04-17-91 Planning Commission MINCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
4-17-91 - 8PM
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order at 8PM by
Chairman Ing Roskaft.
The following Planning Commission Members were present:
KATHY LEWIS ING ROSKAFT CARL SWENSON
LARRY FOURNIER MARK WALLACE JIM KOLLES
BRUCE RASK
The following Staff were present:
Bob Kirmis, NAC Larry Koshak, Engr Elaine Beatty
First on the Agenda was consideration of minutes of 4/3/91.
Bruce Rask motioned to accept the minutes as written. Kathy
Lewis seconded the motion. Notion carried unanimously.
JONES INTERCABLE CONT OF HEARING FOR COND USE PERMIT,
SUBDIVISION AND ZONING AMMENDNENT. Owner of PID #214-000-
284300 at Co #37 and #122 is requesting a text amendment to
the present Zoning Ordinance to allow the existing cable
tower which is a type of utility and public/semi-public
service. (Cont to look at right-of-way for future alignment
of #37 (O'Dean) and legal issues).
Ing Roskaft stated he would take one item at a time starting
with the ZONING ORDINANCE AMMENDMENT:
Roskaft read the Ordinance (See Attached) In Section
#2: Change 715.10 to read (725.10).
Roskaft asked for any discussion? Bob Kirmis gave a little
background as to why it is brought up now. Jones Intercable
is looking to detach a two acre (2A) parcel in an AG 2
District. This amount will allow essential service to lay on
a parcel that is less than the standard to the district.
They are requesting this to be done before the new
regulations come out. This will be part of a new Zoning
Ordinance. It comes up a little sooner because of this
request.
Koshak asked about if this would cover the Ordinance
Regulating Franchise Agreements. Also a permanent record of
where facilities are (i.e. gas transmission lines, etc).
Koshak also talked about an applicant process for review or
Extension of utilities. Koshak stated there should also be a
bond posted. Roskaft stated that this can be addressed as
part of the CUP. Fees will be built in. 725.5 we should add
repair (to clarify). Roskaft asked for any more questions?
Fournier said maybe we should require and reference to the
fee. Kirmis said it would be in the Administration Section
on fee for CUP. Roskaft asked for any other comments? Lewis
motioned to approve the Ordinance Ammending Various Sections
of the City Code Relating to the Construction, Maintenance,
and Provision of Essential Services After 31 March 1991.
Bruce Rask Seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
JONES INTERCABLE GOND USE PERMIT AND SUBDIVISION:
John Gries, Atty said the owners, Mr Hillary Barry and Mr
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 4-17-91
AT 8PM- PAGE 2 -
Wilifred Lindenfelser are here and two people from Jones
Intercable (Wally Borris was one). Gries stated that Mr
Licht had asked for continuation of the Jones Intercable
matter until other things could be looked at. One thing that
has come up is your Engineering firm (Hakanson Anderson,
Inc.) has asked to straighten #37 (O'Dean) and has asked for
an easement. Kirmis said he is right. We addressed the
easement issue straightening Co Rd #37 (now City Rd O'Dean).
Dave Montebello was at the meeting and had some concern about
the corner of #122 and #37. Now is the time to look at
easements. Koshak and Gries discussed same. Gries said that
since they just paid all the money, maybe the City could give
some of it back. Koshak stated that his recommendation to
the City Council is that we do something to acquire this
easement. Koshak stated we have funds thru MSA. but need to
go thru their proceedures for acquiring road right-of-way.
Without MSA funding and involvement would be the cheapest and
easiest. We need to come to terms as to how it is to be
obtained. Jerome Kolles owns the triangle piece of property
stated Willie Lindenfelser. Bruce Rask had asked about same.
Jones Intercable easement is the only one that we are
concerned with now stated Koshak. Swenson asked about #122
and the easement for that future major collector street?
