12-15-03 PCITEM 3.1
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS'`iN,C.
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 Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 8 December 2003
RE: Otsego — Bauer; Rezoning/CUP
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 03.40
BACKGROUND
Eugene and Lois Bauer are proposing to subdivide their existing homestead from the
balance of their 20 acre property located at 9113 Kadler Avenue NE. The subject site,
located west of Kadler Avenue and south of CSAH 39, is zoned A-1, Agriculture Rural
Service District. The request requires application for a Zoning Map amendment to
rezone the subject site to the A-2, Agriculture Long Range Urban Service District and a
conditional use permit for a residential lot size less than 20 acres.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Site Plan
ANALYSIS
Zoning. The current A-1 District zoning of the subject site requires a minimum lot size
of 20 acres. The A-2 District allows for residential lot sizes less than 20 acres by
conditional use permit. The Zoning Map amendment and CUP permit applications are
to be evaluated in consideration of (but not limited to) the following criteria outlined in
Sections 20-3-21 and 20-4-2.17 of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment. The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site for continued rural
residential use as part of the Rural Residential Preserve Area. Residential uses
in this area are allowed at a base density of four units per forty acres, subject to
the requirements of the A-1 or A-2 District. The proposed rezoning and
conditional use permit is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment. The subject site is surrounded by rural residential and agriculture uses
to the north, east, south and west. The division of the existing homestead from
the balance of the property does not create any compatibility issues.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment: The proposed subdivision will be required to meet all applicable
performance standards.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to have any effect to the
area.
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.
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.
iW
Administrative Subdivision. The proposed subdivision of the subject site qualifies as
a minor subdivision under Section 21-2-1-C of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
administrative subdivision is subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator
in accordance with Section 21-2-4.A of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Density. The maximum number of dwelling units that can be subdivided from the
existing parcel is two. Upon subdivision of the property, both resulting parcels must be
subdivided to restrict further subdivision in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
There is an opportunity to establish a rural cluster subdivision on the remaining 17.6
acre parcel with up to five lots, subject to approval of an application rezoning the
property to R -C, Residential Rural Open Space Cluster District.
Lot Area/Width. Lots within the A-2 District are required to be a minimum 20 acres in
size and have 450 feet of frontage to a public street. Section 20-52-5.1-1 allows for
subdivision of residential lot sizes less than 20 acres and with less than 450 feet of
frontage by conditional use permit. The subdivided lot must be at least one and not
greater than 2.5 acres in size with 150 feet of frontage to a public street. The proposed
lot encompassing the existing homestead has an area of 2.4 acres and 230 feet of
frontage to Kadler Avenue.
Setbacks. The setbacks applicable to the proposed lot are outlined below. The
applicant must submit a certificate of survey illustrating the proposed lot and all existing
structures demonstrating compliance with all required setbacks.
Front
Side
Rear
65 feet
10 feet
50 feet
Easements. Section 21-7-15.A of the Subdivision Ordinance requires a ten -foot
drainage and utility easement be provided at the perimeter of the subdivided lot. The
City Engineer may also require dedication of necessary easements for Kadler Avenue,
which is an unplatted roadway. All easements are subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer.
Utilities. The subject site is served by existing on-site septic and well systems. The
City Engineer should review the application to ensure that adequate area exists on the
subject site for the present and an alternative septic system site.
Park and Trail Dedication. The proposed subdivision creates one new buildable
parcel and is therefore subject to park and trail dedication requirements. The applicant
must pay a cash fee in lieu of land of $2,100.00.
3
CONCLUSION
The proposed Zoning Map amendment and CUP to allow subdivision of a 2.4 acre
residential site is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. We recommend approval of the applications as
outlined below.
Decision 1 —Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1
District to A-2 District based on a finding that the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table.
Decision 2 — Conditional Use Permit
A. Motion to approve a CUP allowing an A-2 District lot size less than 20 acres and
width less than 450 feet, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a certificate of survey for the proposed
subdivision to be processed in accordance with Section 2 of the
Subdivision Ordinance, subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator.
2. A deed restriction is recorded against both parcels limiting further
subdivision except as may be allowed by the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed lot and existing structures shall provide for compliance with
applicable side yard and rear yard setbacks.
4. The certificate of survey shall provide for a 10 foot perimeter drainage and
utility easement, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
5. The certificate of survey shall provide for necessary easements for Kadler
Avenue, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
6. The City Engineer shall review the minor subdivision applicaton and
determine that adequate area exists on the proposed parcel for the
existing septic system and an alternative site.
7. The applicant shall pay a cash fee in lieu of land of $2,100.00 to satisfy
park and trail dedication requirements.
Ei
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.
PC. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Judy Hudson, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Eugene and Lois Bauer
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
N
'El) HIBIT B
3nN3AV U3-1(]VN
3,0-o-I
10
- ----------- ?
is
lJ
2S,
Q
n7
cli
CD
N
'El) HIBIT B
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
MEMORANDUM
3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303
Phone:763/427-5860 Fax:763/427-0520
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Ronald J. Wagner, PE
cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator
Judy Hudson, Clerk
Dan Licht, City Planner
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Eugene and Lois Bauer
Date: December 10, 2003
Re: Bauer Lot Split
We have reviewed the lot split and have the following comments.
