Loading...
09-18-91 Planning Commission MINCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/18/91 AT SPM The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Ing Roskaft at SPM. Minutes of the 9/11/91 Planning Commission Meeting were considered. Motion by Carl Swenson to approve the minutes. Seconded by Bruce Rask. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Members present as follows: KATHY LEWIS ING ROSKAFT LARRY FOURNIER CARL SWENSON BRUCE RASK MARK WALLACE JIM KOLLES ( WAS ABSENT) Staff present as follows= David Licht Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson 3. Kent Nielson -- Island View Estates PUD Hearing, Re: Lots 10 & 11, Block 7, Island View Estates. Sec 11, Township 121, Range 24, City of Otsego, Co of Wright. Roskaft turned the meeting over to Dave Licht at this point. Licht explained that he and Elaine Beatty met in a Staff meeting with the Nielsons. They stated that one lot was less than an acre. The response was that more lots were more than an acre in size in Island View Estates, and the way to rectify it is place a PUD on Island View Estates (Cond.Use Permit) and if more are over will all work out. DNR was with Dale Homuth of DNR. To office was notified of the H story came out as to why DNR sale independently of Lots 1 Because Lot 11 was substanda sold with Lot 10 because the family house, as well as a d Engr and Bob Kirmis of NAC's site and their concern was t driveway put on the site, bu There was a comment made by relatively very few lots lef are difficult to build on. these lots. Some of the lot for development& There are request. one acre and some are less, it against the PUD and NAC debated m Salkowski, Wright Co P & Z earing and at that point, another and the County had opposed the 0 & 11, Block 7 Is View Estates. rd, the County said it had to be lot will not substain a single rainfield. Larry Koshak, City office went out and viewed the hat there may be a house with a t it would have to be surveyed. the City Council that there were t in Island View Estates and they Attention needs to be paid to s should have never been approved one of two actions for Nielsons 1. Leave the County action on Lots 10 & 11, Block 7, Island View Estates. (Keep them together). 2. A Certificate of Survey be prepared with topography and site I.D's being made to determine if it can be built on. J Licht said that the other matter that they have raised is the issue of the PUD. It has two twists. 1) Recognize the sub -standard lots, but because of the lots left in Island View, place the requirement that any vacant lots have to come `i before the City Engineer for review to see if they are buildable. Requiring it to be formally brought before you may be going a little too far. It should be attended to. It is making up for what was not done when the property was CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/18/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 2 - platted. Fournier asked if we did the second scenario, how would we address the lot size? Patricia Nielson commented that they never had an opportunity to tell what there story was at the Co. We bought two lots and we thought that we would build on one and her husband's parents would build on the other one. Mr Nielson's business was going to be moving. At no time were they aware of any problem on the lots she said. When DNR came in and made the comments that they should be kept together, they thought Island View owned the lots. We knew nothing about this. We were going to build on one or the other and put up a "for sale" sign. A lady wanted to buy the lot, and the Realtor said it did not meet the one acre requirement. We went to Wright Co and they said the lots could not be separated. We would like to sell one and keep the other, and I don't see why we can't. Licht said that 4 Nielson's failure to record the Contract for Deed was not the County's, City's or DNR's problem. That was their responsibility to do and secondly, and what is our concern, is that Island View was given notice. That's why we are saying that their potential recourse is a law suite against Island View. Mrs Nielson asked what would happen if someone else had bought that lot. Licht said that the only thing they could do would be sue the developer. Mr Bame, the developer of Island View Estates was in the audience and said that Meyer-Rohline of Buffalo, whom he believes was recommended to him by the Township, platted Island View Estates for him. The County accepted the plat, and Meyer-Rohline measured it, we didn't said Bame. He said there are 25 lots left in Island View and 5 lots need to be filled. Roskaft said that the County accepted the plat as surveyed and they don't go back and re -survey plats. If the surveyor is wrong, it is up to the developer to sue the surveyor, not