Montebello stated they would acquire that easement all the
way thru there on #122, at least to #101. Swenson stated it
also means the tower will be to close to the right-of-way.
We need to copy to Dave Montebello. Montebello stated that
on a Cond Use Permit they haven't required right-of-way.
Would it be a problem setting the tower 171 to the North was
asked? Wayne Fingalson, Engineer for Wright Co was notified
of the Hearing of Jones Intercable. Thirty-three feet is the
right-of-way on #37 now. Any minor collector is required to
have 80' of right-of-way ultimately and for Urban section of
road (#37( we just need to be able to aquire it stated
Koshak. Roskaft asked about the old school house and how the
road works with it. Raskaft asked for any other comment?
Gries stated that he doesn't feel it makes a lot of
difference to the applicant so you can solve that problem
when you want to solve it. Kirmis stated that NAC has
recommended approval subject to the seven (7) conditions on
Page #2 of NAC's Report as follows:
1. The City adopt the Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to
the Construction, maintenance and provision of essential
services.
2. The applicant meet all submission requirements for
designated minor subdivisions.
3. A restrictive covenant is recorded against the subject
parcel which prohibits any sale or use other than the
existing "essential service" so long as the parcel is
substandard in regard to its Zoning District Standards.
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 4-17-91
AT SPM - PAGE 3 -
4. All equipment associated with the transmission tower is
completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside
storage.
5. A forty (40) foot right-of-way easement is provided along
the western border of the subject site as recommended by the
City Engineer. Such an easement shall allow the future
realignment of CSAR 37 and improved safety conditions at the
CSAH 37/County Road 122 intersection. This issue should be
subject to further comment by the City Engineer.
6. Verification of the subject tower's "collapsible" design
is provided to the City. While this information has been
requested of the applicant, it has not been received by the
City.
7. The request is subject to comment by other City Staff.
Roskaft refered to the letter from Pirod, Inc 1200 N Oak
Rd P.O. box 128 Plymouth Indiana 46563-0128 written to Mr
Glen Hovland of Jones Intercable from Myron C. Noble, P.E.
President which covers No. 6 of the conditions above (Letter
is attached to minutes as exhibit A) Pirod Inc is the
manufacturer of the cable tower. Koshak asked if Mr Myron C
Noble, P E is a licensed Engineer in the State of Minnesota?
Kirmis will check this out. Roskaft asked for a motion.
Rask motioned to grant the Cond Use Permit and Subdivision
to Jones Intercable upon agreement to the seven (7)
conditions listed above. Motion seconded by Mark Wallace.
Motion carried unanimously. The 22nd of April, 1991 at
7:30PM is the date for the City Council meeting for Jones
Intercable decision by Council.
LENNY KALWAY - KALWAY CONST CO RT I Monticello, Mn (Richard
LeFebvre's Land) PID #214-000-154400. This property is
located on State Hwy #101, Wright Co Hwys 39 and 42. The
request is for Rezoning from A-2 to B-2 and Commercial
Subdivision. Review of Concept Plan. Kalway asked if he
should take the Report from NAC and go over one item at a
time. Answer: Yes
Based on the following review, our office recommends approval
of the Kalway concept plan, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The requested rezoning to B-2, General Business is
considered further in regard to its reflectance upon the
intended use(s) of the subject property.
