Loading...
04-19-04 PCITEM 3-11 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 PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: APPLICATION: REPORT DATE: NAC FILE: BACKGROUND Otsego Planning Commission Daniel Licht, AICP Otsego — Mississippi Cove; Zoning Amendments/Preliminary Plat 13 April 2004 176.02 — 04.08 ACTION DATE CITY FILE: 24 May 2004 2004-15 Mississippi 39, LLC has submitted development plans for a 58.9 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of CSAH 39 and Mason Avenue. The development proposal consists of 20 single family lots to be developed under the requirements of the R -C, Residential Rural Open Space Cluster District. The subject site is guided for rural residential use by the Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned A-1, Agriculture, Rural Service Area District. Portions of the subject site are also within the boundaries of the Wild, Scenic and Recreational River District established adjacent to the Mississippi River. Consideration of the applicant's proposal requires a Zoning Map amendment to rezone the subject site to the R -C District and a preliminary plat. The applicant has also requested consideration of a text amendment to allow transfer of development rights within the R -C District by CUP to increase the number of potential lots within the project. Finally, the City must vacate portions of the original Otsego town plat underlying the subject site. Exhibits: A. Site location B. Certificate of Survey C. Preliminary Plat. D. Grading Plan ANALYSIS Transfer of Development Rights. The applicant has proposed a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow transfer of development rights (TRD) to properties within the R -C District. The City has limited opportunities for TRD within the A-1 and A-2 Districts to allow building sites to be transferred between abutting parcels under common ownership. The purpose of the existing TRD provisions is to allow a development right to be transferred from a "back 40" to a parcel with necessary street frontage to allow development of a residential lot. The Planning Commission and City Council did discuss the potential broader implementation of TRD within rural areas of the City as part of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of allowing greater use of TRD would be to provide land owners some value to their development rights allowed by the Comprehensive Plan while encouraging more clustering of rural unsewered residential parcels. In the context of the R -C District, the goal would be to encourage larger clustered developments while preserving an equitable amount of permanent openspace. City staff anticipates that TRD within the R -C District would be implemented by conditional use permit, which is the same approach used in the A-1 and A-2 Districts. The proposed use of TRD should allow for transfer of available development rights from parcels zoned A-1 District, A-2 District or R -C District to encourage maximum opportunity for use of these provisions and maximization of openspace preserved either for future urban development or open space. Our office has prepared the following language is for consideration: H. Transfer of Development rights to subdivisions within the R -C District, provided that: At its discretion, the City Council may allow an increase of density for the proposed subdivision up to as much as twenty five (25) percent or a maximum density of fifteen (15) dwellings per (40) acres to encourage creative implementation of this district as described by the Comprehensive Plan and Section 20-60-1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed development shall conform to the open space, neighborhood and general development standards of the R -C District. 3. The property from which the development rights are to be transferred shall be located within the rural residential preserve or urban service area reserve area established by the Comprehensive Plan. 2 4. Not less than one (1) development right shall be retained by the parcel transferring development rights. 5. A deed restriction is recorded on the parcel transferring development rights to prohibit additional subdivision or development unless allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. One significant question that the Planning Commission and City Council must address is whether TRD may be used from a developed R -C District plat to a proposed development. The R -C District establishes a base density of four dwellings per 40 acres, with a maximum density of up to 12 dwellings per 40 acres. The potential density allowed above four dwellings per 40 acres is not an entitlement, but considered to be a bonus to encourage more creative site design and project amenities. This question applies to the current request as the applicant is proposing to transfer development rights from the existing Grenins Mississippi Hills/Vintage Golf subdivision to the subject site. At the time Grenins Mississippi Hills/Vintage Golf was approved, density in the R -C District was limited to 10 units per 40 acres. This was later increased to the current 12 units per 40 acres. The combination of the density increase allowed in the R -C District and the design of Grenins Mississippi Hills/Vintage Golf means that there are three potential unallocated development rights. If the Planning Commission and City Council determine that development rights may not be transferred from existing developed subdivisions, then the number of dwelling units on the proposed plat must be reduced. Zoning. The proposed subdivision requires consideration of a Zoning Map amendment to include the property in the R -C District. The project may also require a CUP depending on the action taken by the Planning Commission and City Council regarding transfer of development rights. The requests for a Zoning Map amendment and CUP are to be evaluated based upon (but not limited to) the criteria outlined in Sections 20-3- 2.F and 20-4-3.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, respectively: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan establishes the rural residential preserve for this area of the City to encourage development of unique single family neighborhoods that incorporate natural or rural character elements. This type of development is especially appropriate for areas included in the Mississippi River Wild, Scenic and Recreational River District in terms of density and opportunities for access to the Mississippi River. The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3 Comment. The table below summarizes surrounding land uses. The proposed development will be compatible with existing or planned land uses in the area. Direction Land Use Plan Zoning Map Existing Use North NA NA Mississippi River East Rural Residential A-1 District Single Family Agriculture South Agriculture A-1 District Agriculture Single Famil West Rural Residential A-1 District Agriculture 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 to the open space, neighborhood and general development standards of the R -C District. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Comment: The proposed development continues implementation of the R -C District with another unique neighborhood in the rural residential preserve 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 subject site is accessed via CSAH 39, which is a minor arterial roadway. CSAH 39 has adequate capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed 20 dwelling units.. 