the County. Nielson said Lot 11 is not a buildable lot and he can't see why he can't get a variance and build on it. He said he bought the lot from Mr. Bame, who is the Island View Developer, who happens to be his Brotherw-In-Law, and that is another problem. Mr Nielson claimed that Lot 10 is buildable. Licht said that NAC and the City Engineer has looked at it and suggested that Mr Nielson do a detailed survey and site plan with Topo. information. If there are drainage problems that need to be addressed, it is ordinarily dedicated to the City. The City is not the one to fall back on in terms of bailing one out of this, and they do not have a copy of the survey on this. If there is a survey, it should be submitted to the City Engineer stated Licht. y CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/18/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 3 - Mr Nielson talked about the drainage ditch and if the road is blacktopped it probably would need to be fixed at that time. Roskaft said that one lot up there was used for a gravel pit and had some rusty machinery in it. Nielson said it is not his lot, but Lot #13 or #14. The DNR is saying that it can not be sold as independent lots now said Licht. They said that Lot 10 because of the revine, they do not see as a buildable lot, and because Lot 11 is sub -standard in size, they required them to be combined and sold as such. Licht said that the problem with the Island View Plat is that it does not have topography. The issue is not the 70 sq ft short. The problem is lot 10, not lot 11. Al Ellerass, of 10084 Kahler, Block 7, Lot 9 in Island View Estates said lot 10 is not buildable. It provides drainage for a lot of Island View Estates Development area. There is not space for two buildable lots on that area. Mike Schneider - Lives on Lot 12 and reinforced what Mr Ellerass said. There is a large drainage ditch and would be counted as a bluff line as far as the DNR is concerned he said. He is bounded by revines there so he would probably have trouble meeting the set -back requirements he stated about Nielson's property. Roskaft brought the discussion back to the Planning Commission. Licht said that if and when a Building Permit is submitted, we need topographic informaiton at that time and a site survey. The City Engineer would not do that. Nielson's would have to get their own information. A resident of one of the adjoining lots said that the revive thru Nielsons property is as big as this room and also as deep. If Nielson puts in a culvert in his driveway, it will create more problems said the residents of the adjoining lots. Licht said part of the fustration is we don't have enough information. The other thing is drainage problems. Swenson asked if they were to build one house, would it still be required to have a Certificate of Survey? Licht said yes they would. Drainage being put in and assessed back to Island View Estates was discussed and what had been done in Hall's Addition was discussed. They are saying there is not a buildable site on that lot because Lot 10 is not buildable as it stands today. Lot 11 is buildable and both of the lots have the same owner. What the County and DNR is saying is that if the Nielsons 1 brought two lots and have no buildable one, it is the problem of the seller, said Licht. If the seller has a problem with his professional Engineer, it is his problem. Mrs Nielson said we can't build on Lot 10 because of drainage problems. Why can't we build on Lot 11, by itself? CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/18/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 4 - The County and the DNR has said that they don't want Lot 10. Mr Nielson said he thinks this problem should be addressed now. Licht said that maybe we need to refer this to the City Engineer. Maybe we should try to address it now. (the drainage problem). There are problems that a lot of the lots that are there are taking drainage for the balance of the site. This is a Sub --division that the drainage was not addressed on. When drainage is not addressed, the last lots are the problem lots as they effect drainage. Maybe the recourse at this time is to refer to the City Engineer to look at the problem. Rask asked would they get a Certificate of Survey at the same time? Licht said that as part of a City problem there will be Engineering that needs to be addressed. A Hearing would need to be set upon that. Charles Burning lives across the road from Lot 10. He said Lot 10 is not taking on water. It is draining thru. Licht said that if the problem would have been handled properly, a drainage project would be in the project. It was apparently not done. That lot is becoming restricted because of drainage. If they fill it, the other properties will flood. You have to discharge that water