Kalway stated that B-2 is being called for because of setback
distance of B-1. Kirmis said his feeling is the Zoning
should follow the use. Hwy Commercial use is dependant on
the Hwy. General Commercial is core commercial serving the
City. The reason the B-2 is questioned is it is possible a
fast food may locate in this area. It is not appropriate for
a B-2 area with intended use. Kalway asked if we had a
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 4-18-91
AT 8PM - PAGE 4 -
problem making part of it B-1 and part of it B-2? Kalway
stated that the centerline of #42 is not allowing a lot of
space for building. Kirmis stated in his view it is not
related to setback. It is only raised because of the fast
food business. General commercial is not permitted Hwy B-1
use. If you intend that, it should be Zoned B-1. Roskaft
asked for Council discussion. Rask asked if the use plan is
now B-1? Comp Plan is Commercial. Wright Co plan which is
currently our plan is B-2 Commercial. Kalway stated B-1 is
preferable but the small parcel in the corner is hard to use
with the larger setbacks. Bob Rohlin of Meyer Rohlin asked
if the proposed Ordinance had a difference in setback between
B-1 and B-2 in setback? Kirmis said he dosen't know that
now. Koshak said he dosen't see why there should be that
much of a difference. The Wright Co Ordinance has a
difference of 351. That little piece of land, because of
setback is limiting land use. Kirmis said accomodate the
design to meet the B-1 setback. Montebello said that the Co
has written variances on setback if it were appropriate. He
would like to set down with the developer if we can satisfy
our traffic concerns. The County setbacks were to restrict
development a certain amount from the centerline. If we
accomodate those with new #42 and MN/DOT's plan. Kalway said
he would request to zone B-1 instead of B-2. Koshak said Co
would need to give us input as to feasibility.
2. The subdivision design is revised to present a lot
configuration in which lot lines emanate from the center of
the property's southern cul-de-sac (see Exhibit F). In
addition the layout should be revised to illustrate lots of
similar size.
Kalway agrees with this but will have a problem achieving
constant lot size. Outlots are to handle septic systems.
3. The subdivision is modified to illustrate that portion of
land which is to be acquired by MN/DOT in the realignment of
the Highway 101/County Rd 39 intersection.
Kalway asked if they can take that easement and make an
Outlot in that area. Koshak saw no problem with it. Be
there to be aquired by State. Roskaft said it would be so
designed so it is for the purpose of MN/DOT. Kirmis agreed.
Elaine Beatty gave a copy of the letter from Mark Benson and
the Map pertaining to #101 upgrading and #39 abutting this
Kalway property for Kalway's information.
4. The City Engineer make comment on the interior street's
preferred construction type (urban section versus rural
section).
Kalway asked about Urban -vs- Rural what is the City's
intention? Koshak stated that there is an ultimate plan for
a MSA street thru there. Urban section street could be
probably put in once there is water and sewer in there. All
streets should have 801 of right-of-way. Koshak said he
wouldn't recommend commercial development with cul-de-sac.
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 4-17-91
AT 8PM1 - PAGE 5 -
We are looking at that being a highly utilized piece of
property. Cul-de-sacs are impossible to maintain. Kalway
said this allows people to get back to #42. Right-in/Right-
out on #39. Montebello doesn't like the right -out at the
intersection closest to #42. Right -in, they approve of. On
Lot 1 Montebello had concern that there wasn't access to the
cul-de-sac. The last page of NAC's report has addressed
this. (Exhibit F). The question of 801 of right-of-way in
plat to come back to #42 and #39. Koshak said it provides
the type of Street that has high volume traffic. Zoning
Ordinance has 801 for all Commercial Property. MSA Street
doesn't have to be done until water and sewer is available.
Burms or ditches would be OK for present. Can be discussed
later this is now concept.
5. The subdivision's anterior street is increased to 80 feet
in width in accordance with its qualification as a "collector
street". In addition, the street should be reconfigured in a
manner in which the subdivision's southern cul-de-sac is
given secondary vehicular prominence (see Exhibit F).
OK W/Kalway. It's Covered.
6. Access to the property via County Road 39 (right-
in/right-out) occur only as a single, centralized point, as
illustrated upon Exhibit F. All property access issues
should be subject to comment by both Wright County and the
City Engineer.
Kalway Can work with Co to possibly get a right -in.
7. The additional 20 feet of right-of-way illustrated along
a portion of County Road 42 is extended along the entire
western border of the Kalway plat. This issue should be
subject to further comment by Wright County and the City
Engineer.