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. Density. The R -C District allows up to 12 dwelling units per 40 acres or 15 units per 40 acres if transferred development rights are allowed. With 20 proposed dwellings on 58.9 acres, the density of the proposed development is 13.6 dwellings per acre. The density of development would be consistent with the proposed R -C District limits. El Approximately 48.9 acres of the subject site is within the W/S District. Development density within the W/S District is limited to one dwelling per 2.5 acres. This would allow for 19 lots in the W/S District. The preliminary plat includes only 16 of the 20 building sites within the W/S District. Access. The subject site is to be accessed from CSAH 39 via an extension of Mason Avenue to the north. The location of the Mason Avenue and CSAH 39 intersection requires acquisition of right-of-way from the abutting property owner to the west. The responsibility and cost for acquiring the necessary right-of-way and construction of the street will be that of the developer. A divided rural section roadway with oversized landscape median is proposed along Mason Avenue approximately 460 feet north from CSAH 39 to an intersection that would provide access to the property to the west. A landscape plan is required for the proposed median. Past this intersection, the street is gradually reduced to a 60 foot right-of-way and extended in a curvilinear pattern to the east plat line. This is the only public street within the development. Secondary access to the subdivision is critical as the length of the public street exceeds the 500 foot limit for cul-de-sacs and there is no certainty as to the timing of development to the east that would provide for extension of the street back to CSAH 39. The applicant is working to acquire right to a temporary access to CSAH 39 along the driveway abutting the east plat line or acquisition of the property to the east that would allow for extension of a permanent street to the next intersection with CSAH 39 at Naber Avenue. A condition of preliminary plat approval should be that the applicant provides a second public access to the proposed development, subject to approval of the City Engineer and Wright County. Open space. The R -C District requires that a minimum 50 percent of the net area of a proposed development be set aside as permanent open space. The preliminary plat identifies a net buildable area of 48.13 acres, thus requiring 24.06 acres of open space. The preliminary plat provides 14.74 acres of neighborhood recreation open space. This area is to be retained by the homeowners and a landscape planting and maintenance plan is required. We recommend that this planting plan include seedlings clusters to provide future buffering from CSAH 39. An additional 9.35 acres of buildable area of the parcel is included as part of an area being dedicated to the City as the terminus for the Northwest Creek greenway. The total net area being set aside as permanent open space is 24.09 acres as required by Section 20-60-7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot Requirements. Lots within the R -C District must have a net area of at least one acre, but may not be larger than 2.5 acres. The proposed lots range in size from 1.0 acres to 1.2 acres. Lots in the R -C District must have a minimum width of 100 feet and all of the proposed lots meet these requirements as well. 5 Setbacks. The following setbacks apply to the proposed subdivision and are illustrated on the preliminary plat. Each of the proposed lots has a suitable buildable area for a single family dwelling. Setbacks Front Side Rear 35ft. 15ft. 50ft. Blocks. The proposed single family lots are divided between four blocks. Section 20- 60-7 of the Zoning Ordinance limits block length to 1,320 feet to allow for access to the common open space. All of the proposed blocks are less than 1,320 feet. Park and Trail Dedication. Section 21-7-18.H of the Subdivision Ordinance requires dedication of 10 percent of the area of the subject site (5.9 acres) for park development. The City intends to develop a greenway corridor along Northwest Creek from the Mississippi River southwest towards the west sanitary sewer service district. The outlet for Northwest Creek to the Mississippi River is located at the northwest corner of the subject site. The preliminary plat would propose to dedicate 18.48 gross acres (9.35 net acres) of land including the outlet and bluff area to the City to satisfy park and trail dedication requirements. Access to the outlet area is provided via a connection to the internal public street. Easements. The preliminary plat illustrates perimeter drainage and utility easements on each lot as required by Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision Ordinacne. A drainage and utility easement is also shown over the perimeter of Outlot A, including the proposed ponding area. All easements are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Grading. The applicant has submitted grading and drainage plans. These plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Utilities. The proposed single family lots are to be served by individual on-site septic systems and wells. Provision of primary and secondary septic sites and well locations are subject to approval of the City Engineer. Original Town Plat. A certificate of survey of the subject site identifies that portions of the original Otsego town plat underlie the property. Established in the 1800s, the original town plat identifies lots, blocks and rights-of-way that do not meet the City's current development regulations and are not considered to have development rights under the non -conforming lot provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Platting the current subdivision request requires vacation of the existing plat based on a finding that it serves no public purpose. 0 CONCLUSION The first decision required as part of this application is whether to allow TRD within the R -C District. From a policy standpoint, TRD is a logical extension of the City's intent to cluster rural residential development either for permanent open space or to facilitate future urban expansion. A practical issue that must be decided is if this opportunity should apply to developed R -C District subdivisions that have theoretically utilized the development rights allowed by the City Council at the time of preliminary plat approval. Aside from the TRD issue, the proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the intent and provisions of the R -C District. As such, we recommend approval of the Zoning Map amendment and preliminary plat. We also recommend approval of the TRD-CUP if the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council approves the requested text amendment. Our recommendations for approval are subject to the conditions outlined below. Decision 1 — Zoning Text Amendment A. Motion to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance establishing transfer of development rights within the R -C District by conditional use permit. B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Motion to table. Decision 2 — Zoning Map Amendment A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1 District to R -C District based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Decision 3 — Preliminary Plat / CUP A. Motion to approve a preliminary plat and CUP for transfer of development rights for Mississippi Cove, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide for acquisition of necessary right-of-way and construction of Mason Avenue at their expense. 