. Cpego. MN
r.i•r.•r• ar:.f xr.xrfr .r...i,.,i• ar x.xrr.r xfr
FIR RE
f1fififIfI1731133 U.
.�......
�1 N
b �
0
0 0
0 0
GFloor Plan
FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE
TEACHING STATIONS
CHAPEL SEATING, INCLUDES ROSTRUM
ia.+ra.,r.. r. of•. q,e•i.snrw `f.w.•rrwsu�wM
..t Miry 15. 2702
...�ssw.Architectural
Group Ltd.
Elk River Ward, Anoka MP
a.
—w JLw a... sr xw
Th. Ch mh a J..J..Chrim a Low -ay S.K
,.aa..ewwa..ri.r•.• a..•s.. r.r+ar
• ..,a rarw o.w. u•
1s e.•.•1•••r.r.•u.ri•• •n•,r.ff•.f•�u,
.r,n a•su.... •.n•...... •si...�
Obpo, MN
:'�L"LC��� � ��--�:.:T'?� �� � � ��.
r,i, rs. r, nx.srr. x-rsr n•.�. n. ux,f n'nn
C
r•1'�i
r � i
ITEM 3.5.
HOlkir"W1311' ASSOCIATRID CONSULTA"its, INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
RE:
REPORT DATE:
NAC FILE:
BACKGROUND
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Daniel Licht
Otsego - Waterfront PUD; Bank/Office Development Plan
28 May 2002 APPLICATION DATE: 16 May 2002
176.02 - 02.18 CITY FILE: 2002-
Landcor Construction, Inc. has submitted site and building plans for a 7,300 square foot
bank and office building. The two story building is to be developed on Lot 2, Block 1 of the
Otsego Waterfront final plat in the location shown on the approved PUD Development
Stage Plan.
The subject site is zoned PUD District and is also within Subdistrict B of the WS Overlay
District for the Mississippi River. Site and building plan reviews for development of each
of the lots is processed as an amendment of the original PUD Development Plan.
Exhibits:
A.
Site Location
B.
Landscape Plan
C.
Site Plan Comments
D.
Building Elevations
E.
Floor Plan
F.
Grading Plan
G.
Utility Plan
ANALYSIS
PUD District. The Waterfront PUD District is based upon the uses and performance
standards of the B-3 District. Bank and office uses are allowed as permitted uses in the
underlying B-3 District. Development of the parcels within this PUD District is also subject
to specific design standards, which are reviewed in subsequent paragraphs. As an
amendment of the original PUD Development Plan, the Planning Commission and City
Council must consider the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance in
evaluating the request:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
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.
Lot Requirements. Lots within the PUD District are not subject to any minimum area or
width requirements. Setbacks within the PUD District are the same as those imposed in
the B-3 District, unless modified as part of an approved development plan. The table
below illustrates required and proposed setbacks. All of the applicable setback
requirements are complied with.
2
Principal Building
Parking
Front Side
Rear
Street
Required
65ft. 10ft.
20ft.
15ft.
Proposed
100ft. 15ft.
55ft.
15ft.
2
Building Design. The proposed building is a two-story, all brick building. The roof
materials are not specified. Overall, it is quite attractive and will make an excellent focal
point at the City's primary gateway and to the Waterfront project. The front of the building
faces southwest, but the southeast and northeast facades have been given accents similar
to the front to enhance the most visible portions of the building.
The building measures 41.5 feet from base to the peak of the roof, with a defined height
of 37.25 feet. The maximum height allowed within the B-3 District is 35 feet. The
additional 2.25 feet of height is would not cause any negative impacts and can be given
flexibility through the PUD District if the Planning Commission and City Council approve
of the building design.
Access/Off-Street Parking. Primary access to the subject site is provided via a shared
driveway overlaying Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 and Outlot G (future convenience food site).
Access points for Blackwoods and the subject site are established, but those for Outlot G
are not. These should be finalized so that the pavement and curb can be installed the full
distance from Quaday Avenue to the subject site. The access to Outot G closest to
Quaday Avenue will need to be designed as a right -in only to avoid conflicts from cars
exiting the site with a left turn at this location. All uses within the subdivision are covered
by cross access and parking easements.
Circulation through the parking lot is well laid out. Access to the parking stalls to the east
of the building may be difficult because of their angle to the drive aisle. We would
recommend that these stalls be altered to* be more parallel with the stalls along the east
property line. The additional area between the building and the parking stalls may be used
for additional landscaping or a small plaza accessible to building tenants via the nearby
door. We would also suggest that sidewalk bump -outs be extended at the building
corners as recommended by the PUD Design Guidelines. The bump outs will also serve
to better define the drive aisle around the building.