Kirmis said our question is the jog. Kalway said their
position is they have just finished #39 and aquired right-of-
way. Montebello said the reason for the jog was to turn the
left lane into Park. Pavement surfaces narrowing up and
right-of-way covered the ditch area. Left turn lane for
South bound traffic on #42. Montebello stated that they
might be interested in extending a left turn lane (painted).
S. Potential property purchasers within the Kalway plat are
made known of long range plans by MN/DOT to construct a full
interchange at the Highway 101/County Road 39 intersection.
Kalway stated they are in agreement with #8. 9. If
construction is to occur within the Mississippi River's
floodplain, a conditional use permit shall be required. All
commercial structures must be constructed on fill with no
floor located below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation.
Kalway stated they are in agreement with #9.
10. The applicant submit a grading and drainage plan. The
plan shall be subject to review by the City Engineer.
Kalway stated they are in agreement with #10.
.,
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
11. A utility plan is submitted to provide an assurance that
the development is conducive to potential sanitary sewer
service. The utility plan shall be subject to the review and
comment of the City Engineer.
Kalway stated they are in agreement with #11.
12. The issue of the development's partial containment
within the Mississippi River's Wild and Scenic River District
is addressed and resolved.
The City is taking care of this. Kirmis stated the DNR is
not recommending approval of this plat because of the portion
to the East by #101 is in the Wild and Scenic. Commercial is
not allowed in the Wild and Scenic area. Kirmis stated that
in NAC's opinion it places a narrow strip of land within the
Wild and Scenic area with no reason for it. We are have
petitioned the DNR for a change in rules. If successful, the
boundary would follow #101. (Note: Exhibit D shows Wild and
Scenic boundary lines).
13. All potential lot purchasers within the Kalway plat are
made aware of potential future sanitary sewer assessment
charges.
Kalway stated they are in agreement with #13.
14. The City Engineer make comment regarding the
acceptability of the subdivision's designated outlots.
Kalway stated that the Engineer agreed and it meets
septic/drainfield requirements. City has adopted the MPGA
rules. Kalway stated two septics and drainfields are in one
outlot/double the size required for future expansion if
necessary.
15. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board make
recommendation regarding park dedication and area sidewalk
requirements.
Sidewalks Koshak assumes eventually curb and gutter with
essential sidewalks. This can be addressed at the time of
building. MSA road funds there is money allowed for
sidewalks. Construction of the road (policy needs to be
determined). General ownership of property would be assessed
for normal street and rest of portion will be paid out of MSA
funds. Kalway stated they may want to build City Streets
right now. Koshak stated we have only a five year program
and have only so much money each year. The next program
doesn't have this Street in it for the five year plan. The
City Council can re -look at it every year. Kalway said TIF
is something they are looking at. Koshak said drainage will
need to be addressed. Future sewer and water need to be
addressed. Engineer can address sewer lines and alternative.
Park and Trails dedication fees. (was left open ended and
needs to be addressed.
16. If phased development is to be pursued, it should be
fully illustrated upon the preliminary plat or a separate
phasing plan.
They don't own the rest of the land. Richard LeFebvre owns
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 4-17-91
AT 8PM - PAGE 7 -
the land. NAC thought that Kalway owned the land to the
North. Kalway said no they don't.
17. The City Engineer Comment as to the Acceptability of
Removing outlot A in a manner illustrated upon Exhibit F.
Koshak stated that on Commercial you should be able to bring
parking lots up within five feet (51) of the property line.
There would be no occupation of the right-of-way. The other
thing is consistency of lot size is that essential, Kalway
asked? (Exhibit F) Lots on #101, the size is designed to
accomodate sewer.' Lot 1, Block 5 needs to be that big to
accomodate what is going in there. Oudot C is sized to
accomodate septics double size of what is required. If sewer
is coming the other option is to put in holding tanks for a
year or so. Outlots are sized so they will be buildable
commercial lots. Exhibit F is acceptable to Kalway. Kirmis
said some variation is acceptable.
