Loading...
10-16-91 Planning Commission MINCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 10/16/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 1 - MINUTES Chairman Ing Roskaft called the meeting to order at 8PM. The following Members were present: MARK WALLACE CARL SWENSON LARRY FOURNIER ING ROSKAFT KATHY LEWIS BRUCE RASK The fallowing Staff were present: DAVE LICHT ELAINE BEATTY JUDY HUDSON The follow Council Members were present: DOUG LINDENFELSER RON BLACK NORM FRESKE FLOYD RODEN Minutes of the October 9, 1991 meeting were under consideration. Lewis noted that Page #4, the next to the last paragraph should read "Riverwood" Conference Center. Lewis motioned to approve the minutes with the above change. Wallace seconded the motion_ Motion carried unanimously_ KENT NIELSON - Island View Estates PUD Hearing (Cont) on Lots 10 and 11, Black 7 Island View Estates. PUD over all of Island View Estates. Licht spoke - We renoticed the hearing. Nielsons came forth on a problem with Lot 11, Block 7. It is a substandard ' lot. Wright Co had determined that Lot 11, Block 7 was substandard and it should be combined with Lot 10, Block 7 to make a buildable lot. Co said Lot 10 was not considered buildable and bath should be combined into one lot. We had proposed a PUD be applied to the whole subdivision. The over all subdivision would comply. DNR does not agree with the PUD. In identifying the problem was larger than anticapated. Nielsans went back to the surveyor and attempted to get topo. information. He provided what was available and it was topo prior to development. There was apparently no drainage plan for the subdivision required. The City Engineer and Dave Chase agreed there is a potential of major drainage problems Possible. Further identification of a problem - The City Council identified problems on Lots 25 and 26 off #39. The one lot has been filled and there is a drainage problem. The Council has a directive that no lots in Island View can be issued a Building Permit until the City Engineer looks at it. The City Engineer will be doing a drainage study next year and Island View is one area that will be looked at. The PUD requires that any vacant undeveloped parcels be looked at by the Engineer before building. On the Nielson's site we can not determine if there is sufficient property to build a house. If Lot 10 is to be determined whether it is buildable or not, we have to have a site plan with topo. information. The hearing can be continued for two months if they wish to pursue it. If the Nielson's choose to not pursue that information we can close the Hearing. Patricia Nielson said after we all walked the lots, we talked to the DNR. We did not know exactly what the DNR said. All we knew is what we have been told. #1. They CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 10-16-91 AT 8PM - PAGE 2 - MINUTES never said the lots can not be separated. They have 120' in width requirement. Wright County put the one acre stipulation on the Lot. The DNR has no control on anything except sewage and setbacks. They said drainage does not effect them. As far as they are concerned, both our lots 10 and 11 meet the requirements. The crevice in the middle of Lot 10 was there originally. On the original plan all the lots have a drainage easement. Where the culvert is if it is working right, the water would never get to Lot 10. We don't feel we have any drainage problem on those two lots at all said Mrs Nielson. The surrounding lots have been filled in so that's why it runs into the crevice. We are asking for a Variance. If we put in a house, it would be graded so it would drain down where it is supposed to. There is a 20' easement on these lots. The crevice is not draining water. We shouldn't even be in a PUD situation. We don't have a drainage problem on the lots. All we need is a variance and we would have to meet sewer and setbaek requirements. Roskaft asked for any other comments. Kent Nielson said on this PUD he did not know he had to become an Engineer. I } was requested by Licht to produce a topo. which I did, and } this is the fifth time we have been in front of you people and Wright Co combined asking for a Variance. I believe ours could be the only one that didn't meet the one acre requirement. Lots 10 and 11 are buildable, I feel. If the County changes something I don't see how it should effect us. We have really gone out of our way to get this done. Grading from Lot 9 was pushed over to ours. Lot 11 has been filled in too. If you look at the culvert that is across form Lot 10, and go across the street, the culvert sets 12" up from the ditch. some water goes thru, but it goes West or East. Again, all we are asking for is a Variance on Lot 11. We feel we have done all we can do. Darrell Johnson of Maroon, Inc said he has built 30 of the last 35 homes in Island View Estates. We have been working without a grading and drainage plan since day one. Of the 24 lots we built on there is probably three that there is a fill type situation. I hear that Otsego's Building Inspector will be taking a look at the lots along with the Engineer. I welcome that. On September 8th and 9th combined we had 10" of rain. There was not standing water anyplace, or any erosion or any fast running water except Kadler Avenue which is a blacktopped street. As long as the Nielson's meet the sanitary requirements, when the Construction Engineer says maybe it should