03-03-03 PCNORTHWEST 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 - updated
T0: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 26 February 2003
RE.: Otsego - Park Dedication Study
FILE NO.: 176.08 - 02.01
BACKGROUND
Our office has been directed by the City Administrator to prepare an evaluation of
Otsego's present dedication requirements for park and trails. This information is
intended to determine if Otsego's present requirements are fair to developers and
adequate for addressing the park needs of the community related to new development.
It must be emphasized that case law from Dolan v. Tigard requires the City's dedication
requirements be related to the benefit of the effected property.
The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship of the City's existing
dedication fees to actual land acquisition and development costs. The basis of this
analysis is raw land costs and projected improvement costs. The results of the study
will illustrate how the City's present fees should be adjusted, if necessary, to meet the
City's future park and trail needs related to new development.
Exhibits:
A. Park Dedication Survey
B. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
ANALYSIS
Existing Dedication. For both residential and commercial/industrial dedications, it is
the City Council's decision, with recommendation from the Park and Recreation
Commission, whether land, cash or a combination thereof will be accepted. Existing
requirements for Park Dedication are outlined in Section 21-7-18 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. The City last updated its park and trail dedication requirements in August
1995.
Residential park dedication requirement are 10 percent of the gross area being
subdivided or a $950.00 per unit cash fee in lieu of land. Commercial and industrial
properties are required to dedicate 10 percent of the gross area being subdivided or 10
percent of the fair market value of the property in an undeveloped state. Fair market
value may be based upon appraisals, purchase agreements, comparable transactions
or other records the City may rely upon.
Otsego also requires a separate dedication for City trails, which was established in 1995
as well. The requirements of Section 21-7-18 of the Subdivision Ordinance require that
any proposed trail conform to the City's bikeway plan. If no trails are proposed, the
developer must pay a $125.00 per unit fee in lieu of land. As such, Otsego's total park
and trail dedication fee in lieu of land is $1,075.00 per unit for residential uses.
Surrounding Jurisdictions. The table attached as Exhibit B illustrates the park
dedication requirements of several cities to the northwest of the Twin Cities. All of the
communities require a 10 percent land dedication for residential subdivisions. There is
significant variation between the communities in terms of cash dedications for parks in
lieu of land, ranging from $700.00 to $1,300.00. Eight of the twelve surveyed
communities, including Otsego, require commercial or industrial development to
dedicate land for parks. Most require dedication of a percentage of raw land or a
specified cash fee in lieu of land, as does Otsego.
In terms of trail dedication, only five of the 12 communities surveyed, including Otsego
required a separate trail dedication. Of these, Albertville requires dedication of trails
only when shown on their trail plan, which is then credited towards total park dedication
and Monticello requires sidewalks on one side of all new streets.
Park Land Acquisition and Development. The following paragraphs analyze the
costs of acquiring and preparing a parcel for development. The City would incur similar
expenses if it were to elect to accept fees in lieu of land and acquire park lands on it
own. As such, the following factors, based upon informal discussions with developers
active in the City, must be considered in evaluating a "per unit" park dedication fee in
lieu of land.
For comparison purposed only, Crimson Ponds, Heritage Hills, Pheasant Ridge and
Prairie Creek subdivisions were used as examples. Heritage Hills was developed with
one -acre minimum lot sizes and individual on-site treatment and water systems. The
other three subdivisions were all platted with urban sized lots within the East Sanitary
Sewer Service District and are provided municipal sanitary sewer and water services.
Raw Land Costs. In discussions with area developers, it was determined that
raw land in the east sanitary sewer service district was selling between $10,000
and $16,000 per acre in 1998. In the following analysis of raw land cost per lot,
the $16,000 estimate is used.
Per Unit Dedication. The City currently requires a cash dedication in lieu of
land based upon a per unit fee for residential subdivisions. This method allows
for simple calculation of park dedication fees in lieu of land from project to project
based upon average raw land values and the assumption of low density
development. The analysis above demonstrates that a flat park fee does not
recognize the varying land values and/or development intensities occurring in the
community. The following formula illustrates if the park dedication fee may need
to be adjusted to reflect the relationship and benefit between park development
and raw land values. Land in the east sewer district was sold at approximately
$16,000 per acre five years ago. Recent land sales in the west sanitary sewer
service district have been in the range of $40,000 to $63,000 per acre.
Estimated
Area
# of
Density
Cost of Raw
Cost of Raw
Single Family
Lots
Raw Land
Land
Land Per Lot
Cash
Density Range
(per acre)
Dedication in
Heritage
64.5 ac.
38
0.59
$16,000
$27,158
Hills
Lieu of Land
Acre
Crimson
120.0 ac.
180
1.50
$16,000
$10,667
Ponds
x
10%
_
$1,600
/
Prairie
62.7 ac.
118
1.88
$16,000
$8,502
Creek
$710
Pheasant
79.1 ac.
178
2.25
$16,000
$7,110
Ridge
=
$1,600 to
Per Unit Dedication. The City currently requires a cash dedication in lieu of
land based upon a per unit fee for residential subdivisions. This method allows
for simple calculation of park dedication fees in lieu of land from project to project
based upon average raw land values and the assumption of low density
development. The analysis above demonstrates that a flat park fee does not
recognize the varying land values and/or development intensities occurring in the
community. The following formula illustrates if the park dedication fee may need
to be adjusted to reflect the relationship and benefit between park development
and raw land values. Land in the east sewer district was sold at approximately
$16,000 per acre five years ago. Recent land sales in the west sanitary sewer
service district have been in the range of $40,000 to $63,000 per acre.
Estimated
Required
Per Acre
Single Family
Per Unit Cash
Raw Land
10% Land
Cash
Density Range
Dedication in
Value Per
Dedication
Contribution
(units/acre)
Lieu of Land
Acre
$16,000
x
10%
_
$1,600
/
1.50 - 2.25
=
$1,070 to
$710
$40,000
x
10%
_
$4,000
/
2.50 — 4.00
=
$1,600 to
$1,000
$63,000
x
10%
_
$6,300
/
2.50-4.00
=
$2,520 to
$1,575
Notes:
1. Estimated raw land cost based upon developer interviews.
2. Average density estimates based on Prairie Creek, Pheasant Ridge and Crimson Ponds Preliminary Plats
3. Density estimate based on concepts for West Sanitary Sewer Service District.
Based upon the above analysis, a park dedication fee in lieu of land between
approximately $700 and $ 1,070 is justifiable if land were sold at 1998 values. .
This range of per unit park dedication fees in lieu of land would address Otsego's
existing park and trail dedication fee ($1,075 per unit), as well as being
comparable to those of surrounding Cities illustrated by Exhibit B. However, the
increase value of developable land is such that the existing cash fee in lieu of
land is not adequate to cover the City's acquisition costs if comparable lands
were to be purchased for park development. It is recommended that the cash
fee in lieu of land be increased to at least $1,600 per unit to account for the
increase in land prices.
Utilization of a fixed per unit fee does not automatically account for inflationary
land values, differences in land value in various areas of a community, or
variations in development densities. A final consideration not incorporated as
part of the City's existing flat fee is an expense for developing the park and trail
system, including land preparation, equipment, and construction. These factors
can be included within the fee but must be justified based upon reliable
estimates.
Improvement Costs. The City adopted a Comprehensive Parks and Trails Plan
in 2001 that outlined future park and trail locations to expand the existing system.
The Parks and Trails plan basically anticipates developing new neighborhood
parks for each square mile of new development and trails along all collector and
minor arterial roadways. The plan also programs the need to establish a second
community class park in the western areas of the City.
The City prepared plans and specifications for a neighborhood park to be
constructed adjacent to Otsego Elementary. This park, located within the east
sanitary sewer service district is intended to be the prototype for all future
neighborhood parks built in areas of new development.
The lowest bid price received for construction of School Knoll Park in 2002 was
$408,000. Assuming a one square mile service area with an average density of
2.5 dwellings per acre, these neighborhood parks would serve 804 households.
As such, development costs for construction of new neighborhood park facilities
would be equal to $507 per unit. Added to the proposed $1,600 cash fee in lieu
of land to address land acquisition, an appropriate cash fee in lieu of land would
be equal to $2,100 per dwelling unit for both acquisition and development.
Medium/High Density Dedication. The existing park dedication requirements
do not distinguish residential dedication based upon density. As such, the park
land dedication for medium and high density uses is the same as low density
single family uses. Because there is a corresponding increase between higher
density and impact to the City's park system, many communities will establish
higher park land dedication requirements for medium or high density
developments with a corresponding fee in lieu of land.
The following table illustrates the impact in density changes for a hypothetical 40
acre development in terms of park land per household. As the present
dedication is based upon the impact of a development at urban single family
density, there is a diminishing return on net park land per household for medium
and high density developments. Therefore, the land accepted for parks from
medium and high density developments may not be adequate for actual park
demands generated by the concentrated households.
Land Area
Gross
Density
Households
Land Dedication
Land
Land/H.H.
40 ac.
1.0 du/ac
40
4 ac.
0.1 ac.
40 ac.
2.5 du/ac
100
4 ac.
0.04 ac.
40 ac.
5.0 du/ac
200
4 ac.
0.02 ac.
40 ac.
7.5 du/ac
300
4 ac.
0.01ac.