7 2. The applicant shall provide for a second public access to the proposed subdivision, subject to approval by the City Engineer and Wright County. 3. The applicant is to provide a landscape plan for the Mason Avenue median and Outlot A, which is to include seedling clusters for future buffering along CSAH 39. 4. All street, grading, easements and utilities are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 5. The applicant shall dedicate 18.48 acres in satisfaction of park and trail dedication requirements at the time of final plat approval. B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Decision 4 — Town Plat Vacation A. Motion to approve vacation of the original town plat underlying the subject site based on a finding that the request necessary to allow for development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PC. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Ron Wagner Patty Fowler Mike Leuer Scott Dahlke NAC vv ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD 1� . '�. .a>..y ar'.ar "'4wV-• I , ra_r<n __ I `¢.�r' L.___ 7Nr •M .[S.OZ.00 N - j Naslw _ I�I w --l6'61f! 3.I 1.61.00 S-- \ m ea fl - I- n ^ I _ I I i I I I I rc I EEjj{{ t I Ij 1 Y 1 eS I I 11 I I 1 I 1 I --------------------- 1 k 3 -it ift00 5 �� I ./I N N • 1 ]S )NJ .rV N� t53M�� \ LLI W v •Mian- - I 1 ; ; f l01 t ..u0 s 3w, 6r1� 4. 1 I ..5 m i # •�. d Y^t. ��.�� ���' YRR6 tl 3olcar-.Y ,,qql,, I .'cel '�• i ATL I ; ; g j •Y j 1 i 1j Y� t kY V � e� ='• � 1 m i i }}inn 'n ; �- ,_ Qr t< 1� . '�. .a>..y ar'.ar "'4wV-• I , ra_r<n __ I `¢.�r' L.___ 7Nr •M .[S.OZ.00 N - j Naslw _ I�I w --l6'61f! 3.I 1.61.00 S-- \ ea fl I n ^ I _ I I i I I I I rc I EEjj{{ t I Ij 1 Y 1 eS I I 11 I I 1 I 1 I --------------------- 1 k 3 -it ift00 5 �� I ./I N N • 1 ]S )NJ .rV N� t53M�� \ ssr •Mian- - I 1 ; ; f l01 t ..u0 s 3w, 6r1� 4. 1 I q I I '�• i :;hl I I ; ; g j •Y j 1 i �k'�+ �� j � � e� ='• � 1 m i i }}inn 'n ; �- ,_ ....,.ilk:-_.._...._._..._._—_. ° --j --- — --- -- --- --� / � 1 s'''` , I I I •_-F-_s-. Ili i 3,1 i I �. i'•, '; _ _ ...-. .. _. p4R r., r»u r ar 1 1 1 �; I I II I I - I � 1 I T 1� . '�. .a>..y ar'.ar "'4wV-• I , ra_r<n __ I `¢.�r' L.___ 7Nr •M .[S.OZ.00 N - j Naslw _ I�I w U GG pj e o o ; r' a o 1Vld A2LVNIWIl321d 'k KK-Kf Y^x1 w. m1 I nww rye rwl-sy.uyMi no 3ll'NrJIs3a 31ms AlllVflO ;� onne3xd YN WN— N GS .v M27W m g iii �/� `� 1 NW 'o6aS -77 3/ 03 �dd�SS�SS1{N :39Yd JY009 :3.ro sNnd awaanr US uav�asw ren Nxraa .tiw .w+rs �wNrNwr ar.o w w.,>.r• w a ..rw � ;44= x kw 4w i a r.<md a . rrrwa+rs w !s N .!e ►0/S!/FO 3<ro fMOYS�l7tl a R 0 a s 6 s �a8a ���•+ � _s~ Int W g I_ w a o � 6Wo• a R 0 a _a r" g+'wp=gr eognJ;;;o��.� s+.,nosor s•r=�N'- ssaa1; aoa'}sR2 y0, ini s.� 3 {4 NA 4N-� Z Yi°, rA ti ,� ,� -'S AaaaS. Ey=• d'°u g>a'4 ��<a 5''nr I I I I I m ixmesa D j.� 3yo a g$u�.�o��ne°','° d.3s�••5•±, a s _ aa �-q ��+] gg e 33 � a 1E^ -'i' d moZ_ O x 5jw' 3 �s23,'^g a- ',° _ 3- g a E Ev?iY QS°�' 22 858 gg zo x 1 Z8 da"Sa ?io";-• XR•�33gs3a 95.•!_�� 3¢ 2a, 8.->gq> � D & oa"� am c� a $ � 3•' sE•^.. a_° F s �''; Fi' -x; ���'4 3pa °'»3q 8• se'e". �s3s°` 8^. Y�E>.Q%. a 3Es'-Ux^ z x € a!s: sRa s' 3 =•8" vl=°iO� ;��y € 5"i RP _x g"ga og�o_'o;#a R 93 ° ° ° i � � •�3 x i > 1' ed=�� ;�d=d.E5e :oQ x ?7;0 $�zE > 8„� PRgRJ�3�: j Opq . +� $$$$$$ gg Yq D ='%4!4 4 .3} �':"°` hl�n Ad'3 ° i ; X05 n 1N T }Il" S: f ;3 a ESS?3Xoty 4-0555- a°S PR .1 -II o i- ah a ,.av } °: a ?= a�'3 8- Sas 3• g z 3 - s a sas�B °.tea y ..E° >5 _ :g xaa' $° ,: s €}•, $ ° sxa_ g, d s� �8 g3; ;8 3• n pip ;nail 2 �.j 'g� ' a sa r>32_ N 3� a y�o a3 o zo a H i �$ Ba a }� %• a a i s :A rte" Nil �� < S E c'>< }a 'dab i38� ° �. �:Sio� 3. �a y8 .�q> 8-` ��. 3 • - 3 �a'�x o �' �# Z sP°a• q E � � $ � gg' !'�8• 9e3 ga. S i° c.o Raaaesq }'� "a �a $ 58 fisfi f( go' 2 a•,,o°C g d- s, a a!a A a=•e- x s } 3 - 3o2 a :oa oCY 1;d. 3 d-• °% 2.1 4' g3 ua ia" s a 3`3 3 ae;'8-g � } �]$a nabs :'x axe %3 ax a 1 � �i.'8 o -: g �8� "dga �ag3.g Q� " io;��. �! ia;% ra :g• ^=a f2} a 4 a• ;€,;S ;3 a$g, "d3 �� E Z >E � >Q�? >� � A a3=Z 3>3 g�a3s a,. �aaRa 3 � °gs } •' �� cn } =6 s z a a 4 ° r ..Iln rAal w. pa Ao.=:A.°nn °. row p z aE DJi(Sio< MISSISSIPPI COVE m ..k—" rrs/d N,.N 2434VSect. 18, Twp. 121, Rng. 23 u PArP�rDm Otsego, MN u 3� is -v $ ars]aveD er SD REeoRD PLwNs °1 QUALITY SITE. DESIGN, LLC �-' E $ rlr V ( „ BOOK PAG£: [�P•.ro - iay w..wmwi I »� PRELIMINARY GRADWD. DRAINAGE. ERDSIDN C -MM CHECKED BY SD lgRIIPVIN SG1LE VER CAL SME llr (1n]] 1=1 •�_ M1N "'111 (]0]I 15° -Ht] AND SiDRN SEVER PLAN Hakanson Anderson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303 ASSOC., Inc. Phone:763/427-5860 Fax:763/427-0520 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Ron Wagner, PE cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator Judy Hudson, Clerk Dan Licht, NAC Scott Dahlke, Quality Site Design Mike Leuer, Mississippi 39, LLC Date: April 14, 2004 Re: Mississippi Coves — Preliminary Plat We have reviewed the application and had the following comments: 1. The radius of the horizontal curves for streets meets the City Standard. 2. The entrance from CSAH 39 appears adequate with sufficient ability for the neighboring west property to access. A county access permit will be required. 3. We have not received storm water calculations at this time, but the storm sewer layout and pond sizes causes no concerns. The developer will be required to drop the storm sewer within piping and manholes down to ordinary high water of the Mississippi. Also, adequate erosion control at this outlet will be required. This will help prevent erosion from the bluff down to river's edge from happening. 4. A 2nd access is required for safety purposes. The County allows City street access along County Highways at spacing of t/< mile. A temporary access (can be rural section gravel) or a permanent local street access located across from Naber Avenue is required. Our recommendation would be to approve the preliminary plat with the above conditions. Civil d'Municipal 25 Engineering G:\MunicipalMotsego2xxx\2285\ot2285Misscoves."ndSurveying for ITEM 3-2 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 PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: RE: REPORT DATE NAC FILE: BACKGROUND Otsego Planning Commission Daniel Licht, AICP Otsego — Angel Acres; Rezoning/Preliminary Plat/Variance 13 April 2004 ACTION DATE: 23 May 2004 176.02 — 04.09 CITY FILE: 2004-14 Ms. Cheri Kuhn has submitted plans to subdivide an existing 1.6 acre lot into three lots to be developed with single family homes. The subject site is located along 62nd Lane in the slabtown area of eastern Otsego, adjacent to the Crow River. There is an existing single family dwelling on the property, served by on-site septic and well systems. The proposed development would served by municipal sanitary sewer services extended to this area by the City of Dayton. The subject site is currently zoned A-1, Agriculture Rural Service Area District and is within the Shoreland Overlay District of the Crow River. Consideration of the request requires a Zoning Map amendment to rezone the subject site to R-4, Residential Urban Single Family District and a preliminary plat. The applicant has also requested a variance to allow encroachment into a required setback from a shoreland bluff and front yard. Exhibits: A. Site Location B. Preliminary Plat ANALYSIS Zoning. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the subject site to R-4 District to allow for development of single family dwellings served by municipal sanitary sewer services. Requests for Zoning Map amendments are to be considered based upon (but not limited to) the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-25 of the Zoning Ordinance: The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The subject site is currently outside of the sanitary sewer service district. However, the proposal to rezone the subject site to allow for development with urban services is consistent with the criteria for expansion of sanitary sewer service outlined by the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the intensity of the use is appropriate given surrounding land uses already served by sanitary sewer service. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Comment. The subject site is surrounded by existing single family uses on lots at least one acre in size. Although less than one acre in size, the proposed use is consistent with the character of the area. 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 meet all applicable performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has requested a variance to allow encroachment into a required setback from the shoreline bluff of the Crow River and front yard. Deviation from the required setback will only be allowed if the criteria for approval of a variance are satisfied. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Comment: The proposed rezoning and subdivision of the subject site is not anticipated to impact 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. 2 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 traffic beyond the capacity of 62" Lane, which is an improved local street. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the City's service capacity. Lot Requirements. The R-4 District and Shoreland Overlay District requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and minimum width of 75 feet. All three lots exceed the applicable minimum lot area and width requirements. Setbacks. The table below illustrates setbacks applicable to the subject site: Front Side Rear OHWM Bluff Required 35ft. 1Oft. 20ft. 50ft. 30ft. Proposed 15ft. loft. 80ft. 80ft. loft. The existing house on Lot 2 encroaches into the required 35 foot front setback and is considered a legal non -conforming structure. The applicant has proposed a 15 foot front yard setback for development of Lots 2 and 3. Also, the proposed preliminary plat indicates that the potential house on Lot 3 does not meet the required setback from the OHWM (identified only as the present shoreline) and that the potential houses on Lots 1 and 2 encroach 10-20 feet into the required bluff setback. The applicant has requested a variance to allow the proposed setback encroachments. Applications for variances are evaluated based on the criteria outlined in Section 20-6-2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is derived from State Statute requirements: In considering all requests for a variance and in taking subsequent action, the Planning Commission and City Council shall make a finding of fact that the proposed action will not: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. b. Unreasonably increase congestion in the public street. C. Have the effect of allowing any uses which are prohibited, permit a lesser degree of flood protection than the flood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standard which are lower than those required by State law. d. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. e. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any way be contrary to the intent of this chapter. f. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. g. Violate any of the terms or conditions of [Section 20-5-2.8.2]. (see below) 2. A variance from the terms of [the Zoning Ordinance] shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district or area. (1) Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. (2) Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of [the Zoning Ordinance]. (3) Special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship shall not be a result of lot or building size, or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of [the Zoning Ordinance] would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of [the Zoning Ordinance] or put the property in question to any reasonable use. M The subject site exists with a developed single family dwelling, which is a reasonable use of the property. Although the depth of property is shallow, the applicant is seeking subdivision of the property primarily for economic gain from the sale of two additional building sites within the subject site. As such, no unique hardship exists for justification of the variance. Furthermore, the requested variance would result in development encroaching to within 10 feet of a shoreline bluff. The purpose of the bluff setback is to minimize the impacts of development to bluff areas, which can result in a loss of vegetation and lead to erosion of the bluff area. In other areas of the City where development encroached into the bluff impact zone, severe erosion has occurred that now places the actual buildings in jeopardy. The proposed encroachment of the houses into the shoreland bluff setback is in direct conflict with the intent and purpose of the requirement. The encroachment into the required 35 front yard setback is also in conflict with a standard applied uniformly throughout the community and may impact traffic visibility and off-street parking as is the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. As the property exists with a reasonable use and the requested encroachment is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the requested variance must be denied. Access. The subject site has frontage to 62nd Lane. This street was improved as part of the recent utility project undertaken by the Cities of Otsego and Dayton. The preliminary plat includes dedication of right-of-way for the public street. Utility Plan. The preliminary plat illustrates connections to existing sanitary sewer service located within 62nd Lane. These utility lines are controlled by the City of Dayton and connection to these services requires their agreement. Water service is not identified. All utilities are subject to approval of the City Engineer. The City received information that the septic system for the property to the west may be located on the subject site. This is not shown on the preliminary plat. If the septic system is on the subject site, it must be determined if an easement exists. If no easement exists, the septic system would have to be removed from the property. The adjacent property owner would either need to connect to municipal sewer or construct a new septic system. Grading Plan. No grading plans have been submitted. These plans must be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of the preliminary plat due to potential steep slope issues related to construction of additional dwellings on the subject site. Easements. The preliminary plat illustrates perimeter drainage and utility easements 10 feet wide at the front lot line and overlay the side lot lines (five feet on each side) as required by Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision Ordinance. No easement was provided along the Crow River. Easements along the watercourse will be required based on the recommendations of the DNR and the City Engineer. 