06-18-12 PC ITEM 2.1
TPC 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100
Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763.231 .5840
Facsimile: 763.427.0520
TPC @PlanningCo.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 14 June 2012
RE: Otsego — Comprehensive Plan; Issues Identification
TPC FILE: 101.01
BACKGROUND
The City Council has determined a need to undertake an update of the Otsego
Comprehensive Plan. Otsego's last major Comprehensive Update was adopted in
2004 with previous Comprehensive Plan updates completed in 2002, 1998 and 1991.
It is advantageous for the City to undertake an update of its Comprehensive Plan at this
time as the economic slowdown creates an opportunity for the community to pause and
evaluate the activity that occurred over the last decade and to consider and reprioritize
community goals and policies to set a clear direction for moving forward as conditions
improve. The initial task in the Comprehensive Plan update is to identify major items
that must be addressed during the process.
Exhibits:
A. SWOT Analysis Worksheet
B. Sewer Service Area Expansion Plan
C. Future Land Use Plan
D. Transportation Plan
E. Parks and Trails Plan
ANALYSIS
Preliminary Issues. The work program for the Comprehensive Plan update included a
broad listing of topics to be addressed during the process, which are items known to
City staff and City Officials to have developed over time or arisen as conditions
changed:
1. Natural Environment.
a. Wetland preservation.
b. Shoreland/Wild Scenic areas.
c. Greenway corridors.
d. Aggregate resources.
e. Tree preservation.
2. Rural land uses.
a. Rural Residential Preserve Area.
b. Transitional rural land uses.
3. Sewer Staging Plan.
a. Projected population and household growth.
b. Land absorption forecast.
c. Sewer Service District staging.
4. Residential uses.
a. Location, quantities, densities and compatibility for existing Sewer Service
District and Urban Service Reserve Areas.
b. Housing diversity and life -cycle housing.
c. Housing maintenance.
5. Commercial and industrial uses.
a. Provide recommendations for both new construction and revitalization
areas.
b. Review land use designations for retail /office /service commercial uses,
office uses and industrial uses.
c. Evaluate impact of changing Wright County access standards.
d. Opportunities for mixed use or senior housing adjacent to retail areas.
6. Parks and Trails Plan
a. Inventory existing system improvements.
b. Analysis of system needs in relation to existing /projected population and
national standards.
c. Evaluation of park classifications.
d. Review of Future Parks and Trails Plan.
7. Transportation
a. Incorporate updated Transportation Plan.
b. Identify existing /future roadway priorities.
c. Kadler Avenue interchange.
d. Planned regional improvements:
(1) Additional vehicle lanes on 1 -94 (Maple Grove to Monticello)
(2) CSAH 19 interchange (Albertville)
(3) Nabor Avenue interchange (St. Michael)
(4) CR 144 interchange (Rogers)
(5) Brockton Avenue Interchange (Dayton /Rogers)
2
(6) Mississippi River Crossing (Monticello)
8. Public uses.
a. City buildings and future facilities.
b. Schools and future school sites.
Other Issues. Beyond the general outline provided by the work program, City staff
would highlight the following items:
• Community Identity. Otsego is a relatively young City having incorporated in
1990. Prior to the influx of new residential homes starting in 1998 within the
sewer districts, most residents would have identified themselves with adjacent,
more established rural center communities. The need to improve recognition of
the City's identity and strengthen the sense of community has been identified as
a goal by each of the previous Comprehensive Plans and will likely be a
fundamental goal of the current planning process. The Planning Commission
and City Council should consider ways in which and use development
contributes to the City's identity:
o Rate and type of growth to create cohesive neighborhoods.
o Nodes of retail, service and office businesses serving local and regional
needs for commercial goods.
o A mix of office park, warehousing and industrial uses to provide local
employment opportunities.
o Development standards that promote high quality, durable buildings with a
high degree of aesthetic design.
o Infrastructure designed to serve existing and planned development and
maintained to a high standard.
o Utilize visible infrastructure (such as watertowers) to promote community
identity and develop City facilities for efficiency and functionality with a
reasonable degree of aesthetic design.
o Neighborhood and community parks that serve as a focus for residential
areas with low maintenance design, quality improvements maintained to
create a recognizable amenity associated with the City.
o Providing recreational programming utilizing City facilities and promote
community wide events to encourage positive interaction with the City,
provide desired services and create opportunities for social connections.
3
• Population Projections. City staff has prepared updated projections of
population and household growth reflecting the decrease in building permit
activity since 2006. The effect of the decrease in development activity since
2006 is to push out the City's projected household and population estimates by
more than 10 years.