Based on this information, the following graduated scale can be used to
determine park land dedication requirements. Except for the lowest density
subdivisions, the graduated scale provides more a more equal land to household
ratio. It is recommended that the Subdivision Ordinance be amended to include
this graduated park land dedication requirement.
Gross ��La�ndDed�ication�40
ac. ExampleDensity
and
Land/H.H.
0>3 du/ac.
10%
4.0 ac.
0.10-0.03
3>6 du/ac.
13%
5.2 ac.
0,04-0.02
6>10 du/ac.
17%
6.8 ac.
0.03-0.02
10 du/ac. and over
20%
8.0 ac.
0.02 - NA
Trail Dedication. As noted above, Otsego is one of a few area communities that
require a separate dedication for trails. Our office and the City Attorney have
discussed whether separate exactions for parks and trails are justifiable. In
consideration of applicable case law, it would be our recommendation that the
exactions be combined into a single dedication fee in lieu of land. Further, the
provisions Albertville has provided for in terms of providing trails where indicated
on the trial plan and deducting the cost from the park dedication would also be
appropriate.
Commercial/Industrial Dedication. The City of Otsego currently requires a park
dedication from commercial and industrial developments. The basis of such an
exaction is that employees of a business within the City may benefit from the
location of parks, trails and/or recreation programs. The present requirements
provide for dedication of 10 percent of the gross land being subdivided or a cash
fee of 10 percent of the fair market value of the undeveloped property in lieu of
land.
However, because the City typically would not plan for park facilities in areas
planned for commercial or industrial development, the cash fee in lieu of land is
most often accepted. Because the value of commercial or industrial property is
significantly higher than residential land prices, the cash fees can be significant.
This large amount for park dedication is potentially burdensome from a economic
development standpoint. Given the importance of developing commercial and
industrial land uses to support the local tax base and use of reserved sewer and
water capacity, the City may consider eliminating the fee or reducing the present
requirement for either or both commercial and industrial land to five percent.
If park dedication requirements are to be maintained for commercial and
industrial properties, we are recommending that a flat fee per acre be
established. Such a fee, like that for residential subdivisions, will aid in
calculating the park dedication requirements and ensure equal treatment of
different properties. Improvements for trails or other park facilities would be
credited to the applicable fee.
The table below outlines a proposed park dedication per acre fee in lieu of land
for commercial and industrial subdivisions based recent commercial and
industrial examples. Again, it is recommended that consideration be given to
reducing the commercial and industrial land or cash fee in lieu of land
requirement to five percent.
CONCLUSION
Because of the Dolan case law, the City needs to evaluate its park and trail dedication
requirements regularly to verify that they are equitable and related to the benefit to the
impacted properties. This is a good practice to because it also helps determine if the
City's park and trail dedication requirements are adequate to cover the costs of
developing a park and trail system to serve new development.
Estimated
Required Per Acre
Raw Land
Land Cash Fee in
Value Per
Dedication Lieu of Land
Acre
Otsego5%
$70,000
x
_ $3,500
_ $7,000
Waterfront
10%
5% _ $693
1-94 West
$13,868
X
10% = $1,387
Otsego
$11,607
X
5% _ $580
_ $1,161
Business Park
10%
1. Based on actual purchase agreements.
CONCLUSION
Because of the Dolan case law, the City needs to evaluate its park and trail dedication
requirements regularly to verify that they are equitable and related to the benefit to the
impacted properties. This is a good practice to because it also helps determine if the
City's park and trail dedication requirements are adequate to cover the costs of
developing a park and trail system to serve new development.
Based upon the analysis outlined herein, the present combined fee is likely not an
accurate indicator of the land costs the City would incur to acquire parkland.
Furthermore, the present fixed per unit fee does not account for development costs. As
such, the following changes to the City's current park and trail dedication requirements
are recommended:
The cash fee in lieu of land for residential uses should be raised to $2,100 per
unit to account for land acquisition costs and development of neighborhood parks
to serve new development in accordance with the City's park and trail plan and
specs for a prototype neighborhood park.
2. The existing cash fees in lieu of land for park land and trails should be combined
into a single fee, with credits for construction of any facilities shown on the City's
Parks and Trails plan.
3. A graduated scale for park land dedication should be adopted to ensure a
consistent land to household ratio for residential developments with varied
density.
4. Consideration is given to reducing park dedication requirements for commercial
and industrial developments in support of economic development goals and to
establishing a basic cash fee in lieu of land.
PC. Mike Robertson
,Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
PARK AND TRAIL FEE INVENTORY OF OTSEGO AREA
Northwest Assnciaterl (nn-qi i1tantc Inr-
February 712000' ---'-'-'-'
CITY
SINGLE FAMILY
TLand
COMMERCIAL/
TRAIL OR
RESIDENTIAL PARK
INDUSTRIAL
SIDEWALK
DEDICATION (per unit)
PARK DEDICATION
DEDICATION
( Cash
Land
Cash
Albertville
10%
$1,300
commercial 10% commercial 10%1
Trails as
industrial 5% industrial 5% of
required by
fair market value
Plan, deducted
from Park Fees
Big Lake
10%
$1,300
Brooklyn Park
$1,300
$4,000 per acre
Clear Lake
10%
$750
$150
Clearwater
10%
fee set by
Council
Dayton
10%
$1,100
Elk River
As required
$1,200
As required by
commercial
by Plan,
Plan, equal to
$3,000/
equal to cash
cash contribution
industrial $2,000
contribution
based on fair
per acre
based on fair
market land
market land
value
value
Maple Grove
10%
$1,125
7112%
commercial
$3,600/
industrial $2,850
per acre
Monticello
10%
10% raw
Sidewalks on
land cost
one side of
street
Otsego
10%
$950
10%
$175
Plymouth
10%
$1,600
10%
$4700 per acre
Rogers
10%
$700
10%
commercial
$4,0001
industrial $2,000
per acre
St. Michael
10%
$1,100
10%
commercial
$200 for
$3,000/
residential
industrial $2,000
_
per acre
EIHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.:
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
OTSEGO TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
NEW SUBDIVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 21-7-18 of the Otsego Subdivision Ordinance is hereby
amended to read as follows:
21-7-18: PUBLIC SITES AND OPEN SPACES (PARK LAND DEDICATION):
A. As a prerequisite to final plat approval, and at the sole determination by the
City, applicants and/or developers shall dedicate land for parks,
playgrounds, public open spaces or trails and/or shall make a cash
contribution to the City's Park and Multi -Purpose Trail Funds roughly related
to the anticipated effect of the plat on the park and trail system. The
amounts listed in this section are the City's best estimate of the dedication or
cash contribution needed to offset the effect on those systems. The
requirement may also be met with a combination of land and cash if
approved by the City Council.
B. The land dedicated for parks and trails shall be in addition to property
dedicated for streets, alleys easements, or other publicways. Land to be
dedicated shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use as determined by
the City and shall be at a location convenient to the public to be served.
Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed park and recreation
areas shall include size, shape, topography, geology, hydrology, tree cover,
access and location.
C. The applicant shall confer with City Staff and the Parks and Recreation
Adv+sepfCommittee at the time the preliminary plat is under consideration,
to secure a recommendation as to the location of any property that should be
dedicated to the public, such as parks, playgrounds or other public property.
The preliminary plat shall show the location and dimensions of all areas to
be dedicated in this manner. Such contribution requirement
recommendation(s) will be sent to the Planning Commission for review and
comment and subsequently to the City Council for their approval.
D. When a proposed park, playground, recreational area, or other public
ground has been indicated in the City's official map or Comprehensive Plan
EXHIBIT B
and is located in whole or in part within a proposed plat, it shall be dedicated
to the appropriate governmental unit. If the applicant elects not to dedicate
an area in excess of the land required hereunder for a proposed public site
that the City feels is in the public interest to acquire, the City may consider
acquiring the excess land through purchase or condemnation.
E. Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calculating
density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and shall be in addition to
and not in lieu of open space requirements for planned unit developments.
F. Where private open space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a
proposed subdivision, such areas shall not be used for credit against the
requirement of dedication for park and recreation purposes, unless the City
Council finds it is in the public interest to do so.
G. The City, upon consideration of the particular type of development, may
require that a lesser parcel of land should be dedicated due to particular
features of the development. In such cases, a cash contribution shall be
required above the land dedication to insure that compensation is received
for the full amount of the impact on the City's park and trail system.
H. Land dedication.
residentialIn all new subdivisions -
.. , be d-ed
iGated feF pub! eGFeatiGR spaG
public use as -established by City CC) -nr-.;l resel4on. Thp H
peFG?nt of the grGss-aFea-subdivided shall be in
-e • by the City ;c)unGil as suitable and n ,
alth, safety,,- - -
eneral welfare of the City. wher
land dedication is required, the.following formula will be used
determine the dedication requirement:
Density: Units Per Acre
Land Dedication Percentage
0.00>2.99 du/ac.
10%
3.00>5.99 du/ac.
13%
6.00>9.99 du/ac.
17%
10.00 du/ac. and over
20%
2
2. In all commercial or industrial subdivisions where land dedication is
required the following formula will be used to determine the
dedication requirement:
Five (5) percent of the gross area of the land being platted.