Roskaft asked if there was any more information from the
audience. It was asked if this is a Concept Plan and just
subject to comments, not binding and will come back to the
Planning Commission as a preliminary plat? Answer: yes.
Fournier motioned to approve concept plan for Kalway Plat
with all the ammendments and changes we talked about and
Kalway should work with the Wright Co Engr, and 8-1 Zoning be
recommended. Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
MARK WOOLSTON - Review concept plan for Antelope Park.
Mark Woolston and Dennis Taylor, land surveyor appeared
before the Commission. Rask raised the question about the
triangle owned by Dennis Moore. It is recommended to have
cul-de-sac tight against the Dennis Moore property. Koshak
said he changed his mind from the first discussion with
Kirmis. He based his first impressions from the public
sentiment against the road going thru, etc. 96TH Street is
MSA and we can work on designating it MSA all the way thru to
#37. Lewis brought up that this is different than originally
talked about. Koshak said 96TH and South to Ohland is
designated MSA. If you decide to put it an MSA. There was
discussion of a lot of driveways entering onto 96TH Street.
The Planning Commission meeting before they recommended MSA
on 96TH Street South to Ohland to #39. The reason they were
concerned was because of the public objection. Roskaft asked
about the trails? Paved shoulders on #39 is considered a
trail answered Swenson. Kirmis said they had a concept plan
for trails from #37 all the way to #42 ultimately. A bike
lane on #96th was recommended. We have 66' of right-of-way
on 96TH Street now. We would need additional right-of-way
for sidewalks stated Koshak. They have to look at drainage
and may have some ponding and loose some lots. Koshak said
street patterns are OK, and the cul-de-sac needs to be moved
- abutt it to the triangle lot of Dennis Moore. Lewis asked
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 4-17-91
8PM - PAGE 8 -
if this is in agreement with NAC. Kirmis said originally
they liked connection with #37, but changed his mind.
Roskaft brought up if #39 is tied up it might be a problem
with emergency vehicles. As the plat was drawn is what the
Planning Commission agreed upon for streets with exception of
the Cul-de-sac. Lot #3, Block 8 was discussed and they need
the lot that configeration for the one acre lot size. Koshak
asked if he would plat it as one. Woolston said yes. It is
only 42 lots. Ponding areas were discussed. Mark Wallace
motioned to accept the concept plan with revisions. Carl
Swenson and Jim Kolles seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Roskaft brought up the Special Planning Commission Meeting of
4-24-91 with the Comp Plan Only. The May 2, 1991 Planning
Meeting was discussed. Roskaft brought up that the 8TH of
May, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting Carl Swenson will Chair
the meeting as Ing Roskaft will be gone the 8th, 9th and 10th
of May, 1991 to attend the Minnesota Planning Association
Meeting in Duluth.
It was noted that Mark Wallace, Larry Fournier and Carl
Swenson will plan to attend a Planning Meeting on 5-2-91 in
Rochester.
Larry Fournier motioned to adjourn. Carl Swenson seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
JAMES R KOLLES, SECRETARY
BY:
Elaine Beatty Recording Secretary
eb
Attachment: Letter pertaining to Jones Intercable
PIROU inc.
April 9, 1991
Mr. Glen Hovland
JONES INTERCABLE
30 First Ave. N.E.
Buffalo MN. 55313
Dear Mr. Hovland:
1200 N. OAK RD.
P.O. BOX 128
PLYMOUTH, INDIANA 46563.0128
(219) 936.4221
FAX (219) 936.6796
Thank you for your inquiry relating to tower design practices and
predicted type of failure.
The national design code (EIA Standard RS -222-D) requires that
the factor of safety of guy wires be greater than the factor of
safety in the tower structure itself. For towers 700' or less,
the minimum factor of safety on wires is 2.0, while the minimum
factor of safety on tower members is 1.25. For towers over
1200' tall, these values are 2.5 and 1.66 respectively. For
heights between 700' and 12001, the values are calculated by
linear interpolation.