be put in a PUD, I don't know where the problems are. Al Elleraas of Lot 9, said I feel motivated to respond _ to what the Nielsons said. If you fill in a large ravine (not a crevice), you would find there is a major drainage problem. any construction on that property, even assuming CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 10/16/91 AT 8PM — PAGE 3 — MINUTES they would meet DNR requirement, it would fill in the ravine. That would effect the lots on the river side of Kahler. The Nielsons failed to record there deed and get information from DNR. They should have recorded the deed themselves. Chairman asked for any other remarks. Licht stated first of all Mr Nielson has to fully appreciate that while we don't expect him to be an Engineer to evaluate the problem on the lot, it is the applicants responsibility to provide that Engineering data. If the land is not created to have drainage, easements don't do any good Until we have topo. information it can't be judged. To clarify where the City is coming from, the City has confronted the Hall's Water Project,which has cost one half a million bucks to the property owners. Assessments are under appeal and it is a very expensive proposition. Because there was not adequate information, it has to be provided now, because the City doesn't have money to go and take care of the drainage problem. This is the reason for the PUD and the requirements being imposed. If it is a Variance or PUD, either will work and this is the obstacle you are confronting. A Variance cannot be approved without topo. information. Mr Nielson submitted a topo on the site. A layout as to where the developable land is on Lot 10. We don't know how far back that can go. It is our suspicion the bluffline would be coming back with the ravine. I don't think the City is in a position to say. Until there is adequate information it cannot be resolved. The bluffline is down in front of where the ravine goes Mr. Nielson said. As far as what the DNR saw on the topo he felt it wouldn't be a problem. We want a Variance on Lot 11, Block 7 because it is undersized. If we end up with Lot 10 being we can't build on it, our deed has a cloud on it because of what was done at the County. The County said the two lots 10 and 11 should stay together. Roskaft asked if any other people wish to talk? Mike Snyder of Lot 12 said lot 11 does have a ravine. I had to push my house diagonally because of the ravine. Rask asked if the drainage study would be complete would we utilized the drainage easement to do drainage? Licht said DNR probably wouldn't agree to it. Roskaft stated there were no survey stakes out there to be found and it doesn't meet the requirements. Mrs Nielson asked what did we paid the money for the PUD for? Licht said what you paid for was the process to come thru here and have this request reviewed. All costs are the responsibility of the applicant. We were only told about the ravine when Mr Salkowski got notice and sent us information on these lots. Mrs Nielson said the DNR was quoted incorrectly. DNR said the way to process it was a Variance. Roskaft asked Elaine Beatty if we had any complaints on drainage. Yes was the answer, on Kahler. Darrell Johnson said it was sand piled on that lot that people were afr,:r+ of CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 10/16/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 4 - MINUTES it causing drainage problems. Beatty agreed. If you have substandard lots and have contiguous ownership you have to have them combined under the Wild and Scenic. The PUD was utilized if you have a substandard lot or two and most of the lots in Island View Estates are more than one acre, under the PUD it equals out in size. In 1978 these two lots, 10 & 11, Block 7 were owned by the developer. If we can determine that there is buildable area on Lot 10, then we can say go ahead on Lot 11. Engineer will require the information we are asking for when a Building Permit is asked for. The topo we have now is out of date. Your lots need to be surveyed. The map here is not accurate. It is outdated. The topo shows raw land not what is there today. Lot 25 and 26, that land was filled and our Engineer concluded there may need to be an easement for drainage. Mrs Nielson said then you need not go for the PUD? Licht stated we recommend table the matter and bring it back when we get the survey and topos. The Planning Commission has a Continued Hearing. Notice has been given. You gather that information and for some reason the DNR says only a Variance will be considered )' and no other way this Commission can say a Variance is the way to go. Roskaft said he is not familiar with this kind of PUD. Does every property owner have to agree on that? It is a determination of the City. He has to go in PUD because the City says so. PUD is an after the fact approach to it. It is a way to clear title on any and all substandard lots in that subdivision. PUD says minor substandard lots within Island View Estates is a buildable parcel, and no Variance required. It will solve the Nielson's problems and any more problems that come forth. What surfaced is that there are other potential problems in that subdivision. We are saying on any underdeveloped parcel the Engineer has to look at it and grading and draifage has to be looked at. The intent is to solve any drainage problems before they happen. Roskaft said I'm confused that under