When a subdivision is proposed, the Developer shall make a dedication of
land for public park use, or may the City may require a fee in lieu of
such land dedication as follows:
ResidentialDevelopment: •• peF dwelling
0-.- effeGtive date ef this amendment -.and fer - °' Gf en -
••0 - __ - a—
effeGtive date of this amendment and fc)ree _ e --
the effeGtive date of this amendment and thereafte . $2,100.00 p
10000
dwelling unit.
Z Commercial and 'RdustF Development, 10% of the gross area b
subdivided, or i •% of the fair- ef the undeveloped land.
FeF purposes - -
be determined by
mparmarket transaGtiens or other pertinent reGOFds, at the dis nn nfth
the property on the date of plat appFeval. $3,500.00 per gross acre.
able
Industrial Development: $700.00 per gross acre.
4. Whether land or cash will be required is left solely to the discretion of
the City. Said amounts are the City's best estimate of the effect of the
subdivision on the City's park system.
All land proposed for trail dedication shall be subject to the
recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Adv+seryBeard Commission
and the approval of the City Council. Such lands must also correspond and
conform with the City's b*eway Comprehensive Parks and Trails plan.
�• ..
.- a ... :- .- -.- _ •- - e-
LK. The City may elect at its sole discretion to receive a combination of cash,
land, and development of the land for park use. The potential cash donation
generated by the dedicated land and/or the value of the development of land
shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from the cash
contribution required by the Subsection I above.
ML. Planned unit developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or
land contributions in accordance with this Section based upon the
percentage of land devoted to the various uses.
NM. Park cash contributions are to be calculated and established at the time of
final plat approval. The Council may require the payment at the time of final
plat approval or at a later time under terms agreed upon in the development
agreement. Delayed payment may include interest at a rate set by the City.
ON. Cash contributions for parks and trails shall be deposited in either the City's
Park Fund or multi-purpose trail fund and shall only be used for park
acquisition or development, and trail acquisition or development as
determined by the City. Additionally, said funds may be utilized anywhere
within the City park and trail systems.
R0. Wetlands, ponding areas, and drainageways accepted by the City may not
be considered in the park land and/or cash contribution to the City.
OP. Property being replatted with the same number of lots and same number of
dwelling units shall be exempt from all park land dedication requirements. If
the number of lots or the number of dwelling units is increased, or if land
outside the previously recorded plat is added, then the park land dedication
and/or park cash contributions shall be based on the additional lots and on
the additional land being added to the plat. If the additional land does not
create additional lots, then each one-third (1/3) acre added shall be
considered a new lot for purposes of calculating the dedication
requirements.
RQ. When land is dedicated and deeded to the City for park purposes, it shall be
the responsibility of the City to maintain such dedicated property.
SR. Land dedication to the City shall be in the form of lots or outlots with
approved lot and block numbers.
TS. If the applicant or developer does not believe that the estimates contained in
this section fairly and accurately represent the effect of ti �e subdivision on
the park or trail system of the City, the applicant or developer may request
that the City prepare in indepth study of the effect of the subdivision on the
park and trail system and an estimate of that effect in money and/or land. All
4
costs of such study shall be borne by the developer or applicant. If the
developer or applicant requests the preparation of such a study, no
application for development submitted shall be deemed complete until the
study has been completed and a determination is made as to the appropriate
amount of land or money necessary to offset the effects of the subdivision.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this day of March, 2003.
CITY OF OTSEGO
Larry Fournier, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
5
NAC
FAX N0. :9525959937 Mar. 03 2003 08:22AM P2i6
Damon f arber Associates l andreape Arehiiecfure
Site Planning
And Urban benign
Dote: I-i•iday, ]'',bruary 2d, 2003
TII: Dan Licht
Northmiest Associated Consultants
Arbor Creek Park Dedication
In response to your request to comment on the Arbor Creek .Park Dedication Plan, Damon Farber
Associates has prepared the following recommendations.
The Nypical park program irrclr�dc.s the follolving issues and Concerns:
1, Vehicular Access & Parking — For a public park to succeed, it must be easily accessible by the
entire community. A vehicular entrance and on-site parking must be provided. Tt appears from the
Preliminary Plat that this access is intended to occur along 77 Street NE, Unfortunately, there also
appears to be a few inherent difficulties associated with this entrance, such as, crossing the existing
ditch and avoiding the two proposed ponds, The existing ditch will need to be crossed via an
expensive vehicular bridge and/or culvert. The driveway into the park, if even possible, would need
to avoid the two proposed ponds. Another concern regarding the eventual placement of the parking
lot is the issue regarding public safety. For the park to remain safe, the police department should be
provided a visual access to monitor the park. Easy access and clear viewsheds throughout the park
should be provided. However, the final location of the parking lot (and parking lot lights) will need
also need to be sensitive toward the neighboring residential houses.
2. Pedestrian Access - . Similar to the vehicular access, the pedestrian entries are significant in
encouraging community participation. It appears that the two pedestrian access points suggested;
one along 77 St. and Lander Ave NE, provide the neighborhood reasonable access to the park,
However, these pedestrian entrances must be graded to ensure that a. future ADA accessible
recreational trail can be built. It appears that the grades proposed from the Lander Avenue access
point should be adjusted to meet this requirement.
Active Recreation Opportunities: The City may, in the future, utilize the park for active
recreation uses, 'l.'hese activities may include soccer fields, baseball fields, tennis courts, basketball
courts, jogging trails and/or playground structures. Unfortunately, these activities generally require
relatively flat surfaces. The grading plan for the Arbor Creek development should provide the park
:kdffi as wide and flat a surface pad as sensibly achievable. The alternative is to construct retaining
wall to provide the necessary flat area. Unfortunately, this would increase the cost of the park
construction budget.
4. Passive Recreation Opportunities: These opportunities may include walking trails, benches,
picnic shelters, and simple open lawns. Fortunately, these activities require less area than many
active recreation uses and don't always need to be on a flat surface. These uses could be
FROM :NAC
FAX NO. :9525959837 Mar. 03 2003 08:22AM P3/6
Arhor Creek Park. Dedication
Damon FarherA.cmcialesRecommendofion
Page 2
accommodated on this site; however, an overall flatter site would allow more design flexibility in
the future,
5. Preservation of cxi,lting environmental assets: Although it appears that there is not an abundance
of existing trees found on the site, every effort should be offered to ensure that as many existing
trees as possible are saved.
6. Screening of obstructive views: Additional plantings should be provided to help screen
undesirable views of the Waste Water Treatment plant_ It might also be desirable to construct
safety fencing around the facility to limit access andprevent the facility from becoming an
attractive nuisance.
verall Recommendation:
Alternative #1
Move the vehicular access frons 77`h.Street to Lander Ave. This could easily be accomplished
eliminating the lot adjacent to the Lander pedestrian entrance (this lot could, in return, be 'reby
gained
77'x' Street). A pedestrian access point, nevertheless, from 771h Street would still be desirable,
The Lander access point would effectively avoid the potentially costly vehicular crossing of t
ditch, as well as needing to circumvent the two proposed ponds. The new access would also he existing
clear and direct approach into the park. It would, in effect, be easier for the police and surrouProvide
nding a
neighborhood to monitor. Finally, this access point could potentially be closer to many of theros e
recreational activities possible along the flatter portion (south side) of the park site. p P ctrve
Alternative #1
Move the vehicular access from 77'h Street to the 761h Street cul -de -.vac. This is a slight modification
alternative #1. The additional benefits include: 1,) the addition of another pedestrian access point off f
Lander Avenue. 2.) The vehicular access point might be easier for the community to find_ of
Alternative #,?
Relocate the proposed park to the center of the detivlopment. (Please refer to the attached alternative
This alternative becomes more accessible for the entire neighborhood. Instead of tucking the park in he
corner of the development, the recommended park location becomes an integral component of the he
development. In effect, it becomes a more attractive feature for many prospective home-bu ers.
y
Accessibility into the park would be available from a multitude of directions, in addition, the Police
Department would have a much easier assignment of monitoring the park.
The park would also visually break up the drive through the development. Instead of seeinghouses
side across from each other, there would be a greater opportunity to introduce a green public
oasis side by
benefit from. Furthermore, more houses would benefit from overlooking the park fro n house.
their h for all to
se.
In summary, the proposed park could actually become a significant marketing tool for both the
developer.... instead of a leftover otttlot. City and the
FRL-M : NAC
FAX N0. :9525959837 Mar. 03 2003 08:23AM P4i6
Alternative # 1
Arbor Creek Park Dedication Plan February 28, 2003
FF --nM : NAC
FAX N0. :9525959837 Mar. 03 2003 08:23AM P5/6
Alternative #2
Arbor Creek Park Dedication Plan
February 28, 2003
i
FRI^M : NAC
FAX N0. :9525959837 Mar. 03 2003 29:23AN PG/G
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Alternative #3
Arbor Creek Park Dedication Plan February 28, 2003
"Rv RT SSI t.%
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
RE: Otsego - Arbor Creek; Rezoning/Preliminary Plat
REPORT DATE: 27 February 2003 APPLICATION DATE: 11 February 2003
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 03.05 CITY FILE: 2003-05
BACKGROUND
Emmerich Development Corporation has submitted plans for a single family residential
subdivision entitled Arbor Creek, which consists of 496 lots, three outlots and a parcel for a
future neighborhood park. The subject site is approximately 208 acres in size and located
on either side of MacIver Avenue south of 801h Street. The subject site is located within the
west sanitary sewer service area and is guided for low density residential land uses by the
Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned A-1, Agriculture Rural Service Area.