5 Park and Trail Dedication. No land is proposed to be dedicated for park and trail purposes as part of the plat. As such, Section 21-7-18.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance outlines a cash fee in lieu of land of $2,820.00 per dwelling to be paid to satisfy park and trial dedication requirements. Based on two new dwellings, the park and trail fee in lieu of land is $5,640.00 and must be paid upon approval of a final plat. CONCLUSION The proposed preliminary plat is not consistent with the City's development requirements as the submitted plans assume approval of variances to allow encroachments into setbacks from the OHWM and the shoreline bluff of the Crow River and front yard setback requirements. Variance to allow these encroachments is not justified as the subject site exists with a reasonable use and the encroachment conflicts with the intent of the established setback requirements. The request for variance is based solely on economic considerations and must be denied. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided a grading plan to fully evaluate the impact of the development to the shoreland area. We recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council also deny the rezoning and preliminary plat DECISION 1 —Variance A. Motion to approve a variance from the bluff setback requirement based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and criteria of the Zoning Ordinance: A SPECIFIC FINDING OF HARDSHIP MUST BE CITED B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or criteria of the Zoning Ordinance for approval of a variance. C. Motion to table. DECISION 2 — Zoning Map Amendment A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1 District to R-4 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 not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. on DECISION 3 — Preliminary Plat A. Motion to approve a preliminary plat for Angel Acres, subject to the following conditions: The preliminary plat is revised to provide potential building sites compliant with all applicable setback requirements. 2. The applicant submit a grading plan illustrating proposed house pad elevations and proposed site alterations, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 3. Connection to sanitary sewer is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City of Dayton. 4. Water service is subject to approval of the City Engineer. 5. All easements are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. The applicant shall satisfy park and trail dedication requirements as a cash fee in lieu of land at the time of final plat approval. 7. Comments of other City Staff. B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. PC. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Ron Wagner Patty Fowler Cheri Kuhn V NAC ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD RlCHARCSC7: A.E r - � 1 y I I 1 11 I 1 1 1 • e..a.. mowo.netemw .,,,,,,,�,� .. timna K@a�ry o °inv1i NO"g'o• •i1 O on art of Gov't Lot 5, attn: Cheri Kuhn •`�'„ TTo 3/1a1o+ ana m•w.e YwYn: P „ I Mul w.lr« rt WMW, YM /111) • a.iwr...wi eonlq See. 36, T. 121, R. 23, — o,..�� ar �+• r"'�"'>° EWCaTEE w�ruuau 7 °ineW °� OOee �n.l. IN! t Count Mhnssoto 1121$104 D.N.A. 1 a201 P.E.O. ,,� .00nwr.....rwr .«.,I.�r��uw"rr—04-001 EXHIBIT B rn � -�� (DO �• O �T r'••h • e..a.. mowo.netemw .,,,,,,,�,� .. timna K@a�ry o °inv1i NO"g'o• •i1 O on art of Gov't Lot 5, attn: Cheri Kuhn •`�'„ TTo 3/1a1o+ ana m•w.e YwYn: P „ I Mul w.lr« rt WMW, YM /111) • a.iwr...wi eonlq See. 36, T. 121, R. 23, — o,..�� ar �+• r"'�"'>° EWCaTEE w�ruuau 7 °ineW °� OOee �n.l. IN! t Count Mhnssoto 1121$104 D.N.A. 1 a201 P.E.O. ,,� .00nwr.....rwr .«.,I.�r��uw"rr—04-001 EXHIBIT 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: Ron Wagner, PE cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator Judy Hudson, Clerk Dan Licht, NAC Date: April 7, 2004 Re: Angel Acres a. Rezoning, b. Variance, c. Preliminary Plat We have reviewed the application and had the following comments: Water and sewer connections for the two new proposed houses would require removal and replacement of sections of 62"d Lane NE. 2. The garage floors of the west house would need to be at 885 or higher requiring fill near the bluff line. 3. The garage floor of the east house would need to be at 886.5 or higher requiring fill near the bluff line. 4. Variance required on bluff setback to proposed houses causes concerns on erosion issues and on general house weight causing slope failures. 5. The Crow River is a Mn/DNR protected waterway and the DNR must review the proposed plat for conformance to their standards. Our recommendation would be to deny approval of the setback for bluff line setback. Civil erMunicipal 295Engineering G:\Municipal\Aotsego2xxx\2500\2004\ot2500angel4f ,J&rveying for ROSENE ANDERLIKZ 6516361311 '7,/08/01 12:20 [1:02/03 No:835 -- RAL baser; l .c� CROW RIVER i \ n u �i 1 6761 O 6'-.1/4 BEND CLE 6- 6' 6" PVC OR 18 12INS t \ \\ ` NTD. 891.0 t 17M 6'x8' TEE 8-18- TEEiNS �� .•! I i r-- wo1e35:rj 6•-6- PVC OR 18 ! 0£1 �s IGor. ha HYD. 890.2 I cry fl n.t-1�J _ Vis' S+9G Y 6" G. V. do 80x r AF YPE PRIVATEp ANS A 1E FOR NOT ER THE CITt! ARRA 71+15 ,. ; I I ; ,tee , I ( r ,, y --- 1 ' +�- i v ` I .__— - -- - • +as it:.4Y1 ITE COMPLETE. AT1 PATH THE 1 , rr co PAwY. Is '� t I I + { +, 1 C-1/8 BEND( D un T ow AMO 'I `` ; '� (+ +� ! .` 4. 1 i{ 41 I I I +. I 8"16" TEE i �.S Inllnum CO -W > I+ ( 1 n 1Mtot. 1 olt at -ot•r mcin Ae 1' .D.P.E. 1 , ( 1 991.77i tin.. G ' I I I I I I - 1 \ t--- �- �D(- 6• :os shc it be a PVC ` 1 �: _ _ 1 -• :• O1 groperly sins, ]lbn o all nes M AN Coo triol `I ,I , I I + I `~-+-�� ..a..l • .iu �:_�� ati.•-0, dl oluities i� II i ► I I - I ce._ j — 0.... Bsddin - sle.otian to • E -SHEET. •. YL`Din! �VI�`141K1 ` 71:f. ITEM 3-3 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 plan ners@nacplanning.corn PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP APPLICATION: Otsego — The Villages; PUD Concept Plan REPORT DATE: 13 April 2004 ACTION DATE: 16 May 2004 NAC FILE: 176.02 — 04. r© CITY FILE: 2004-16 BACKGROUND Solid Ground Development has submitted a concept plan for development of approximately 40 acres located south of the 70th Street corridor and one-quarter mile east of MacIver Avenue. The concept plan includes 74 single family lots and 40 "bayhomes", which are single family dwellings platted in a unit and base lot configuration and managed much like a townhouse development with association maintenance of building exteriors and yard space. The concept plan has been designed by Rich Harrison Site Design Studio based on their coving principals. A similar approach was used in the initial design of the Pheasant Ridge subdivision in the east sewer district, which was later modified by the developer and requirements of plat approval. The subject site is guided for low density residential uses by