someplace. It becomes the cost of that sub --division. You have runoff and that should have been addressed when the plat went in. A resident said that the Wild and Scenic Act prevents them from filling. There was some discussion on this. Roskaft said we can make the recommendation to have the City Engineer look at this. Fournier motioned to table this action and continue the hearing until we have more information from the Nielsons and the Planning Commission do a Site Inspection of Lots 10 & 11, Block 7, Island View Estates. Carl Swenson seconded the motion. Wallace said if they do a site inspection without a topography map, can we make a decision? Roskaft said you will get a chance to study the entire area. Rask said he would rather refer this to the City Engineer rather than a site inspection. Fournier said he is not familiar with these lots. Lewis agreed with Rask that she would like to have the Engineer look at it. Swenson asked who will pay for it? Bame said approximately 5 lots in Island View need some � ) fill. Rask said if we address Nielson's and don't have it looked at by the Engineer, we would have problems later. Rask said there are all kinds of washouts between Island View and his house from rains. .-) CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/18/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 5 - Licht said that it could be that the revine may have to be left as a drainage site. Fournier said that as a Planning Commission, we should look at it, and the Engineer needs to be involved also. The motion carried with all agreeing except Bruce Rask who opposed the motion. Date of Monday, September 23, 1991 at 5:15PM was set to view Lots 10 & 11 of Island View Estates, Block 7. The Commission will meet at the City Hall. The Nielson's PUD Hearing will be continued until October 2, 1991 at 8PM. Mr Nielson stated that he would also be at his property on September 23, 1991 at 5:15 for any questions. Licht told the Planning Commission that as far as he has heard, the Planning Commission and Council has taken a firm stand on billboards and off premise advertising. Franklin Sign will be present and they are very concerned about billboards. Licht has tried to take a neutral position at this time. However, he had a call from Clem Darkenwald and he told Clem that when we get to the sign ordinance we should say they can come to the Planning Commission and have ten or fifteen minutes to make their pitch. ( See PC --9/19/91 file) _f�oAA (/.0 /s..// / I Post -It'" rand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages ► To From Co. /�'� n Co. Dept. Phone # / Fax # Fax # CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/18/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 6 - (Continued from File PC -82091) Licht said another matter is the Summary of the Staff Meetings of the City which are held. On Antelope Park Sub -division, Dennis Moore has a triangle property SW of the subdivision and we have told Mr. Moore that property will not access onto #39. He met with us last Thursday (Mr Moore). Would you consider allowing attached single family houses (4 -clustered)? Because of the power station there is not much buildable land there. Rask said he doubts that there is a buildable site on that lot. Woolston is required to run a street to Moore's property line. It would be under a PUD (Gond Use Permit). The Planning Commission said they are willing to look at this clustered housing. Licht said Planning Commission should look at the sites before the Hearing and some Cities post signs saying " This site is subject to Zoning Consideration". Licht gave a brief overview of the Staff Meeting Items of 9/12/91. We then started over the Zoning Ordinances at Section 17 - Page #25: P9 26-8. Rask said what is the definition of monument? Unless it says you can have it, you can't, said Licht. But a monument definition will be put in. Licht said 940 Sq Ft is the basic house most communities accept. Pg 29-C. Sr Housing Licht suggests leave this as is. Sr Housing is positive. P 30-20--17-9 - May apply to Darkenwald if they have multiple dwellings. P9 31 & 32 -- 20-17w-11 Single Family Dwellings. This regulation will preclude mobile housing because of standards. P9 35 A-E Model home need be approved by Council. P9 36 Site and Building Plan Review ( Multiple family, Commercial and Industrial.) Subject to review by the planning commission and Council. 9/26/91 Planning Commission Meeting we will have Zoning Ordinances Only and start on Section #22, Page #37- Off Street Parking Requirements. Licht will have response on items from last meeting. Fournier motioned to adjourn the meeting. Wallace 2nd the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 10:30 adjournment. -J JAMES R KOLLES, JEJRETARY ELAINE BEATTY, RECORDING SECRETARY J EB