The subdivision involves applications for the following:
1. Zoning Map amendment to R-4, Residential Urban Single Family District and R-6,
Residential Townhouse, Quadraminium, and Low Density Multiple Family District.
2. Preliminary Plat,
3. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).
The public hearing to consider the subdivision request also included applications for PUD -
CUP for Shoreland Overlay District lots less than 75 feet in width and a variance from the
street design standards outlined by the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant has worked
with City Staff to make modifications to the subdivision design such that these two
applications are no longer necessary.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location. C. Grading Plan.
B. Preliminary Plat. D. Utility Plan.
ANALYSIS
Zoning. The subject site is currently zoned A-1 District consistent with the interim land
use plan provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Areas within 300 feet of Otsego Creek
are also within the Shoreland Overlay District. The subject site is proposed to be
subdivided for low density residential land use under two different zoning districts. The
area of the subject site west of MacIver Avenue is proposed to be zoned R-6 District, which
allows for small -lot single family uses. The area east of MacIver Avenue is proposed to be
zoned R-4 District where more traditional suburban sized single family lots are required. In
considering requests for rezoning, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the
Planning Commission and City Council to consider the following factors as part of their
decision:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment. The subject site is planned for low density residential uses to be served
by municipal sanitary sewer and water service by the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan defines low density residential units as single family, two family
and small scale townhouse uses with less than four units per gross acre. The
proposed development consists of single family lots with an average lots size of
13,385 square feet and a gross density of 2.4 dwellings per acre. The type of use
and density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The following policies may
be cited specifically in support of the requested rezoning.
• A mix of housing types in a manner consistent with the City's land use plan
shall be developed. (Policy Plan, pg. 44)
• The City shall provide housing opportunities to attract persons of all ages
and income levels and which allows them the ability to maintain residence
within Otsego throughout the various stages of their lives.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment. The table below illustrates surrounding land uses. The proposed use is
not anticipated to create any land use compatibility issues. To the north of 80th
Street are two registered animal feedlots. Under Section 20-27-9 of the Zoning
Ordinance, no new dwelling may be constructed within 1,000 feet of any animal
building on a registered feedlot to address compatibility concerns. The preliminary
plat shows these setbacks, which impact Blocks 11, 12, 14,15, 16, and 21. The lots
within the setback area will be required to be final platted as outlots.
2
Direction
Land Use Plan
Zoning
Existing Use
North
LD Residential
A-1 District
Farmstead
Single Family Residential
East
LD Residential
A-1 District
Single Family Residential
Agriculture
South
LD Residential
A-1 District
Agriculture
West
M/HD Residential
A-1 District
INS
Agriculture
Treatment Plant
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment: The preliminary plat will be required to conform with all applicable
performance standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance,
and Engineering Manual. Consistency with these performance standards will be
evaluated in subsequent paragraphs.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment. The proposed development will not have an negative impact to the area
in that the use is anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and will be developed
within all performance standards.
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 preliminary plat is to be adequately served by existing or planned
public 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.
Comment. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates the development of the proposed
use_ The development of this parcel is necessary to extend trunk sewer and water
beyond the west waste water treatment plant for development of other properties.
3
EAW. The applicant has submitted an EAW pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.4300
Subparts 19 (number of units) and 36 (acreage being developed). The EAW is to be
reviewed for distribution by City Staff within 30 days of submission. After approving the
EAW for distribution, copies must be provided to designated agencies and the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB). The EQB will publish notice of the EAW's availability
in its monthly publication which starts a 30 day comment period.
During the comment period, the Planning Commission is to hold a public hearing to
consider the EAW as to whether the project has the potential for significant environmental
effects that would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). After
the Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation and the close of the 30 day
comment period, the City Council must make a finding as to whether the project has the
potential for significant environmental effect and whether an EIS is necessary. Because of
the time necessary to process the EAW, the preliminary plat may be approved contingent
upon a negative declaration for environmental effect.
Blocks. Section 21-7-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires blocks to be at least 300
feet long and not longer than 1,200 feet to provide for convenient and safe circulation.
Blocks 7 and 25 exceed the maximum length requirement because of Otsego Creek. It
may be necessary to connect 78th Street to 77th Street across Block 7 if an outlet to 80th
Street is not available when the area north of the creek is final platted. Not providing an
outlet to 801h Street leaves 68 homes dependent on the one access to MacIver Avenue.
Blocks 21 and 31 also exceed the maximum length requirement. The length of Block 21
can be addressed by extending 79th Street west of Lander Avenue to provide a future intra -
neighborhood connection. The length of Block 31 is the result of having to provide an
access point to two separate properties to the south and it is not considered necessary to
provide a third connection.
Lot Requirements. Based on the requested zoning districts, 246 of the lots range in width
from 60 to 75 feet and 250 lots are 80 feet wide or larger. The average lot size is 13,385
square feet. The table below outlines minimum lot area and width requirements for the
applicable zoning districts.
19
Minimum
Lot Area
Minimum
Lot Width
R-4 District
12,OOOsf.
75ft.
R-6 District
9,OOOsf.
60ft
Shoreland District
n/a
75ft.
Cul -de -Sac Bulb
11 n/a
125% of Minimum
19
All of the lots meet the minimum lot area requirements. Lots 13 and 14 of Block 23 must be
increased in width to meet the 75 foot minimum within the Shoreland Overlay District_
Furthermore, Section 20-92-11.A requires that lots in the Shoreland Overlay District meet
the lot width requirements both at the front setback line from a public street and at the
OHWM. This will require revision of lots within Block 7 and 25 or approval of the noticed
PUD -CUP for Shoreland Overlay District flexibility. Lots 10-14 of Block 7 and Lots 6-10 of
Block 10, which abut a cul-de-sac turnaround must be revised to be a minimum 94 feet
wide per Section 21-7-6.A3 of the Subdivision Ordinance. All other lots meet the minimum
applicable width requirements.
Setbacks. The submitted plans illustrate a typical lot with setback requirements. The
preliminary plat must be revised to show the appropriate setbacks on each of the lots per
Section 21-7-4.G of the Subdivision Ordinance. The following table outlines required
setbacks:
Front
Arterial/Collector Street
65ft.
Local Street
35ft.
Side
Interior
1Oft.
Corner
Same as front yard
Rear
Interior
20ft.
Double Frontage
Same as front yard
Wetland
40ft.
OHWM of Otsego Creek
50ft.
Application of the minimum required setbacks limits the width of the building envelopes on
several lots within the proposed plat to 30 feet or less. Lot 49 of Block 7 and Lot 8 of Block
15 must be revised as they have no feasible building envelope in consideration of required
setbacks. The width of other parcels with a limited building envelope should be reviewed
and potentially increased. Alternatively, the builders on these lots could be encouraged to
construct side loaded garages in that most of these are corner lots, which would provide
variation in the subdivision architecture. However, Section 20-21-4.H. 5 of the Zoning
Ordinance requires curb cuts to be 60 feet from intersections which creates potential
issues for corner lots in the R-6 District area.
Access. Primary access to the subdivision will be provided by MacIver Avenue and 80th
Street. Street intersections with these roadways are to be at intervals of not less than 500
feet pursuant to Section 21-7-7.N of the Subdivision Ordinance. All of the proposed
intersections meet this requirement. Except for Lot 7 of Block 14, which has an existing
dwelling, no lot may have direct access to MacIver Avenue or 80th Street. There are three
existing residences adjacent to the plat that have driveways to MacIver Avenue. The
5
preliminary plat provides the northern most exception parcel a future local street access
via 79-1/2 Street. No internal access is provided to the two southerly lots, nor is it
practical.
The preliminary plat provides for dedication of right-of-way to expand MaclverAvenue as a
future collector street with a 100 -foot wide right-of-way. MacIver Avenue is designated by
the Comprehensive Plan as a collector street, which will be critical for moving traffic from
the area of the west sanitary sewer service district east of CSAH 19 south to 1-94 via CSAH
37. The preliminary plat also provides additional right-of-way to expand 80th Street to an
80 foot right-of-way consistent with its minor collector status. A road access fee will
collected at the time of final plat approval for the upgrades to these collector roadways.
Overall, the internal street pattern provides good access and circulation within the
subdivision. The plat also provides for street connections to surrounding properties at
appropriate locations to ensure adequate access and circulation beyond the main collector
streets between neighborhoods.
Streets. All of the streets shown on the preliminary plat are to be public with 60 foot right-
of-way for local streets consistent with the Engineering Manual. The City Engineer has
prepared a typical street section with 28 -foot pavement width and 5 -foot sidewalk on one
side of the street. The preliminary plat will need to be revised to include the new street
section and illustrate sidewalk locations shown on Exhibit B. There is an eyebrow street
corner at 7-10 of Block 30 which the City does not allow and it must be eliminated. Also,
the street intersecting Lannon Avenue just south of Otsego Creek should occur at more of
a 90 degree intersection. The preliminary plat must be revised to designate street names
corresponding to the revised subdivision plan.