The purpose of this disparity is to insure that failure of the
structure is predicted before failure of the wires. Structural
failure would therefore be predicted to result in collapse of the
tower like a "carpenter's rule" in the general area of the base
of the tower.
The foregoing is with specific reference to tower failures
induced by extreme weather conditions. However, tower failure
can also result from human misadventure or vandalism. Therefore,
security fencing is advisable to protect against accident or
vandalism.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
US.
n Sinceie y
/�, L,
Myron C. Noble, P.E.
President
MCN/lsc
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE RELATING
TO THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND PROVISION OF ESSENTIAL
SERVICES AFTER 31 MARCH 1991.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. This section shall supersede any procedural
requirements in effect prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance relating to essential service provisions of the Otsego
Zoning Ordinance.
Section 2. The Otsego Zoning Ordinance Section 725 is
hereby amended by deleting Sections 725.1 through 715.10 and
replacing it with the following: _.
725. Essential Services
725.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide for
the installation of essential services such as
telephone lines, pipelines, electrical transmission
lines and substations in such a manner that the
health, safety and welfare of the City will not be
adversely affected. Essential services should also be
installed in cognizance of existing and projected
demands for such services.
725.2 All telephone lines, pipelines for local distribution,
underground electric transmission lines, and overhead
electric transmission lines and substations less than
33 KV, when installed in any public right-of-way in any
zoning district, shall require a special permit
approved by the City Council, upon recommendation from
the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator.
725.3 All telephone lines, pipelines for local distribution,
underground electric transmission lines, and overhead
electric transmission lines less than 33 KV, which are
intended to serve more than one (1) parcel and are
proposed to be installed at locations other than in
public right-of-way, shall require a special permit
issued by the City Council after review by the City
Engineer and Zoning Administrator. Approval by the
City shall be based upon the information furnished in
the procedural requirements as outlined in Section
725.4, Installation Requirements:
725.4 Installation Requirements
A. Prior to the installation of any of the previous
essential services, the owner of such service
shall file with the Zoning Administrator, all maps
and other pertinent information as deemed
necessary for the City to review the proposed
project.
B. The Zoning Administrator shall transmit the map
and accompanying information to the City Engineer
or other staff for review and approval regarding
the project's relationship to the Comprehensive
Plan and/or Ordinances and parts thereof.
C. The City staff shall report in writing to the
Zoning Administrator their findings as to the
compliance of the proposed project with the
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City.
D. In considering applications for the placement of
essential services, as regulated in this Section,
the aforesaid City staff shall consider the effect
of the proposed project upon the health, safety
and general welfare of the City, as existing and
as anticipated; and the effect of the proposed
project upon the Comprehensive Plan. In addition,
the following specific performance standards shall
be reviewed as they may apply to the application:
1) Lot Requirements. All lots must meet the
dimensional standards of the Zoning District
with respect to width, area, and structure
setbacks from property lines.
2) Parking. The site must provide for required
off-street parking in conformance with
Section 707 of this Ordinance.
3) Building Materials. The essential service
buildings must be constructed with exterior
building facades that maintain a high
standard of architectural and aesthetic
compatibility with surrounding properties.
4) Screening and Landscaping. Adequate
screening and landscaping from neighboring
property is provided in accordance with
Sections 704 and 705 of this Ordinance.
2
5) Site Access. Direct lot access from.major
collector or arterial streets shall be
discouraged and where possible be provided
access through shared access arrangement from
an existing. curb cut and driveway or a
neighborhood use. Direct lot access from a
minor collector or local street may be
allowed, provided the curb cut access
complies with the standards outlined in
Section 721 of this Ordinance.
6) Unless otherwise approved by the City
Council, all equipment is completely enclosed
in a permanent structure with no outside
storage.
