Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects reconsideration of Otsego Waterfront PUD; developer asked to resubmit with changes
Summary
Modern Construction asked the council to reconsider a denied PUD/preliminary plat for the Otsego Waterfront District, proposing reduced building height and revised unit sizes. Council debated whether to require full revised plans before reconsideration and ultimately voted to deny reconsideration, leaving the developer to resubmit as a new application if substantial changes are made.
The Otsego City Council on Oct. 14 rejected a request from Modern Construction of Minnesota to reconsider a previously denied PUD development-stage application and preliminary plat for the Otsego Waterfront District.
City staff recapped the June denial, which cited noncompliance with building height, floor-area requirements for dwelling units, and inadequate off-street parking. The ordinance normally prevents re-submission within one year after denial unless the applicant withdraws before a vote or the council determines a changed circumstance warrants reconsideration. The applicant, Jesse Hartung, asked the council to reconsider, saying he would revise plans to reduce height to five stories above parking, adjust unit floor areas to meet zoning requirements and address parking counts.
Council members were split on whether to allow reconsideration without seeing complete revised plans: some said standard practice allows condition-based approvals and that conditions could be written into a resolution; others said the council needs drawn plans to ensure the new design complies with ordinance limits and to avoid multiple rounds of costly revisions. Hartung argued that submitting full revised plans before preliminary-plat approval would be expensive and that placing conditions to require changes would be customary, and he asked for at least four votes so he would not have to wait another year to reapply.
After debate about process and precedent, the council voted to reject allowing reconsideration on the basis that circumstances had not changed significantly. Staff and legal counsel said the developer could either submit a substantially different application now (which the city could treat as a new application) or resubmit after the one-year period. The motion rejecting reconsideration passed (vote recorded on the floor).