The preliminary plat includes four cul-de-sacs. Section 21-7-6.A of the Subdivision
Ordinance specifies that cul-de-sac streets are only to be allowed when dictated by
physical site conditions or a through street is not physically feasible. The four cul-de-sacs
are appropriate due to wetlands or other physical constraints. Section 21-7-6.A of the
Subdivision Ordinance limits cul-de-sac length to 500 feet, which all are compliant with.
Landscaping. Section 20-16-7.D of the Zoning Ordinance requires all double frontage
lots or corner lots abutting a collector or arterial street to have a minimum of 10 -feet of
extra depth or width and to provide for a landscape bufferyard. A landscape plan must be
submitted for the areas abutting the MacIver Avenue or 801h Street rights-of-way based on
the design standards outlined in Section 20-16-7.D of the Zoning Ordinance with the final
plat application. The landscape bufferyard is to be overlaid by a drainage and utility
easement.
Outlots. The preliminary plat includes three outlots. Outlot C is to be dedicated for
development of a neighborhood park. Outlots A and B are being reserved to allow for
future resubdivision of an adjacent parcel. All other remnants were combined with
adjacent buildable lots as required by Section 21-7-41 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Park Dedication. Section 21-7-18 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires dedication of
land, a cash fee in lieu of land, or combination thereof for parks and trail development.
The minimum land dedication is 10 percent of the gross area being subdivided. Based on
a gross area of 207.8 acres, the minimum dedication required for the subject site is 20.8
acres. The proposed dedication of Outlot C adjacent to the City's waste water treatment
plant site is 9.8 acres, or 47.2 percent of that which is required. The balance of the
required dedication will be a pro -rated cash fee in lieu of land.
Outlot C will be developed by the City as a future neighborhood park. The park parcel is
9.8 acres in size and has 120 feet of frontage to 77th Street and a 20 foot wide access
corridor to Lander Avenue. The park parcel also abuts the south line of the plat such that
additional access from the south will be possible in the future. The proposed park parcel is
being reviewed by the City's park Landscape Architects to determine if it is appropriate for
its intended use. Dedication of the park land is subject to their comments and the
recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and
approval of the City Council.
The configuration of the park is such that the main activity areas will be behind blocks of
houses and obstructed from view. The preliminary plat should be revised to eliminate Lots
1-3 of Block 25 to increase the park parcel's frontage to 77th Street and provide greater
visibility of the park. Greater visibility enhances the park as a neighborhood amenity,
accessibility, and security. The access corridor to Lander Avenue should be increased to
30 feet wide over its full length to improve compatibility with the adjacent lots.
Grading and Drainage. Plans for grading, drainage and erosion control have been
submitted and are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. These plans
reflected a previous plat design that was modified in response to preliminary staff
comments. These plans will need to be updated based on the current plat design as part
of a final plat application.
There are six wetlands on the subject site. The grading plan indicates several of the
smaller wetlands are to be filled as part of the development. Mitigation of these wetlands
is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Those wetlands that remain are
subject to the requirements of Section 20-16-9.E of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes
the requirements for a 20 foot natural buffer easement and 40 foot principal building
setback from the delineated edge of the wetland.
Utilities. Utility plans for sanitary sewer and water service have been submitted with the
preliminary plat. The City must acquire additional land within the subject site for various
sewer and water facility sites. The preliminary plat proposes utilization of a City owned
property in the area of Block 13 in exchange for Lot 31 of Block 31 for the City's lift station.
This issue and the submitted utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
7
Easements. Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires perimeter easements
for all lots. These easements are to be 10 feet wide but may be overlaid along side lot
lines as shown on the preliminary plat. Wetlands and ponding areas must also be overlaid
by drainage and utility easements with ponding areas having a 20 foot wide easement
corridor for access purposes. Finally, a 50 foot easement on either side of Otsego Creek
or other drainageways will be required. All easements are subject to review and approval
of the City Engineer.
Project Schedule. The project is to be developed in phases starting near the waste water
treatment plant. The extension of trunk sewer lines and construction of a lift station east of
MacIver Avenue through this project is critical for other development to occur within the
west sewer district. The applicant will be required to provide the necessary easements for
the City to construct the trunk sewer line and lift station necessary to serve other
properties within the sanitary sewer service district with the first final plat. The City will
likely construct these facilities and include their cost as part of the SAC and WAC fees.
Development Contract. If the applications are approved, the applicant is required to
enter into a development contract. The development contract, which outlines applicable
securities and fees in addition to project details, is subject to review and approval of the
City Attorney. Consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the development
contract specifies that approval of the preliminary plat does not guarantee access to
sanitary sewer service. The City only allocates sanitary sewer capacity to approved final
plats with signed contracts to assure the City of timely development.
CONCLUSION
The decision as to the appropriate use of land as guided by the Comprehensive Plan and
implemented through application of the Zoning Ordinance is a policy issue that must be
determined by City Officials. The requested rezoning to R-4 District and R-6 District will
provide for a range of lot sizes and corresponding variety in single family housing styles
within this plat. This approach is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan
for development of a diversified housing supply within the City and also provides for more
distinctive neighborhoods. If City Officials make a similar finding, the Zoning Map
amendment may be approved.
If the requested Zoning Map amendments are approved, the preliminary plat applications
may be considered. There are necessary modifications to the preliminary plat to ensure
that adequate building envelopes exist within applicable lot requirements, which can be
resolved prior to final platting. All other technical requirements appear to have been
satisfied. As such, our office is recommending approval of the applications subject to the
conditions outlined below.
FQ
Decision 1 - Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve rezoning the area of the subject site west of MacIver Avenue
from A-1 District to R-6 District and the area east of MacIver Avenue from A-1
District to R-4 District as consistent with the Comprehensive plan.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table the application.
Decision 2 - Preliminary Plat
A. Motion to approve the preliminary plat of Arbor Creek, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of the preliminary plat shall not guarantee access to sanitary sewer
service. The City shall only allocate sanitary sewer capacity to approved
final plats with signed development contracts to assure the City of timely
development.
2. The submitted EAW is processed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 38 of the Zoning Ordinance and approval of the preliminary plat is
subject to a finding by the City Council that the project has no potential for
significant environmental effects.
3. No new dwelling shall be constructed within 1,000 feet of any animal building
on either of the registered feedlots north of 80th Street pursuant to Section
20-27-9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The preliminary plat is revised to extend 79th Street west of Lander Avenue
through Block 21.
5. A connection of 78th Street to 77th Street across Block 7 may be required at
the time of final platting for the area north of Otsego Creek and east of
MacIver Avenue if a public street connection to 801h Street is not available.
6. Lots within Block 7 and 25 shall be revised to be 75 feet wide at the front
setback line and at the OHMW unless the preliminary plat is approved with a
PUD -CUP flexibility subject to submission of a shoreland density evaluation.
7. The preliminary plat is revised such that Lots 13 and 14 of Block 23 meet the
75 foot I i i 1i 11ul I II within �1 the Shor eland Over lay District and Lots 1 0- 14 of
Block 7 and Lots 6-10 of Block 10 are revised to be a minimum 94 feet wide
per Section 21-7-6.A3 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
A"
8. The preliminary plat must be revised as Lot 49 of Block 7 and Lot 8 of Block
15 have no feasible building envelope within required setbacks. Lots with a
building envelope less than 30 feet wide shall be reviewed.
9. The eyebrow street corner at Lots 7-10 of Block 30 must be eliminated. The
street intersecting Lannon Avenue just south of Otsego Creek must be
revised to occur at more of a 90 degree intersection.
10. A landscape plan must be submitted for the areas abutting the MacIver
Avenue or 801h Street rights-of-way based on the design standards outlined
in Section 20-16-7.D of the Zoning Ordinance at the time of final plat.
11. The preliminary plat must be revised to eliminate Lots 1-3 of Block 25 to
increase the frontage of Outlot C to 77th Street and the access corridor to
Lander Avenue must be increased to 30 feet wide its full length. Dedication
of less than 10 percent of the gross area of the subject site shall require a
pro -rated cash fee in lieu of land based on the per unit charge in effect at the
time of final plat approval. The proposed park land dedication is subject to
the comments of City Staff, the recommendations of the Parks and
Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and approval of the City
Council.
12. Lot 31 of Block 7 is to be dedicated to the City for trunk sanitary sewer
facilities. The applicant will be required to provide the necessary easements
for the City to construct the trunk sewer line and lift station necessary to
serve other properties within the sanitary sewer service district with the first
final plat.
13. All grading, utilities, easements, streets and rights-of-way shall be subject to
review and approval of the City Engineer.
14. Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance.
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Patty Fowler
John Jackels
Mike Gair
IN
BASE MAP DADA PROVDED BY
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc.Anc.
PREPARED OCTOBER 4001
NOTE:
THIS MAP IS FOR PLANNING
PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD
NOT BE USED FOR EXACT
MEASUREMENT.
�OTSEGO
� ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
a
Review No. 2
ENGINEERING REVIEW
Hakanson Residential Subdivision
Anderson for the City of Otsego
Assoc., Inc.
by
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
Submitted to: Mike Robertson, Administrator
cc: Judy Hudson, City Clerk
Dan Licht, City Planner
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
John Jackels, Emmerich Development Corporation
Dave Nash, P.E., McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Reviewed by: Ronald J. Wagner, P.E.
William L. Morris, Jr., P.E.
Shane M. Nelson, E.I.T.