E. Upon receiving the recommendations of the staff,
the City Council may issue a special permit for
the installation and operation of the applicant's
essential services. If the staff reports
regarding said permit cause the City Council to
deny its issuance, the applicant may appeal said
decision to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
under the rules and procedures as set forth in
Section 502 of this Ordinance.
725.5 All receiving, pipelines or transmission facilities
(i.e., facilities not required for local distributing
network) and overhead transmission and substation lines
in excess of 33 KV shall be a conditional use in all
districts subject to the following requirements:
A. Adherence to all applicable Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and State performance
standards.
B. The performance standards as specified in Section
725.4.D. of this Ordinance are adhered to.
C. The procedural and review standards for
conditional use permits are followed as specified
in Section 505 of the Zoning Ordinance.
D. Any alteration of the existing use (i.e., building
expansion, change/intensification in use, etc.)
involving items not identified upon approved
initial plans shall require a conditional use
permit amendment.
3
725.6 All television, audio., or telephone transmission or
receiving facilities which exceed the height limits
established by the applicable zoning district and
exemptions thereto, shall require a conditional use
permit subject to the following requirements:
A. Adherence to all applicable Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and State performance
standards.
B. The performance standards as specified in Section
725.4.D. of this Ordinance are adhered to.
C. In no case shall the facilities exceed one hundred
fifty (150) feet in height.
D. The procedural and review standards for
conditional use permits are followed as specified
in Section 505 of the Zoning Ordinance.
E. Any alteration of the existing use (i.e., building
expansion, change/intensification in use, etc.)
involving items not identified upon approved
initial plans shall require a conditional use
amendment.
725.7 Lots reserved specifically for essential services,
whether of record, or newly subdivided, may be less
than the specified dimensions of the applicable zoning
district, both in area and width as a conditional use,
under the following conditions:
A. The lot is of sufficient dimensions to allow the
setbacks from all property lines to be equal to
height of the various structures on the parcel or
the setback requirements of the district,
whichever are greater. Lesser structure setbacks
may be allowed by the City Council upon
demonstration that the facility's design is such
that the collapse of said structure will not
endanger surrounding property. In no case shall
the setbacks be reduced to less than that
required by the individual districts.
B. Applications for subdivision of new lots under
this provision are accompanied by the appropriate
conditional use permit applications.
4
C. A restrictive covenant, removable by the City, is
recorded against a parcel which prohibits any
sale, transfer, or use other than for an essential
service as defined in the City ordinances so long
as the parcel is substandard in size, according to
the applicable zoning districts.
D.
In the event of abandonment of the essential
service for any reason on the substandard lot all
equipment, structures, cables, buildings or any
other improvements to the property shall be
removed from said property within a period of
three (3) months. At the end of three (3) months,
if the above listed have not been completely
removed, the City may enter said property and
remove any of the above listed items and
improvements and charge said costs to the owner(s)
of the property, and any such unpaid charge shall
be a lien against the affected property, including
any and all administrative, legal and other fees
expended by the City in enforcing this provision.
E.
The procedural and review standards- for
conditional use permits are followed as specified
in Section 505 of the Zoning Ordinance.
F.
Any alteration of the existing use (i.e., building
expansion, change/intensification in use, etc.)
involving items not identified upon approved
initial plans shall require a conditional use
permit amendment.
Section
3. Section 604.5 (1) b. is hereby amended to read
as follows:
604.5 (1) b.
This height limitation shall not apply to grain
elevator lags, cooling towers, water towers,.
chimneys and smokestacks, church spires, electric
transmission lines, or private radio or television
towers which exceed the maximum height by less
than twenty (20) feet.
5
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and publication.
Adopted by
the Otsego City Council this
19
CITY OF OTSEGO
BY:
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jerome Perrault, Clerk
WHITE - ORIGINAL YELLOW - FILE COPY PINK - C FILE