the Comprehensive Plan within the west sanitary sewer service district. The property is currently zoned A-1, Agriculture Rural Service District. The applicant is seeking only concept plan approval at this time to gain input from the Planning Commission and City Council as to the general acceptability of the proposed land use and site design issues without incurring substantial cost in preparing fully engineered plans. Exhibits: A. Site Location B. Concept Plan ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site for low density residential uses defined as typically single family dwellings with a density of less than four units per gross acre. All of the dwelling units shown on the concept plan are detached single family dwellings, although the ownership arrangement of the bayhomes is unique. The bayhome concept is positive because it provides for a low maintenance housing alternative in a single family format. The density of the uses show on the concept plan is 2.9 dwelling units per gross acres, consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning. The applicant intends to develop the subject site based on the requirements of the R-6 District. The R-6 District allows for single family uses as a permitted use subject to minimum lot requirements of 9,000 square feet in area and 60 feet in width. A PUD -CUP will also be required for platting the bayhomes in a unit and base lot configuration and for application of lot requirements to the proposed coving subdivision design. These issues are discussed below. Surrounding Uses. The table below summarizes uses surrounding the subject site: Direction Land Use Plan Zoning Map Existing Use North LD Residential R-6 District Martin Farms TH East Agriculture A-1 District Agriculture South LD Residential R-4 District Otsego Preserve SF West LD Residential R-6 District Zimmer Farms TH/SF The proposed mix of uses will be compatible with the adjacent land uses. We would recommend that concept plan be revised to provide additional bayhomes in the area of the five single family lots of Block 6. This area will be across from the large eight unit back to back townhouses within Zimmer Farms and at a major access point to 70th Street. The internal access and orientation of the bayhomes will function better at this location. Access. There are to be four access points to the proposed subdivision. One access is provided directly to 70th Street, which is planned as a future minor arterial roadway. This access point aligns with an approved intersection within Martin Farms to the north. Secondary access to the subdivision are provided via street connections with Zimmer Farms to the west at Marlowe Avenue and 67th Street. The developer will need to work with the developer of Otsego Preserve on the construction of 67th Street along the south plat line to ensure the proper alignment and to pay one-half of the construction costs. As discussed during the Otsego Preserve review, 67th Street will be reconstructed with a curvilinear design through this plat. A temporary connection from the new street to the existing corridor east of this parcel will need to be provided. The right-of-way for the existing 67th Street corridor is to be vacated and turned back entirely to this 2 property. The concept plan indicates that this area is to be used for ponding at the rear of ten single family lots creating separation between houses in this project and Otsego Preserve. Circulation with in the subdivision is well laid out with a mix of public streets, sidewalks and trail connections. There is a traffic square within the development designed with a 24 foot wide street section. The width of the street section is sufficient only for one-way traffic in a counterclockwise direction. We would be concerned with direct lot access to the traffic square such as Lot 5, Block 1, essentially requiring vehicles to go well out of their way to travel west. The same issue applies to the two cul-de-sacs with oversized center islands. The concept plan should be revised to eliminate direct lot access to the traffic square and to size the cul-de-sac street sections to a minimum 28 foot width. The proposed bayhomes are to be accessed by private driveways. The main section of these private drives must be designed to a 28 foot width with concrete curb. A minimum setback of 25 feet is required from the building to the back of the private drive curb to the garage face. Sidewalks. The concept plan illustrates a meandering public sidewalk that does not necessarily follow the public right-of-way. The sidewalks are shown on at least one side of all streets. The location of the sidewalk outside of the right-of-way can be accommodated by easement. According to the site designer, the location of the sidewalk has been exaggerated for illustrative purposes. We would recommend that the sidewalk not extend more than 20 feet beyond the right-of-way and that the sidewalk not be closer to a dwelling unit than to the public street to ensure that the majority of the front yard openspace is oriented towards the private residence. Single Family Lot Design. The design of the subdivision based upon coving principals is intended to minimize linear street frontage and impervious surfaces and also to enhance the visual appeal of the development. The single family lots are proposed to meet the intent of the City's R-6 District requirements in terms of lot area and width. All of the single family lots are at least 9,000 square feet in area, with an average lot size of 12,872 square feet (exceeding the City's R-4 District requirements). The lots also are at least 60 feet wide measured at the front setback line. The unique issue with coving designed plats is that the depth of the front setback line varies relative to the right-of- way, which would be established on a development plan by the PUD -CUP. The proposed coving design does create some issues with the radical shape of many the proposed single family lots. One of the main criticisms of coving design is the reduced area of most rear yards, which may be more of the potential buyer's responsibility to be aware of. However, Section 21-7-4 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that side lot lines are to be straight segments at right or radial angles to the public street and that flag lots are not allowed. The concept plan includes many side lot lines with angles and several flag lots. The flag lots may be acceptable to preserve the unique site layout shown on the concept plan provided that the illustrated building elevations are preserved and a minimum width at the right-of-way line is provided for driveway access and snow storage. The concept plan must be revised however to eliminate angle in any side lot lines, which can be problematic for future homeowners. Bayhome Site Design. The proposed detached single family bayhomes are to be subdivided in a unit and base lot configuration. This means that a small lot is created immediately under the dwelling unit with the area surrounding the building platted as an outlot and held in common with the other homeowners as part of an association. The association provides for maintenance of the common openspace and may provide for exterior maintenance of the buildings as well. The bayhome area provides a minimum 9,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, consistent with the intent