Date: March 3, 2003
Proposed
Development: Arbor Creek
Street Location
of Property: A portion of the N '/Z of Section 25, T121, R24 and
a portion of the W '/2 of NW '/4 of Section 30, T121, R23
207.8 Acres, south of 80th Street NE and east of CSAH 19,
on either side of Maciver Avenue NE
Applicant: John Jackels
Emmerich Development Corporation
1875 Station Parkway
Andover, MN 55304
(763) 755-6554
Developer:
Owners of Record:
Emmerich Development Corporation
Albert & Jean Shoyno
11689 80th St NE
Albertville, MN 55301
Walter Berning & Sons, Inc
7526 County Rd 37 NE
St Michael, MN 55376
Robert & Sharon Berning
7776 County Rd 37 NE
St Michael, MN 55376
Darrel A Farr Dev Corp
3025 Harbor Ln #317
Plymouth, MN 55447
Purpose: Arbor Creek is a proposed 496 lot single family residential
development on 210 acres in the City of Otsego, Wright
County, Minnesota. The proposed development will be
served with municipal water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer
and public streets typical of an urban setting.
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\AOTSEGO2000\2260\ot2260RVW2.doc
Jurisdictional
Agencies:
(but not limited to)
Permits Required:
(but not limited to)
Considerations:
City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota Department of
Health, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NPDES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
SUBDIVISION CONFIGURATION, LOT SIZE, DENSITY
STREETS
PRELIMINARY PLAT
WETLANDS
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
TRAFFIC/ACCESS ISSUE
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SUMMARY AND/OR RECOMMENDATION
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipa11AOTSEG02000\2260\ot2260RVW2.doc
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Existing Conditions, 2/11/02, by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Preliminary Plat of Arbor Creek, 2/11/02, by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Preliminary Site Plan of Arbor Creek, 2/11/02, by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Preliminary Grading Plan of Arbor Creek, 2/11/02, by McCombs Frank Roos Associates,
Inc.
Preliminary Utility Plan of Arbor Creek, 2/11/02, by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Preliminary Plat of Arbor Creek (no revision date) by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Stormwater Computations, 2/5/03, by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Analysis, 12/19/02, by STS
Consultants, LTD.
Wetland Delineation Report, 1/31/03, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc.
Arbor Creek Residential Subdivision Environmental Assessment Worksheet, 2/11/03,
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
City of Otsego Engineering Manual, 2/27/01
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 — EAW Requirement
Trunk Stormwater Facilities Study for Portions of the Otsego Creek Watershed, February
2003
City of Otsego Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, 10/14/02
National Wetland Inventory Map, 1991
SUBDIVISION CONFIGURATION, LOT SIZE, DENSITY
1. Minimum lot width is 75' for R-4 zoning. (20-64-6)
2. Lots on the cul-de-sac turnaround shall exceed the zoning district minimum lot width
by 25%. (21-7-6.A.)
3. Corner lots abutting collector streets, such as 80th Street NE and Maciver Avenue NE
shall have an additional 10' of width or depth to be overlaid with a drainage & utility
easement for a landscape bufferyard. (20-16-7.D.)
4. Blocks shall be at least 300' long and not longer than 1200'. (21-7-3)
Page 1
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\AOTSEGO2000\2260\ot2260RVW2.doc
5. It is questionable whether or not some lots provide adequate building pad areas.
(Lot 12, Block 23; Lot 7, Block 22; Lot 4, Block 30; Lot 10, Block 29; Lot 1, Block 31;
Lot 1, Block 26; Lot 6, Block 10; Lot 1, Block 11; Lot 49, Block 7; Lots 8, 25 & 33,
Block 15)
STREETS
1. The minimum roadway centerline curvature shall be 250' radius and shall be shown
on the preliminary plat. The horizontal curve on the west side of 75th Court does not
the 250' minimum. (21-7-7G)
2. Tangents of at least 100' shall be introduced between reverse curves. There are
many reverse curves shown on the current plan that do not appear to have 100'
tangents. (21-7-7.C.)
3. The intersection of 76th Street NE with Lannon Avenue NE shall be made at an angle
closer to 900
.
4. The eyebrow on the west side of 75th Court NE must be eliminated.
5. Temporary cul-de-sacs shall be provided on "stub" streets meant to permit future
street extension into adjoining tracts. (21-7-5.H.)
6. 79th Street NE shall be extended from Lander Ave NE to the west plat line to provide
a future connection to the property to the west and tc reduce the length of Blcck 21 to
less than 1200'.
7. The typical section shall illustrate a 28' back-to-back street section with surmountable
concrete curb and gutter and a 5' sidewalk on one side of the street.
8. The street section shall consist of a minimum of 7" class 3/4, 6" class 5 (100%
crushed), 2" bituminous non -wear, and 1 '/2" of bituminous wear for an R -value of 10,
as reported by STS Consultants in the geotechnical report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Include revision dates on revised plans.
2. Section corners and section lines shall be clearly depicted and labeled on the plan.
(21-6-2.A.2.)
3. Name(s), address, and phone number of record owner(s) shall be shown on the plan.
(21-6-2.A.3.)
4. Existing zoning classifications for land in and abutting the subdivision shall be shown
on the plan. (21-6-2.B.2.)
Page 2
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\MunicipalWOTSEGO2000\2260\ot2260RVW2.doc
5. Location, size, and elevations of existing storm sewer and culverts, or any other
underground facility within 150 feet of the proposed plat, shall be shown on the plan.
(21-6-2.B.5.)
6. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided and subdivided land, identified by name
and ownership, shall be shown within 150 feet of the plat. (21-6-2.B.6.)
7. Existing 100 -year flood elevations shall be shown on the plan. (21-6-2.B.9.)
8. An existing storm sewer is located from 80th Street NE to an existing sedimentation
pond adjacent to the creek. This must be shown and taken into account. A copy of
the 80th Street Construction Plans was sent to MFRA.
9. Location, dimensions, and purpose of all easements shall be shown on the plan. (21-
6-2.C.5.)
10. When lots are located on a curve, the width of the lot at the building setback line shall
be labeled. (21-6-2.C.8.)
11. A 100' wide ditch easement, centered on the ditch centerline, and/or a drainage &
utility easement containing the 100 -year flood of the wetland, whichever is greater, is
also required from Lannon Avenue NE to Maciver Avenue NE.
12. Streets shall be labeled with street names on Preliminary Plat. Our redlines indicate
acceptable street names which match closely with the county grid system.
13. Include horizontal curve data on plan.
14. 50' of ROW for Maciver Avenue NE is adequate except near the intersection with 80th
Street NE.' At the 80th Street NE intersection, 10' of additional ROW will be required
to 500' south of the 80th Street ROW for future turn lanes. 40' of ROW for 80th Street
NE is adequate.
15. NWL, 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year peak elevations shall be labeled for each of the
stormwater ponds. (6.0.B.)
16. Show and label the boring locations on the plan.
17. STS Consultants recommended low floor elevations of 938 feet or higher for the east
and west ends of the property, and 945 feet or higher for structures at the south end
and the central part of the site. Low floor elevations shall be reviewed with respect to
these recommendations particularly lots which are adjacent to Ponds 6,7,9 and 10.
18. The lift station site shall be clearly depicted on the plans.
Page 3
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal AOTSEGO2000\2260\ot2260RVW2.doc
WETLANDS
1. Avoidance of wetlands must be attempted, which may require lot line adjustments
and/or loss of some lots. If wetlands must be disturbed or filled they must be
mitigated as per WCA requirements. (20-16-9.E.2.)
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
1. We have not received any revised plans or computations with the revised Preliminary
Plat sheets. All comments from the review dated February 19, 2003 still apply.
TRAFFIC/ACCESS ISSUE
1. A crossing of the creek between the north '/Z and the south '/2 of the area east of
Maciver Avenue NE is suggested. Both halves, as they are proposed now, are
essentially very long cul-de-sacs. The north '/z may not be further developed in order
to negate the cul-de-sac issue.
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
1. Stub out between Lots 9 and 10 — Block 7 230 LF of 8" to west of manhole located in
cul-de-sac to a MH located in the centerline of Maciver Avenue NE (inv. = 934.6).
2. Block 9, Lot 1 — stub out 50 LF of 8" @ 0.40% to east property line (inv. = 943.0).
3. Block 7, Lot 30 — stub out 50 LF of 8" @ 0.40% to north property line (inv. = 924.5 to
935.0).
4. Block 23, Lot 14 — Extend 50 LF of 8" @ 0.40% to west property line (inv. = 838.0).
5. Block 23, Lot 1 — Extend 230 LF of 8" @ 0.40% to north property line (inv. = 839.1).
6. Block 16, between Lots 10 and 11 — extend 160 LF of 8" @ 0.40% to north property
line (inv. = 933.75).
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
1. The water distribution system is under review.
ENVIRONMENTAL
1. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been completed. It has been
submitted for publication in the EQB Monitor and is going through the 30 -day
comment period.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Page 4
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\AOTSEGO2000\2260\ot2260RVW2.doc
1. Benchmarks need to be shown on each sheet (see page 7 Section 111.14 of
Engineering Manual).
SUMMARY AND/OR RECOMMENDATION
If Preliminary Plat is approved we recommend that all comments must be addressed prior to
final plat submittal.
