Council tables Otsego Waterfront PUD after prolonged debate over parking, materials and height

The City of Otsego City Council on May 27, 2025, tabled consideration of Modern Construction’s planned-unit-development (PUD) application for the Otsego Waterfront, asking the developer to return with revised plans that address parking, enclosed resident stalls, exterior materials, setbacks and fire access. The motion to table the application to the June 9 meeting passed after discussion and without a denial of the concept.

The request matters because the application would reshape a riverfront parcel east of County Road 39 near Highway 101 and could add more than 100 dwelling units plus commercial space if approved. Planning staff and the planning commission recommended approval subject to a list of conditions; council members said they wanted clearer, final drawings before final approval.

Dan, City planner, told the council the applicant submitted a preliminary plat to resubdivide the property into one buildable lot and two outlots, including a parcel in the Wild and Scenic Recreational River District that cannot be developed until approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are resolved. He said the revised site plan proposes 135 apartments and about 12,800 square feet of commercial space and that utilities are available but would require a developer-funded lift-station improvement.

Dan said staff’s review showed 352 parking spaces on the plan (including 65 enclosed), and that the planning commission recommended using a mixed‑use parking methodology that results in a requirement of 309 total spaces with a minimum of 121 enclosed stalls devoted to residents. Dan said, “City staff is recommending approval based on consistency with the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision ordinance,” but noted several conditions must be satisfied at final plat.

Applicant Jesse Hartung said the previous 2023 approval had expired and that the revised plan addresses earlier denials for unit size, parking and building height. Hartung said his team will “extend the parking garage area to meet the additional stalls required by the city code” and that he is “a 100% committed to this project.” He also told council that stormwater plans were prepared to meet MPCA requirements and that the developer intends to pursue HUD green‑building financing.

Council members pressed for specifics. Several asked for a clear, updated site plan showing the enlarged covered parking, how that change would shift the commercial frontage and whether the building materials would meet the city’s standards (the architectural drawings currently show 32% masonry/glass where 65% was required). One council member said, “If you can meet the ordinances, I don't see any reason I could deny you,” and others said they needed to see the visual changes before a final vote.

Staff and the applicant discussed procedural options: approve now subject to conditions (with staff review of final plans), table to let the developer revise, or deny (which would require findings). Staff noted the council has until Aug. 5 under the city's review timeline to act on the application. The council ultimately voted to table the item to the June 9 meeting and directed the developer to submit revised plans for packet inclusion; staff indicated a Tuesday, June 3 submittal deadline to make the June 9 packet.

Key outstanding requirements the council asked to see before final approval included: a minimum of 309 off‑street parking spaces with at least 121 enclosed stalls reserved for residents; exterior finish materials increased to meet the 65% masonry/glass standard; confirmation of fire access and lane widths from the architect and fire officials; final landscaping and exterior lighting; and resolution of drainage easements and the floodway/outlot issue tied to the Army Corps process.

The tabled application remains a preliminary PUD submission; staff said that if the M‑1 mixed‑use zoning were adopted in parallel, the applicant could reapply under that district but, because he applied as a PUD, the current application will be processed under the PUD rules unless the applicant withdraws and submits a new M‑1 application.

The council set the next opportunity for action as the June 9 meeting, with a fallback schedule that would allow action before Aug. 5 if necessary.