The breakdown of required parking for the building is shown in the table below. The site
plan provides 52 parking stalls, whereas 56 are required based upon the Zoning
Ordinance calculations. It would be possible to add more stalls south of the building in
order to meet the parking stall requirement. The site is subject to cross parking
arrangements within the project. The timing for peak parking demands for the bank/office
and for Blackwoods are off -set meaning that adequate stalls will likely be available. We
do not believe it is necessary to revise the site plan to provide the additional four stalls.
Use
Gross
Area
Net
I Area
Requirement
# of Stalls
Bank
6,869
6,182
1 stall/250sf.
25
Office
6,869
6,182
1 stall/200sf.
31
Total
56
3
The parking stalls are all designed with a 18 foot depth, which is acceptable provided that
there is a two -foot overhang in front of the stall. The stalls at the perimeter of the parking
lot have room for such an overhang as do the stalls on the east side of the building. The
stalls on the west side of the building abut a 4.75 foot wide sidewalk, meaning that the
width of the sidewalk is reduced to less than three feet if a car overhangs the curb. The
drive aisle behind these stalls is 26 feet wide, which is two feet wider than required. We
recommend that the width of the sidewalk be increased two feet, shifting the stalls.
Drive through. The bank drive through window with three lanes has been relocated to
the north side of the building as directed from original development plan review. The
drive-through has segregated circulation with stacking space for at least four cars in each
lane. A bypass lane is also provided to escape from the drive through lanes, although it
is common that an exterior ATM be placed at this location.
Landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan is generally consistent with the approved
development plan for the overall project. As with the Blackwoods plan, the landscape plan
should be revised to provide greater variety along TH 101, where a line of Black Hills
Spruce trees are proposed. We would suggest replacing a number of Spruce trees with
deciduous overstory trees so as not to obstruct the view of the building. We would also
recommend that two of the three spruce trees south of the building be replaced with crab
apple trees again to improve visibility of the building. Additional shrubs should be planted
in the median between the Blackwoods parking lot and drive through lanes.
The PUD development standards require 150 square feet of island space for each 25
parking stalls. The configuration of the site and parking stalls does not necessitate
islands. However, the recommendation to include sidewalk bump -out and changes on the
east side of the building would serve to provide adequate landscaping to reduce the visual
mass of the parking area.
Signs. The building elevations illustrate one 35 square foot wall sign on each of the
building facades. While the size of the individual signs and their total area are within the
Zoning Ordinance allowances, the location of these signs would be limited to only two
facades that face public streets. The orientation of the building relative to TH 101, CSAH
39, and Quaday Avenue may justify the proposed number of wall signs to ensure visibility
from all approaches. In allowing the four proposed wall signs, only one wall sign per
facade will be permitted.
No plans have been submitted for a free standing sign. The original development stage
plan approval required that freestanding signs be constructed as monument signs and
located at site entrances. The applicant should identify plans for any freestanding sign
and its location. Small signs should also be likely placed at the northwest corner of the
building to direct traffic into the site and around the building to access the drive through.
Plans for these signs and their location should be prepared and submitted by the
applicant.
4
The site plan should also identify the location for the area identification sign planned at
CSAH 39 and TH 101. The location of this sign should be overlaid with an easement to
the management or owners association for ongoing maintenance. Plans for the area
identification sign have not been received.
Lighting. A lighting plan showing the location, type, and illumination of exterior light
fixtures has not been submitted. A plan was submitted with the Blackwoods development
plan that included the subject site, but revisions to the site plan for this site and
Blackwoods require submission of a revised plan. All light fixtures are to be consistent
with the specified type included in the PUD design standards.
Trash. A trash area is shown on the site plan to the west of the building near the main
driveway entrance. The trash area should be constructed of the same exterior materials
as the building so as to blend into the structure.
Grading Plan. The applicant has submitted a grading plan, which does not include
existing or proposed contours. This information should be submitted and is subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer.
Utility Plans. Plans for sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer for the subject site have
been submitted. These plans show connection to sanitary sewer and water service via the
lines installed under the common driveway, which are are overlaid by a drainage and utility
easement. All utility plans are subject to review and approval of the city Engineer.
CONCLUSION
The proposed bank/office building at the southeast corner of the Waterfront project creates
an attractive gateway into the community and to the Waterfront West development. As
with other projects in this development, there are a number of issues related to the
submitted site and building plans must be further addressed or revised. However, the
overall direction of the development plan for the bank/office building is consistent with
applicable City requirements or those applied specifically to this PUD District. As such,
we recommend approval of the application as outlined below.
A. Motion to approve a PUD Development Stage Plan for Lot 2, Block 1 of Waterfront
Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is subject to approval of a final plat for the subject site and all
public right-of-ways and execution of a development agreement.