City of Otsego
Population Projections
2010 -2030
2010 Projection (2004) Projection (2012)
Actual 2020 2040 2020 2030
Population 13,571 35,441 59,045 18,880 29,000
Households 4,503 12,211 21,471 6,400 10,000
H.H. Size 3.01 2.90 2.75 2.95 2.90
Source: US Census, The Planning Company LLC
• Building Permit Activity. The following table illustrates residential building
permit activity for the City since 2000 when sanitary sewer and water utilities
were constructed. As show, the number of residential building permits declined
significantly after 2006. Building permits for 2012 have reached 2011 levels as of
June and are expected to continue to increase going forward.
City of Otsego
Residential Building Permits
2000 -2011
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Single Family 152 265 231 120 187 308 266 177 55 68 73 58
Townhouse 51 238 206 92 50 100 98 88 25 26
Detached TH 112 112 46 14
Total 203 503 437 212 349 520 410 279 80 94 73 58
Source: Department of Building Safety
Note: Construction in West Sewer District initiated in 2004
Continued, managed residential growth in Otsego is important to fully utilize and
fund in -place infrastructure, create a local consumer market for existing and
future commercial businesses, provide a local labor supply and expand the City's
tax base. Within this topic, the City will need to evaluate the following:
o The number of final platted lots and undeveloped land acreage within the
designated Sewer Districts to accommodate additional development.
o The location and type of planned urban uses.
o Available sanitary sewer and water capacity to support projected
continued growth.
o Direction for economic development efforts to promote commercial and
industrial expansion.
4
o Consideration of opportunities for development of large tracts of land
within Long Range Urban Service Area.
• Transportation Plan. With the City initiating construction of 70 Street between
Oakwood Avenue and Martin Farms Avenue for completion in 2014, one of the
City's top transportation goals will have been realized. In that remaining local
transportation improvements are limited to projects dependent on surrounding
development, such as 85 Street between Nashua Avenue and Maclver Avenue
or Quaday Avenue between 70 Street and 60 Street) or long range projects (I-
94/Kadler Avenue interchange), regional improvements will likely have more
significance for the City in coming years. Projects that will have the greatest
potential effect for Otsego include the addition of vehicle lanes to 1 -94 between
Maple Grove and Monticello, the TH 101 /CR 144 interchange in Rogers
promoted by Rogers to eliminate the last traffic signal between 1 -94 and US
Highway 10 /US Highway 169 and construction of the approved I -94 /Nabor
Avenue interchange in St. Michael. As part of the Comprehensive Plan update,
Otsego must promote continued coordination of transportation planning with
other communities in the region.
• Parks System. The City has developed six neighborhood parks and improved
the facilities at Prairie Park as development activity occurred since the availability
of sanitary sewer and water utilities. The park system will need to continue to be
developed and expanded proportionate to projected growth as both a needed
service and community amenity. In order to plan for the future park system, it
will be necessary to evaluate existing and future park needs based on national
standards and refine future locations in consideration of site specific criteria. A
major focus of this effort will need to address acquisition, development and
funding for additional community park facilities that will be in greater demand
both as the population increases and the age characteristics of the City change.
• Trail System. The City has included off - street trails and sidewalks as part of the
Comprehensive Plan and development standards to provide opportunity for
recreation and non - vehicle transportation. The trail system will continue to
expand concurrent with on -going development but the City must identify and
address missing segments that make the existing system incomplete. The City
must also take advantage of the opportunity created by the Mississippi River
Trail, which is to bikes what the Great River Road is to cars, as a means to
expand trail use opportunities and promote community businesses and identity.
SWOT Analysis. A common exercise used at the initiation of a comprehensive
planning process is to conduct a SWOT Analysis. Participants brainstorm ideas as to
the (S)trenghts, (W)eaknesses, (0)pportunities and (T)hreat factors related to a city's
characteristics, profile, location, infrastructure and other elements that will affect the
development planned to occur and realization of community goals. A SWOT Analysyis
will be beneficial in that other topics not addressed above may be brought forward for
consideration during the Comprehensive Plan update.
5
To facilitate this exercise with the Planning Commission, we have attached a worksheet
for individual Planning Commissioners to outline and organize your own thoughts prior
to the meeting on 18 June 2012. At the Planning Commission meeting, we will
summarize and discuss everyone's input into each of the four categories and prioritize
those that are most significant to be addressed.
• Strengths: Those factors that make a city more competitive or attractive for
growth than its regional peers. Strengths are, in effect, resources, capabilities
and core competencies that the city has that can be used effectively to achieve
its development objectives.