Page 5
\\Ha01\Shared Docs\Municipal\AOTSEGO2000\2260\ot2260RVW2.doc
6 4
—_ __ __ ___ 8 0� .S TAT N ..E ./....11.. _ _ _ — rx•a-• �� ... s,
- ,yt� a 9 /� \ E : = R :,ir •,T' �C....._ _ JiAh
—RRwz..m
mr
T –" _ N°ru•u v PRCPEM DESCRIPTION
FEEDLOT SETBACK n _I
- Tea
y 5 r s -EI
4� � � a.w v r:. ,.0 van ..:.+.rM r•ww
N.E. 74TH STREET i ;�' +^' ^'w• •"` "°^w °� +� a rws n, •M x• w..r. wr,
M • 4& ,v
4EET •.... rw .•.rw
..O
...." s H-= 1-J•, y{; a•a,�•f'
+0tu+.•
M! r a
y �•a 2� fix B„ @l . fl '•� r r _
ib '"��.rr,w"v. r'r'r•a ynwpw •. 4•W,••nrrwn, ini.
c �• .i = (�` — DEV=LOPMENT SUMMARY
n•� s ...?. u �� y '•—�
n.1 mea•.r
R L. \ _ i •^ T z i ,.�. » :.,,- . N.E. 77TH&Sr x
n a ._s.� " I o �a-i -.. M� �wsroi s s> -c •.w•. �� u —R s
'
... — ,raves>.rr iw •w. v sw
i. fl
.i. s. Ie cl+s cRi '0 e • +• Ri ' 'LT � .na..<r, .». si
" ,x 1 SIDEWALK
�. tF r - .° BSL4P_MStlr Norrs
8x E i A s r. io s++ s+: �u Au ii ia _+>.. a r?. i � � M u� ...w�,�.Y... �,.•...
Q —
u R
fiya
II• /T �5
•-�
77TH
yam• i
I ��
—
— '/ •'
STREET
,
/////�l�//�W`=
s�ycl.
c
PARK
y 5 r s -EI
4� � � a.w v r:. ,.0 van ..:.+.rM r•ww
N.E. 74TH STREET i ;�' +^' ^'w• •"` "°^w °� +� a rws n, •M x• w..r. wr,
M • 4& ,v
4EET •.... rw .•.rw
..O
...." s H-= 1-J•, y{; a•a,�•f'
+0tu+.•
M! r a
y �•a 2� fix B„ @l . fl '•� r r _
ib '"��.rr,w"v. r'r'r•a ynwpw •. 4•W,••nrrwn, ini.
c �• .i = (�` — DEV=LOPMENT SUMMARY
n•� s ...?. u �� y '•—�
n.1 mea•.r
R L. \ _ i •^ T z i ,.�. » :.,,- . N.E. 77TH&Sr x
n a ._s.� " I o �a-i -.. M� �wsroi s s> -c •.w•. �� u —R s
'
... — ,raves>.rr iw •w. v sw
i. fl
.i. s. Ie cl+s cRi '0 e • +• Ri ' 'LT � .na..<r, .». si
" ,x 1 SIDEWALK
�. tF r - .° BSL4P_MStlr Norrs
8x E i A s r. io s++ s+: �u Au ii ia _+>.. a r?. i � � M u� ...w�,�.Y... �,.•...
Q —
BOTH STRTE—T N.F.—
FEEDLOT SETBACK
--J!
-A,
J3.f S. s X olr+f+
aj..
79 1/2 $7.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTIoN
N.F.• 7 r �_ e„V�•ROT • '•Ye w tom_ — x.]r I E L.. i u I :.` _ w •.•+ o f
5—?; POSSIBLE STREET CONNECTION
9
b
J
WH STREET
777777,
2
T" STREET
47=
tr-=
>
tl
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
L
wj
fi=t
A ll/� V11,
Vm
'A
SIDEWALK
2
=P E -V 'NT NOTES
iK— M.E. MACKENDE AVE,
z
J
CL
a
Z
0
m
0
N
U
H
_m
S
X
W
2 m : !,_
2- q • � ;
\ Ej■ - |
§ a k= g G• , ! , _ o
]k ■ k■ `I T
- j ! !a {iIITIH
!
O� � Hd.UON
�Y Aqt
NiVb ny
veld
N!II10 Aeulwnwd
ml was
Nw'kgo
710013 iogry
.1.4
Nq'w,epq
uoneiodloo
luawdolatiap 4011eww3
rm2
'�oi'mW�o*gY
� 1u•�i �gwaagN�'
fw...,s bu.vupe . bunawb,3
r%%DN.^3l
NiVb ny
veld
N!II10 Aeulwnwd
ml was
Nw'kgo
710013 iogry
.1.4
Nq'w,epq
uoneiodloo
luawdolatiap 4011eww3
rm2
'�oi'mW�o*gY
� 1u•�i �gwaagN�'
fw...,s bu.vupe . bunawb,3
Review No. 1
ENGINEERING REVIEW
Hakanson Site/Grading Plan
Anderson for the City of Otsego
Assoc., Inc.
by
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
Submitted to: Mike Robertson, Administrator
cc: Judy Hudson, City Clerk,
Dan Licht, City Planner
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Ronald J. Wagner, PE
Charlie Cherrier, Tech.
Date: March 3, 2003
Proposed
Development: Crag Enterprises Self Storage
Street Location
of Property: Lot 4, Block 1, Otsego Industrial Park, Wright County.
Applicant: Crag Enterprises, LLC
Page 1
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO2000\2500\2003\ot2500CRAGenterprisesRVW.doc
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
• Certificate of Survey and Site/Grading Plan for CRAG Enterprises by Meyer-Rohlin,
Inc. dated 2/13/03.
Planning Report prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., dated 2/26/03.
The City of Otsego Engineering Manual.
REVIEW AND COMMENTS
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
1. Concrete curb and gutter is required along the exterior of bituminous surfaces to
conduct drainage to the drainage pond located on the easterly portion of the property
as required by Section 20-21-4.1-115 of the Zoning Ordinance. All runoff from the site
must be directed to this pond. This will require an approved storm water collection
system, sized to accommodate the requirements as set forth in the City of Otsego
Engineering Manual.
2. The existing Grading Plan appears to drain approximately Y2 of the runoff on to the
adjacent land to the south. This is not allowed. Runoff must be directed toward
storm ponds via storm sewer.
3. A Storm Sewer Plan along with storm water calculations is required to be approved
by the City Engineer before the Grading Plan can be approved. The plan should
include applicable standard plates per the Otsego Engineering Manual.
4. Normal level, 2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year flood water levels should be depicted on
the plan for the pond.
5. Drainage arrows would be helpful in discerning the intent of the proposed site
drainage.
6. At both ends of the proposed buildings, the slope from the floor elevation to the
centerline elevation of the drive exceeds the four (4) percent max allowed per Section
20-21-4.1-110 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additional catch basins and storm sewer or
"stepping" of finished floor elevation of buildings is required.
PLAN SHEETS
1. A typical section showing the minimum thickness of gravel and bituminous over an
approved subgrade is required to be reviewed and should be added to the plans.
2. A review of the turning radius that is needed to make turns from the southerly drive
on to the north -south drives showed that some modifications are required to allow
room for a single axle truck to make the turn. See Planning Report, off-street
parking/loading/circulation, paragraph 1.
Page 2
GAM unicipa MOTS aG02000\2500\2003\ot2500CRAGenterprisesRVw.doc
3. Utility plans for making connection to the City's water main for irrigation purposes is
required. The Plan should include applicable standard plates per the Otsego
Engineering Manual.
EROSION CONTROL
1. Silt fence, bale checks, etc. is required to be shown on the plans wherever there is
potential for runoff in to ponds or private property.
2. A rock construction entrance is required to be shown adjacent to 85th Street per the
Otsego Engineering Manual, Standard Plate # 505.
Page 3
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO2000\2500\2003\ot2500CRAGenterprisesRVw.doc
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: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: John Glomski / Daniel Licht
DATE: 26 February 2002
RE: Otsego — Crag Enterprises, LLC; Site Plan Review
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 03.07
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Jeff Smith of Crag Enterprises, LLC, has submitted site plans for
development of a mini -storage warehouse facility on Lot 4, Block 1, Otsego Business
Park. The proposed site, located in the eastern part of Otsego, is to consist of eight
structures, three of which will be constructed at this time.
The subject site is 5.48 acres in area and is zoned B -W, BusinessNVarehousing District.
Mini -storage facilities are defined as warehousing activities within the context of the
Zoning Ordinance. Such uses are allowed within the B -W District as a permitted use.
Therefore, only site and building plan review and approval are required pursuant to
Section 20-21-3.A of the Zoning Ordinance.
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location Map
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Building Elevations
ANALYSIS
Use. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the renting of storage space is defined as
warehousing, which is allowed within the B -W District as a permitted use. The
submitted plans do not indicate any outdoor storage. Outdoor storage is a conditional
use within the B -W District. Therefore, without application or approval of a CUP, no
outdoor storage will be allowed.
Lot Requirements. The following table illustrates the applicable lot requirements of the
B -W District. It should be noted that the east lot line, abutting the Quaday Avenue right
of way is to be considered the front yard for setback purposes.