2. Access point to Outlot G are determined and the shared driveway is
constructed with pavement and curb its full length from Quaday Avenue to
the subject site.
5
3. The site plan is revised per City Staff comments regarding stall design and
sidewalk bump outs.
4. The landscape plan is revised to provide additional plant varieties in place
of the proposed black hills spruce trees, subject to City Staff review and
approval.
5. Not more than one wall sign shall be located on a single facade. Plans for
any proposed freestanding sign or directional signs are submitted, subject
to review and approval of City Staff.
6. The trash enclosure relocated closer to the northeast exterior door and
constructed of materials consistent with the principal building. Additional
landscaping is to be provided to screen the trash enclosure, subject to
approval of City Staff.
7. A lighting plan showing fixture type and location with proposed illumination
patterns is submitted, subject to review and approval of City Staff.
8. All grading, drainage, utilities and easement issues are subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and pay all required
fees or securities required by it, subject to review and approval of the City
attorney.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and PUD District.
C. Motion to table the request.
pc. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Patty Fowler
Robert Fields
Steve Fisher
1.1
NACw,:
PMY MAP OAIK PAQ W Y0 Y Y
Hakamn
■
lc=cn
Ion C.
PREPARED OCTODER 2001
NOTE:
THIS MAP IS FOR PLANNING
PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD
NOT BE USED FOR EXACT
MEASUREMENT.
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
loll MW C&AM IM W
•--------
---------
SRO c
OTSECOS WATERFRONT
A
OTSEGO. MM
EXHIBIT A-2
CONCEPT PLAN
ftc
1
� � > > lei � 111 tl � i.•I���i��'i jt' �i '
Ii# it � s ► . ti ��
. .
! 1
I
I
NV'1d 3dVOSCNVI
--T�:,r �o
w—rw a .�I ..r.-u►wt er
r�w,'M.I.r
ANVdMM QNY7 093510
w . .. I w air r►w rlr
/ wwp
2q.�
1WkUK 1YM 093510
UUW
3115 HNVB
1
� � > > lei � 111 tl � i.•I���i��'i jt' �i '
Ii# it � s ► . ti ��
. .
! 1
I
I
I
V -1
Q-1
1
I
'
•Ijl
III
I
�
I
r
,
I
; 1
I}�
1 I`
77`1
' •`
! I
I
I
1
I
I
i
,
, I
r
11
1
1
• I
1
I 1
I _y j
i
pq
II
11
i
1
I I
I
1
I
It n
I.
1
1t
11
1
I 1
1
I
i
I
I
11
I
V
I 1 I
i
C_
I
IL'I K
00K
0
I
- I
I
11
L•+
,
j 1
I
- l
i
g
,
1
�4X
1
I
1
I
j I
i
Iii
i
I j
•
1
11
1
1
1 I
•
1
1
'
1111[
11
11
.�
1
1
I
I
g
U
1
i
I
1
x
x
PRIM
— u
•
r�
Cal
< ikn
W
Q
Q
W
CL
<
U
N
� ala
WLU
`
2
~
T
v
3
U
��� us
. II < I
o
CL mLU
N
C7
`
I
IV
N
Cal
< ikn
W
Q
Q
W
CL
<
U
N
LIN
W W
¢ O
cc
WLU
`
2
~
T
v
3
U
��� us
. II < I
o
CL mLU
N
C7
`
I
N
` I.-
.
W
<
N
<
�
LIN
W W
¢ O
■
0
` ■1
t
0
x
W
0
r�
•-�I
•
S
I,ien
LL
Ll�
r
■
0
` ■1
t
0
x
W
0
r�
cnO
�.
■■
��
3
■
0
` ■1
t
0
x
W
0
Suv-a dooms �
Nolsau
VMS unv MOn rn:Pnd�
10
t0 I
`a0
I llo
�I
�0
---
to
t0
10
C 10 a C
t® to C
t�
t0
10 t0
10
10
10
i
t0
10
a0
N
IT
!
tp
.0
��
t0 !
12
.I0 �0
----------------------
t
to
!LOA
Io.
110
-------------------
to
to to to
io F to
as
VII 7L asst r '�I• m✓[t/s re
�' �.1..• ..�.,.
•., 4 -�,,,
NYIG IOZIINOO NOISOU
,�
vt--tea +r...• •� o r �Imr
i MVNIVVW] '9NIQViIJ`
SEE
Imo-- r nw,o ^ '^ •• +• v i.�+.. us +...r '�"v�
r.l r...vl h� ... � a.l �� •sM• w
7 n Amvdlg9 O 1 0.7310
llQi
-� '�..r �i.,.� �JNp01lY / JMAp fllq'
1NOiLla3.LYM 073510
)rMV9/1NV2i1V1S�1 SOOOAUOVIB
51 if 1 Is
f
I!