• Weaknesses: A weakness is a limitation, fault, or defect within the city that will
keep it from achieving its objectives; it is where the city has inferior capabilities or
resources as compared to other cities in the region it competes with.
• Opportunities: Opportunities include any favorable current prospective situation
in the city's environment, such as a trend, market, change or overlooked need
that supports the demand for growth and permits the city to enhance its
attractiveness for development, residency or business locations.
• Threats: A threat includes any unfavorable situation, trend or impending change
in a city's environment that is currently or potentially damaging or threatening to
its ability to compete for development or that would make residency or business
locations unattractive. It may be a physical barrier, infrastructure constraint,
economic conditions or any other thing that might inflict problems, damages,
harm or injury to the city's position relative to achieving its goals.
CONCLUSION
The information outlined herein will be discussed by the Planning Commission at their
meeting on 18 June 2012. Similar discussions will also be held with the Parks and
Recreation Commission, Police Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission and
City staff along with interviews with the City Council.
c. Lori Johnson, City Administrator
Tami Loff, City Clerk
6
PLANNING COMMISSION SWOT ANALYSIS
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
OF
riZ
C O " TSEGO
On TILE GItEAT RIVER ROAt)
i 1
= ,, Future Land Use
� -, _ _ .,.- ,
��,.
1 Rural
1- , � .
— r Ii : ° . Y • [ Rural Residential
VW: 'f." - - 1 i =� � .. ' '� ' " ill ` s i "t
e `
r f VW _ .._ 1 � ( r -,111 l t e l _�%:�:: � tti LD Residential (Large Lot)
kV Isilniffir, � l •vr LO Residential
P 111111011ta L P�/ t s t ' ffl 2-4 ; ? ` LD /MD Residential
�� ■� iiu , 1 iiiIIII U o : . �� t � ;I, . MD /HD Residential vs ff �' �j �;�°; t`A - Commercial
� Q.. _ a= j_ \ Office
��} e iy 1` r
ill
s y . % , MIL r s at
i �1 � �'• , , s� .151 i <i Industrial
f, . ,.- i o 0-0 i
j�_ �� + °� j �i� Public /Quasi Public
' r $ l t ; �..
i i w r. . __! _1 r " ` -- Sewer District
`� : of t4 �i
PI � Om r ,. 1 I
1 , Fiq 1 i°
lisimili ---r. _
■
t _ 7 4, i
/
NAt
1 ' q
Vi etu% ow. t*O.C4o et
[11171) ) AVE
Th's map is for p'ann'ng purpose s on,y
The Comprehens ve Pan must be consu'ted to
verify po`c es app' 'cab'e to specfc Land use
des'gnat ons
Map Date: September 2008
� SEGO
.....s.........".."....,
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
7- ', o_► Urban Service
�� 1
� � A
-t � � .E i - == Staging Plan
AIL_ _ r ,: •,• - �- _ = s
• 1 1 ■11 ��� _
. n �- unf� ,� .. >�o a mlb �1i�■��l�J, :■�.� ITT - - -. I
Ir�l �' ` � w♦� �' �c � n� �. ► a '' • �ni � . �!i ii i.
. � I - lia t ael►lln.'' • ena � i
1 1i' bi P ff .__ . �� o � � II> � �II /,� IIn111W.p;... ` : ��? " nn►ip �-�� Ink
al :::::: iii all _ CL - Itin - :wa ► ■uwu Long n Service Area •
ANS .I - • - G = �_ro��n�L .. g am: li...fll ' Ana l ■
- � _ I ,_ , ,�I�R� - ,'_p� r� -� ♦\w I Urban Service ::nsbon Area
' Milliliq ■ _ _ I ..�l. a I,/�i! 35 1 4, �..w.. �.uj i ,li �\'a \ • ,I � j�� ° ■ ' �r • • % °� � = —�s± \ Urban Service
ai f-- i � �i � �� ` � ( � ~W Wlttl ��in uf��^ • ii n� � c�.� , Ins
....t ■ ilatilk1116111r 1 `�
r!; , •I�� "I`:. I ■ - rnmirmil 1 ■I -;i ► � � � -011/111111 Illittirlibillilli'-‘ 1
1 4 il
J ' Hsu ihoordlil% it,: 111111111 t ._
NE. 1 opuE rfAmil P11111111111111 - b
ail Ap• :7,- _ A
poem'
di N A - ? 'ffilIMEMENEEM.111111EN. 111111 wra
Ililim
��� �� o �, ate! -,_
to'f - 11111 - I
ill
BASE retAP DATA PROVIDED BY
WOn
t_.1J
Note: This map is for planning purposes only.
Map Date: 22 November 2004
Page 49