1. The size of the smaller lot is still large enough that an alternate drainfield location
should not be an issue.
2. We recommend right of way for Kadler Avenue of 50' be deeded to the City for
future Kadler Avenue upgrades. The nearly complete northeast Wright County
Transportation Study has long term plans (2040) for Kadler Avenue becoming a fairly
significant roadway in the region and recommends 75' of right-of-way from
centerline. It is my opinion that the land in question may redevelop beyond the
current lot split prior to the 75' of right-of-way being needed and the additional 25'
can be obtained at that time.
Civil d -Municipal ��
Engineering
G:\Mwiicipal\Aotsego2xxx\2500\2003\ot2500bauerilapii.�wveying for
ITEM 4-1
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
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, AICP
DATE: 9 December 2003
RE: Otsego — Zoning Ordinance; Temporary Signs
NAC FILE: 176.08-03.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Rudy Thibodeau, who owns and operates Fun City/Godfather's Pizza at CSAH 39
and CSAH 42, attended a recent City Council meeting to raise issue with the current
Zoning Ordinance allowances for temporary signs for commercial uses. Mr. Thibodeau
asked that the City review the current provisions for temporary signs to see if they are
appropriate both for the City and for commercial businesses and that these standards
be consistently applied and enforced. After hearing Mr. Thibodeau's comments, the
City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the provisions for temporary
signs outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
Section 20-37-5.C.6 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the following standards for
temporary message signs within commercial zoning districts:
6. Message Signs. Temporary message signs, not exceeding thirty-
two (32) square feet on each side may be allowed by temporary
permit under the following provisions:
a. Message signs may be illuminated, but flashing signs are
prohibited.
b. Electronic changing message/reader boards are prohibited.
C. A temporary permit shall be valid for a period of ten (10)
days and no more than three (3) permits per property shall
be granted during any twelve (12) month period.
d. In the case of a business center where two or more uses are
located in the same structure or on the same parcel of land,
that center shall be considered one property.
The primary issue concerning the existing provisions raised by Mr. Thibodeau is
whether they allow sufficient time for the sign to be displayed. City staff has also
observed issues in carrying out this section of the Zoning Ordinance. Implementation of
these standards is difficult for multiple tenant retail buildings with more than three
tenants, especially in newly established buildings such as the JKO Holdings building on
Queens Avenue or the Waterfront Retail Center. City Staff also has difficulty enforcing
the time limits on display of these signs.
The primary objective of these provisions is make accommodation for some additional
signs on a temporary basis advertising a new business location, special sale event, etc.
and not to become a permanent fixture of the property as has become the case in
Rogers along TH 101. To respond to the current issues being raised, we would offer
the following changes to this Section of the Zoning Ordinance:
6. Message Signs. Temporary message signs,
may be allowed by an
administrative permit under the following provisions:
a. The sign is to be a double sided freestanding sign with an
area not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet on each side
an maximum height of eight (8 feet
b. The sign shall be setback ten (101 feet from any property line
and five (5) feet from an parking area or drive aisle shall
not occupy any required parking stall orshall not obstruc
pedestrian walkways
ac. Message signs may be illuminated, but flashing signs or
electronic changing message/reader boards are prohibited.
ed A empora sign maw
be displayed for a period of not to exceed ten (10) days an
not more than one (1) temporary sign may be displayed per
property atany one time
2
de. No more than three (3 administrative permits shall be issued p_er
property per calendar year. In the case of a hi i-* " ,...RteF
property where two or more uses are located in the same structure
or on the same parcel of land, that eet site shall be considered
one property for the purposes of this Section.
f.
The agpLicant for the administrative permit shall provide an escrow_
in an amount determined by the Zoning Administrator to ensure
compliance with the provisions of this Section The Zonina
Administrator may order the immediate removal of any temporary
sign that is not maintained in accordance with the provisions of this
section at the administrativepermit holders' expense
Please note that we have not changed the time period that a temporary sign may be
displayed or the number of times a temporary sign may displayed per calendar year per
property. We believe that some limitation on the duration and number of times per year
a temporary sign may be displayed is appropriate. The current ten days to display a
single sign seems appropriate in that it would allow for a sign to be displayed over two
weekends. The number of times a temporary sign may be displayed is more
problematic to define when multiple tenant buildings are considered. We would suggest
a combination of a maximum of three displays or one display per tenant per year,
whichever is greater as a feasible option. This issue should be discussed by the
Planning Commission.
CONCLUSION
The issue of reviewing the provisions for temporary signs within commercial districts will
be discussed by the Planning Commission at their meeting on 15 December 2003. We
are seeking direction as to whether the City should keep the existing provisions, make
changes as suggested herein, or any additional comments the Planning Commission
may have.
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Rudy Thibodeau
3