of the R-6 District. Setbacks. The following setbacks would be proposed as part of the PUD -CUP to apply to the subject site: Front Side Rear Between Bayhme Wetland 70th St. Local Street 65ft. Living Area Gara e 1 Oft. 20ft. 20ft. 40 ft. 25ft. 1 30ft. The developer has requested consideration of a reduced side yard of five feet for garages attached to the single family dwellings. City staff recommends maintaining the standard 10 foot setback to preserve building separation and provide for consistent building locations. This benefits potential buyers with clear expectation as to the location and proximity of the adjacent dwelling. Furthermore, development of other R-6 District lots within the City suggests no need to reduce the side yard setback to accommodate varied house designs. Park and Trail Dedication. The City's park and trail plan does not anticipate dedication of land for public facilities within the subject site. A 7.2 acre park was dedicated to the south within Otsego Preserve. The concept plan identifies a one acre park area at the center of Block 2. This area has minimal public value, but could be maintained as a private homeowners facility subject to adequate development and maintenance plans. Because the trail connections shown between public streets are required to meet block length limits, these areas should be platted as an outlot and dedicated to the City. No credit for park dedication purposes will be granted however. Satisfaction of park and trail dedication requirements will be in the form of a cash fee in lieu of land in effect at the time of final plat approval. .19 CONCLUSION The proposed concept plan submitted by Solid Ground Development is generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, although the platting of the bayhome dwellings is unique. Specific issues requiring input from the Planning Commission and City Council are primarily limited to site issues related to coving design. Our office is recommending approval of the Concept Plan based on the conditions outlined below. A. Motion to approve a PUD Concept Plan for The Villages, subject to the following conditions: Single family lots shall have a minimum area of 9,000 square feet and minimum width of 60 feet measured at the front and rear building lines. 2. There shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet of lot area per bayhome dwelling. 3. The concept plan is revised to substitute bayhome dwellings for the single family lots of Block 6. 4. The traffic square shall be designated for one-way traffic in a counterclockwise pattern with no direct lot access to a one-way street section. 5. Cul-de-sacs shall provide a minimum street section width of 28 feet. 6. Public sidewalks not within public right-of-way shall be located within an easement and are not to extend more than 20 feet beyond the right-of-way and that the sidewalk not be closer to a dwelling unit than to the public street. 7. The concept plan is revised to eliminate all angled side lot lines. Allowance of flag lots is subject to review for sufficient width at the right-of- way line for driveway access, snow storage and on -street parking. 8. The following setbacks shall be applied to the subject site, subject to approval of a PUD -CUP: Front Side Rear Between Bayhome Bayhome To Pvt. Dr. Wetland 70 St. Local Street 65ft. Living Garage loft. 20ft. 20ft. 25ft. 40 ft. 25ft. 30ft. 5 9. Park and trail dedication requirements shall be satisfied as a cash fee in lieu of land in effect at the time of final plat approval. 10. Trail corridors extended between public streets shall be platted within minimum 30 foot wide outlots and dedicated to the City in addition to park and trail dedication requirements. 11. Comments of other City Staff. B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. C. Motion to table. PC. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur Ron Wagner Jeffery Bock Rick Harrison John Kolles I -NAC ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD rM 6 OL . . . . . . . . . . . Ilk, FINT F c 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: Ron Wagner, PE cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator Judy Hudson, Clerk Dan Licht, NAC Rick Harrison, Rick Harrison Site Design Studio Jeff Bock; Solid Ground Development John Kolles Date: April 14, 2004 Re: The Village — Concept Plan We have reviewed the Concept Plan and had the following comments: Many of the horizontal curves within the plat do not meet the minimum radius of 250'. 2. Are the cul-de-sacs one-way cul-de-sacs? If not, the width of street does not meet 28' minimum. 3. Cul-de-sacs are shown with center median. Planning Commission and Council should review how these areas are maintained. 4. Several flag lots are within the plat and are below the standard street frontage required. 5. More than four homes are located on driveways or private streets. City Standard has been all driveways or private streets must have 28 foot wide roadway if 4 or more homes are served by the road. 6. Sidewalks and paths meander through right-of-way which isn't an issue, but generally the sidewalks and paths should be closer to the road/curb than to homes. The large expanses of right-of-way create concerns over: a. Who maintains — homeowners, association or City. Civil e3"Municipal �� Engineering G:\Municipal\Aotsego2xxx\2277\ot2277Misscoves.,i6gnd Surveying for b. Homeowners will likely end up treating the large expanses of right-of-way as front yards an install items which are generally not allowed in right-of-way (i.e. trees, gazebos, swings, gardens, etc). c. With sidewalks very close to homes some homeowners become very wary of strangers. Some paths are within 10' of the front door while 45' from curb. 7. The square round -a -bout has traffic calming qualities, but raises question for traffic related issues. Is it one way? How will it be signed? What are the speed limits (10 mph, maybe 5 mph)? A temporary connection (can be rural and gravel) needs to be maintained to 67th Street. This must be on the Developers property. This will require Lot 11 Block 4 to wait until property to east develops before it is buildable. 9. The western 500' of 67"' Street is planned to be upgraded to urban residential street standards. This concept shows 4 lots requiring sewer and water from 67t1i Street. The Developer of this plat will be required to pay Y2of the cost for the street and utility upgrade at time of final plat and must send information regarding the locations of the sewer and water stubs required. The City will reimburse the Developer of Otsego Preserve. Our recommendation would be to deny approval of the Concept Plan. G:\Municipal\Aotsego2xxx\2277\ot2277Misscoves.doc Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. ITEM 4_2 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: 13 April 2004 RE: Otsego — Zoning Ordinance; Temporary Signs NAC FILE: 176.08 — 04.07 We have revised the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment pertaining to temporary signs to address the comments raised at the Planning Commission meeting on 5 April 2004. These changes include: ■ Increasing the display period for temporary commercial signs from 10 days to 21 days to be consistent with that allowed for temporary public signs. ■ Limiting the number of public temporary signs to not more than one per property at any one time. ■ There was discussion of allowing electronic message signs provided the text does not scroll or change. This presents a major enforcement issue as setting these signs to scroll or flash is likely a few simple key strokes. On this basis, we have not changed the provisions prohibiting electronic signs to allow further discussion. This issue will be discussed again at the Planning Commission meeting on 19 April 2004. PC. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Andy MacArthur ORDINANCE NO.: 2004 - CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 37 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE (SIGNS) REGARDING TEMPORARY MESSAGE SIGNS AND SPECIAL MESSAGE SIGNS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN.- Section RDAIN: Section 1. Section 20-37-3.A.3 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. Temporary Signs: Temporary signs announcing any public, charitable, educational or religious event or function, located entirely within the premises of that institution shall be allowed, provided that: a. Freestanding or freestanding portable signs are prohibited. Only wall mounted signs or banners shall be allowed as temporary signs. b. The sign area may not exceed thirty two (32) square feet. C. The sign may be illuminated, but flashing signs or electronic changing messages are prohibited. d. A temporary sign may be displayed for a period not more than twenty one (21) days prior to the event and shall be removed within three (3) days after the event. Not more than one sign shall be displayed per property at any one time. e. The Zoning Administrator may order the immediate removal of any special message sign that is not maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. Section 2. Section 20-37-5.C.6 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. Special Message Signs. Special message signs may be allowed on a temporary basis by an administrative permit subject to the following provisions: a. Freestanding or freestanding portable signs are prohibited. Only wall mounted signs or banners shall be allowed as special message signs. b. The sign area may not exceed thirty two (32) square feet. C. The signs may be illuminated, but flashing signs or electronic changing messages are prohibited. d. An individual special message sign may be displayed for a period not to exceed ten (21) days and not more than one (1) sign may be displayed per property at any one time. e. Administrative permits: One (1) sign permit per property or one sign permit per tenant with an exclusive exterior entrance within a multiple occupancy building shall be allowed per calendar year. 2. In addition to the sign permit allowed by Section 20-37- 5.C.6.e of this Section, one (1) additional sign permit may be issued within ninety (90) days of issuance of a certificate of occupancy or other documentation satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator of new occupancy of a property, building or tenant space. 3. The owner of the property on which the sign is to be located or their designated responsible party shall endorse in writing all applications for a special message sign and shall be responsible for the proper location, maintenance and removal of the sign. 4. The applicant 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. 5. The Zoning Administrator removal of any special maintained in accordance 2 may order the immediate message sign that is not with the provisions of this section at the administrative permit holders' expense. Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the Otsego City Council this day of , 2004. CITY OF OTSEGO Larry Fournier, Mayor ATTEST: Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk 3 ITEM 4_3 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.corn MEMORANDUM TO: Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 13 April 2004 RE: Otsego- Zoning Ordinance; Curb Cuts/Access NAC FILE: 176.08 — 04.05 The Planning Commission discussed a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding lot access at their meeting on 5 April 2004. The Planning Commission directed a number of changes to the draft language and that it be brought back for further discussion at their meeting 19 April 2004. A draft Ordinance amendment reflecting the comments of the Planning Commission is attached: • Clarified that lots in the A-1 and A-2 District are allowed one additional access by administrative permit. ■ Allowance of a second access by administrative permit applies only to rural section streets. • Reduced the minimum frontage for parcels qualifying for an administrative permit from 450 feet to 250 feet. The minimum frontage is intended to insure adequate spacing between access points and from side lot lines. ■ Included reference to the County Engineer when applicable. PC. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson Tim Rochel Ron Wagner Andy MacArthur ORDINANCE NO.: 2004 - CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE (OFF- STREET PARKING) REGARDING SITE ACCESS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 20-21-4.H.11 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 11. Number of Curb Cuts: a. All property shall be entitled to one (1) access from a public street. b. Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, and multiple family residential uses shall be allowed one (1) access for each one hundred twenty five (125) feet of street frontage, subject to compliance with Section 20-21-4.H.7 of the Zoning Ordinance and approval of the City Engineer. C. Townhouse and two family uses shall be allowed one (1) access per dwelling unit. d. Single Family residential uses shall be limited to one (1) access per property, except as provided for below: (1) Lots within the A-1 or A-2 District shall be allowed two (2) accesses per property by administrative permit, provided that: (a) The lot shall have an area of five (5) acres or greater. (b) The lot shall have a minimum frontage of 250 feet to a public street with a rural section design (no curb). (c) The location of all access points shall be subject to compliance with Section 20-21-4.H.7 of the Zoning Ordinance and approval of the City Engineer and the County Engineer when applicable. (d) The design of the lot access shall conform to the specifications established by the Engineering Manual. (2) Lots within all other Districts or those in the A-1 and A-2 District not meeting the requirements for an administrative permit outlined in Section 20-21-4.H.11.c(1) shall be allowed not more than two (2) access per property by conditional use permit, provided that: (a) There is a demonstrated need for more than one lot access due to physical site constraints (soils, steep slopes, significant vegetation, ponds orwetlands) orthe location of existing principal buildings. (b) The lot shall a have a minimum of 150 feet of frontage to a public street. (c) The location of all access points shall be subject to compliance with Section 20-21-4.H.7 of the Zoning Ordinance and approval of the City Engineer and the County Engineer when applicable. (d) The design of the lot access shall conform to the specifications established by the Engineering Manual. Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the Otsego City Council this day of , 2004. CITY OF OTSEGO BY.- Larry Y:Larry Fournier, Mayor ATTEST: Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk 0