1
71
!
i
307.41 __----.------------------
®
1 ' 1
Tod
/� !
�Q r 4 ■ I7`
1
;
j1
sy
11
rr � • j, 11
I �
I
� I
„ 1
11
• �y 11
I -y
I'
11
' I
11 ------
1
S•
1
1
I
8
•
-- L r
•1
•
a� Q r �a
~
h:
{ai
I,It
I
,
auL--
I-
1
1
'
n t
�
18u
11
11
11 1
'
;
1
I, 1�1�,''•
I
1
1
1
1
1
�
1
1 ; I i
1
1
L --- -- -----------
1
j
•'
r
• �
�It
I
1..•
1
'1 j '
WO-N-I•IL1 0
I
g"
I
A
�TI7R—�ol�l 7L ulw �r �I mVtth +a
rrvid uiun v Sus
7n A"Yd110J awi 0.7310
'-TLYIC:.�y Mm�m 41rr r •mow MOd
u ® —tot �+� >� Lii131.YM 003510
wu•�a mun�a1 — 3na .w nr, w. Jr^ W •MJfgWMY * IOAp 1AW 31.5 )NY9
21
jr
/ I/ 1
--- 1 1 1 1 1 I I I
---------- 1 I I
IF
1 n I 1
I it r �+ _ I � ♦ ♦` I � I I rl � ,
I n
It ' I
---_-_----------r
�1�� r
1 11 't 1 I I I
I , n
1 /•' I 1 „ 1
1 •�• I , I 1 I I I
Ii i• I � { I I ^11 � I �
1 1 �• i Iii i I
' 1♦♦ t1 I I 8 Iii � L�
1 ♦ 1 I ^ I I
' `♦ 1 u
1
ate 00--c
git iit / I
Ir ♦ I I u l I-
r � ♦♦♦, ' i i ii � �I
11 , I 1 11 1 1 I
z 1 ;
x ' I
11 j� n� �•, II
•�, j1
It
1
1
1
L--- -'--- +---
------------------
-_�-------------------------------IJ 1
1 , 111
I
I
TRUNK 1 -� I \
mim
_ v n t I
-06a
e+0o77.00
�^------------
rZ 5,00 4+00
C==-=-----='-��- 2+00 NO
" CUADAY AVENUE NE — —'—'— —
-----------------------------__�• i^^
IIII I --
-�----__----------------------
-------------------
_.._-
----
--- — ®-
------ _----------_--
------ -
I �
u
I
_ v n t I
-06a
e+0o77.00
�^------------
rZ 5,00 4+00
C==-=-----='-��- 2+00 NO
" CUADAY AVENUE NE — —'—'— —
-----------------------------__�• i^^
IIII I --
-�----__----------------------
-------------------
_.._-
----
--- — ®-
------ _----------_--
------ -
I �
3
BHS
J
SSC',
PLANTINGS TO SCREEN TRASH ENC SUR /
NORTH - FACING BLACKWOOOS
FACING TH 101
WEST - FACING OUTLOT G
FACING CSAH 39
p ■
■■I
■n ��
�� ■■
■�
■/
■■
\■
■■
■■
an
■■
NORTH - FACING BLACKWOOOS
FACING TH 101
WEST - FACING OUTLOT G
FACING CSAH 39
p ■
■■I
_J O
O
0 0
� o
0
CE
c o
o� o n _ o
o LIU o L�
R
%.�RRST FLOOR
(DaECOND FLOOR
TRUNK JUGH`RAY - N0�-101"--
-------- ---- f --
.-1--- — ----------------
I
I
I
I �1
I
1 \
1
1 i Q
I 1 \ O
1
1 I •\ �
I
1
1
}I
I 1
i
r•0'®
w--- -- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- -
---- ------ ---------
------------------------------------ ,
8+00 7+00 6+00
Il —
11
11
11
�
1
11
11
11
11
'1 •
I
`
!
ad ��
I
Il
111
1
11
_
1
11
•
�
11
11
1
11
11
is
11
-
Li
I �_
I
Fal -
l
1
—{f
I I (
TIFF
-
I I In
J
-9-
I
w--- -- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- -
--------_
---- ------ ---------
------------------------------------ ,
8+00 7+00 6+00
Il —
11
11
11
�
1
11
11
11
11
'1 •
11
II
11
`
!
ad ��
I
Il
111
1
11
Il
----------------------------
11
•
�
11
11
1
11
11
is
11
--------_
---- ------ ---------
------------------------------------ ,
8+00 7+00 6+00
5+00 4+00
3+9- 2+00 1+0
----
-----------
QUADAY AVENUE NE
----------------------------
1
-
---- ------------------------------
----- --- - -
-