Access. The property is to be accessed via a temporary cul-de-sac off of 85th
Street N.E. The Zoning Ordinance limits the width of access drives to 24 feet unless
approved by the City Engineer to allow circulation. The City Engineer will need to
review the proposed access to ensure that it is appropriate for the use of the site.
Building Requirements. The proposed warehouse buildings are to be constructed
with split face blocks and asphalt shingles. These materials are consistent with the
building materials allowed by 20-174A of the Zoning Ordinance. The warehouse
structures will be a little over 14 feet in height, which meets the maximum 30 foot height
allowed within the B -W District.
Off -Street Parking / Loading / Circulation. The submitted site plan provides for 22
foot drive aisles between the mini -storage structures. These widths are adequate for
automobile or light truck circulation. The turning radiuses at the south end of the
buildings are not sufficient to accommodate circulation between aisles. Our office would
recommend that the building lengths be reduced in size to provide adequate space for
maneuvering.
No off-street parking stalls have been provided. We would recommend requiring three
stalls plus one stall per 100 storage units, which is equal to five striped parking stalls
within the paved area. The site plan should provide room for expanded parking as the
site becomes fully developed. The circulation area will need to be surfaced with
bituminous or concrete material and surrounded by perimeter concrete curb as required
by Section 20-22-4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Landscaping. A landscape plan has been submitted, displaying (8) 2.5" caliber
"Marshall Ash" along the northern property line abutting the 85th Street right-of-way, with
a 10 to 15 foot seeded area surrounding the property, with exception to the east lot line.
The trees should be replaced with a maple variety and extended along the front _Yard
portion of the west property line. Provision must also be made for watering the grass
areas. Additional landscaping will be required as 85th Street is extended and Quaday
Avenue is constructed.
2
Lot Area
Lot
Front yard
Side yard
Side yard
Rear yard
Parking
Width
Setback
Setback
Setback
Setback
85thstreet
Required
2 acres
200 feet
65 feet
65 feet
20 feet
20 feet
/
5 ft..
5
Proposed
5.48
353 feet
250 feet
65 feet
34 feet
32 feet
20 ft. /
a
1
10 ft.
Access. The property is to be accessed via a temporary cul-de-sac off of 85th
Street N.E. The Zoning Ordinance limits the width of access drives to 24 feet unless
approved by the City Engineer to allow circulation. The City Engineer will need to
review the proposed access to ensure that it is appropriate for the use of the site.
Building Requirements. The proposed warehouse buildings are to be constructed
with split face blocks and asphalt shingles. These materials are consistent with the
building materials allowed by 20-174A of the Zoning Ordinance. The warehouse
structures will be a little over 14 feet in height, which meets the maximum 30 foot height
allowed within the B -W District.
Off -Street Parking / Loading / Circulation. The submitted site plan provides for 22
foot drive aisles between the mini -storage structures. These widths are adequate for
automobile or light truck circulation. The turning radiuses at the south end of the
buildings are not sufficient to accommodate circulation between aisles. Our office would
recommend that the building lengths be reduced in size to provide adequate space for
maneuvering.
No off-street parking stalls have been provided. We would recommend requiring three
stalls plus one stall per 100 storage units, which is equal to five striped parking stalls
within the paved area. The site plan should provide room for expanded parking as the
site becomes fully developed. The circulation area will need to be surfaced with
bituminous or concrete material and surrounded by perimeter concrete curb as required
by Section 20-22-4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Landscaping. A landscape plan has been submitted, displaying (8) 2.5" caliber
"Marshall Ash" along the northern property line abutting the 85th Street right-of-way, with
a 10 to 15 foot seeded area surrounding the property, with exception to the east lot line.
The trees should be replaced with a maple variety and extended along the front _Yard
portion of the west property line. Provision must also be made for watering the grass
areas. Additional landscaping will be required as 85th Street is extended and Quaday
Avenue is constructed.
2
Fencing. The applicant is proposing to install a chain link perimeter fence around
the site with a gate at the access. The fence is shown to run along the property line,
and should be noted that the as required by Section 20-16-6.C., the fence must be
located entirely within the private property of the person constructing it. Within the front
yard, a fence may only encroach into the required front yard setback provided it is more
than 75 percent open to protect visibility along public streets, pursuant to Section 20-16-
6.K. Our office suggests that the applicant consider similar rod -iron fencing as was
used by X Secure Storage in the Otsego Industrial Park along the 851h Street right-of-
way and front yard portion of the west property line. Fences for commercial and
industrial uses are allowed a maximum height of eight feet.
Lighting. The applicant has yet to submit a lighting plan. All lighting shall be a
shoebox design with 90 degree cut-off, subject to review and approval of the City Staff.
Signage. The applicant has yet to submit a signage plan. All signage shall meet the
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance as described in Section 37. The use is limited to
one free standing sign not to exceed 100 square feet in area and a height of 20 feet.
Wall signs may have an area of up to 15 percent of the wall area fronting a public street
and a maximum individual size of 100 square feet. A sign permit is required before
placing any signage on the property, subject to review and approval of City Staff.
Trash. The submitted site plan does not make any provisions for trash storage.
Given the nature of the use, such facilities may not be necessary. However, the City
should reserve the right to require trash dumpsters/enclosures at the subject site if
rubbish becomes an issue in the future.
Grading/Drainage. The applicant has submitted grading plans for the subject site.
These plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
Utilities. No water or restroom facilities are planned for the subject site. Provision of
an irrigation system for maintaining the landscape area should be required.
Development Contract. No specific development contract is required for site and
building plan review. Under Section 20-9-4, the site and building plans submitted to and
approved by the City constitute a formal agreement. Any modification of the plans
requires approval of City Staff.
CONCLUSION
The proposed use is generally consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance,
although some detail items must be resolved. Our office would recommend that the
Planning Commission and City Council approve the application subject to the conditions
outlined below.
3
a
13
Motion to approve the request for mini -storage, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site plan is revised to allow reasonable turning radiuses around the
north and south ends of the buildings. Vehicle circulation is further subject
to review and approval of the Elk River Fire Chief.
2. The site plan is revised to provide five stripped parking stalls and
expansion area for additional stalls. Concrete curbing shall be provided
around the entire perimeter of the paved area.
3. The site plan is to show the location for snow storage of adequate space
for the site.
4. The landscape plan is to be revised to specify maple variety trees, show
additional landscaping along front yard portion of the west property line
and provide a means of irrigation. Additional landscaping may be required
at such time as 85th Street or Quaday Avenue are constructed adjacent to
the property.
6. All site lighting shall be a shoebox design with 90 degree cut-off, subject to
review and approval of the City Staff.
7. Proposed fencing shall be located within the subject property and shall not
exceed (8) feet in height. Fencing along 85th Street and the front yard
portion of the west property line shall be rod -iron construction. The gate
entrance shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet from the right-of-way line.
8. A signage plan, meeting all requirements as described in Section 37 of
the Zoning Ordinance, is submitted and reviewed by City Staff.
9. The City shall reserve the right to require that trash dumpsters and
enclosures be provided if trash or rubbish becomes a nuisance issue in
the future.
10. Comments of other City Staff.
Motion to deny the request based on a finding that the request is consistent with
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Motion to table the request subject to further review.
pc. Mike Robertson
Ron Wagner
Judy Hudson
Bruce West
Andy MacArthur
Jeff Smith
GI
_
I��ri�lr
�• .. .
•�•e� Anderson
T�IiiII{IA�c
NOTE:
THIS MAP IS FOR PLANNING
PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD
NOT BE USED FOR EXACT
MEASUREMENT.
SCALE:
m — .m
li
N TH
CITY OF
OTSEGO
-� ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
ILa
r.
I
r �I
i I i
6 �
p r
w I
"—s. ca r lrrn ICNrr
roarer r _
- 359. B1-•
zj
LU'-R ](17 s FfE.1gl C FFE.1121 I{ R
p Ir
ak
D
S F FF..141p
3 tllit 8 rFFE"a.1 FFE-llt.p I I•.L �' ;
FFE-1624U U R( 9 1 U N G FFE 42.4 \
_ i 2 7( �•• I .x �I 1 I pAttl, 1
p
FFE.-1620 r v G n D S r D U :, r. G F.F.E-482.p r
°FBS z �•rt m
-
y 6 ppg FF -F -80t
E g A 8 )ti fFE.1lr2 FF.E.el2p t I%
� !: 1. �___ _ .?• - I
3� i
RCNSIBNS
'V ti
NA B. ML
`,CNCD Br JI:N
i.: B• JV. N'
• . a, s ...• 7C w > n
N - SITE / GRADING PLAN
FOR
MEYER-ROHLW INC. CRAG Enterprises
FNB1 U • LAW kii;fYon
�,.
FFE-1421 J: R C ! C .I
F F E.aetp
r
-1124
•. a
-
..»
FFE.Ml
I
1
-•
' -- .--
..
J
r.e-»L'w%: sfw. a 4srw R 1]]r's __ -_.5.� • � i
'
-
1 i
it
`f
Nig
_
r -
A
,. _.
n
S
1
RCNSIBNS
'V ti
NA B. ML
`,CNCD Br JI:N
i.: B• JV. N'
• . a, s ...• 7C w > n
N - SITE / GRADING PLAN
FOR
MEYER-ROHLW INC. CRAG Enterprises
FNB1 U • LAW kii;fYon
owl pt�i�
a N o,,,s /�
4
I