the PUD it says that this drainage has to go down this side of my lot. If you have a house with a Certificate of occupancy, if there is not an easement across my property the City can't do anything. Roskaft said all the developers on the other side of the river, if they owned two lots they had to combine them when the Wild and Scenic River Act came in. Glen Posusta lives in Island View and wants to know what this has to do with him? Licht said if you have a developed piece of property you are not affected. The initial intent was to make a substandard lot a buildable lot. The application is reviewed by the Engineer and is now being considered. Notice has been sent to every property in Island View Estates and 350' CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 10-16-91 SPM -PAGE 5 - MINUTES surrounding Island View. Jack Jaskinski asked how many lots in Island View are substandard? Nielsons said as far as we can find out, we are it. When you come in for a Building Permit you have to have the lots surveyed. You may find the lot is substandard. The DNR has to be involved in these lots because of Wild and Scenic. Mr. Jaskinski said he liked the fact of one acre lots and didn't want substandard lots. Licht said it is minimal, not a drastic deviation. Rask said he has a concern with five lots to be filled they will be substandard, right? Licht said no. Nielson's are part of DNR's Wild and Scenic. Some of the other lots are not necessarily substandard. When someone chooses to build on the remaining lots they have to submit a topo and grading and drainage plan. If we determine there are five substandard lots I feel Nielson's should be reimbursed 1/5 of their cost said Rask. Licht feels a Variance is not legal to grant. You need a physical hardship which you need to justify a Variance. )' There is no reason to grant a Varinance. If you do, it is a questionable legal precedent. So the only way out is this may exist in the whole subdivision. We are doing nothing different. They are paying no extra cost. They are not being asked to survey all of Island View Estates. They are asked to do a PUD. What we have gone thru pursuant to lots 10 and 11 is for the benefit of the Nielson's. They are not being hooked for anything but what is on their specific concern. Fournier requests a topo of lots 10 and 11, Block i. There are two issues: 1. Adequate space for house Z. Adequate space for drainfield Fournier motioned to continue the Hearing until the Nielson's have the topo of lots 10 and 11, Block 7 in Island View Estates, to December 18th, 1991 at 8PM. Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Justin Bower did not show up for the meeting. He had wanted to discuss with the Planning Commission 131or more sidewalls for garages so campers can fit into it. Site Inspection of 10-16-91 at 4PM the following Members attended= ING ROSKAFT KATHY LEWIS LARRY FOURNIER MARK WALLACE The sites inspected were Woolston's Antelope Park, Kenneth Sauer and John LeFebvre. Licht talked about the Sign Ordinance and comparisons of other Cities. What Cities do they want to look at? Eden Prairie Buffalo Bloomington Brooklyn Park CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 10/16/91 AT 8PM— PAGE 6 — MINUTES North Oaks Brooklyn Center Woodbury Anoka Licht noted that Ad Billboards and Business Signs are what we are looking at. Licht encouraged the Planning Commission to go thru the Sign Ordinance so you are thoroughly versed on what is there. Another thing is Community. Maybe Homeowners Association should be solicited for opinion. Section, 50.. General Zoning District Provision Ag Rural Service Area A-2 4 per 40 area, Long Range Urban Area R-1 - 2-1/2 acre required basically Wild and Scenic R-2 - Immediate Service District Large Lot R-3-- Immediate Service District 1 Acre lot R-4,5,6,& 7 - Zoning District. That will only apply with Public Regular Sewer System - Darkenwald's with there Central System or some other consolidated system put in. In essence it is on the shelf. Provide a guideline for resubdivision potential. RMH - Manufactured housing district. Darkenwald's Mobile Home Park applies. RB - Residential Business District. Residential and Office Buildings in the same district is possible. Licht went briefly over Business Districts. Licht said we may have four Industrial Zones. They are still working on it. Standards and uses may facilitate additional zones. C. Special Districts (still looking at) Shoreland, Floodplains, etc. We do not have yet. More districts you have the more control you have said Licht. If you have'one Zoning District that is Residential (have a zone for each type of those uses) Lindenfelser asked how flexible are you on boundary lines? Licht said it's up to you. Is it a problem? You initially apply a Zoning District with rational. The Zoning applies more pinpointed areas. Too many Cities go beyond where they need to go. The Assessor can take into account Zoning of the property as well for taxing purposes. It was use only, Previously. On Zoning changes you need to have Hearings. When everything is in place the process will become very automatic said Licht. Lindenfelser said he is concerned about Zoning changes every year or every other year. Roskaft and Lewis said they cannot be here the 23rd of October. It was decided to take the 23rd of October off and meet the 30th of October at SPM for the next Planning Commission Meeting to go over Section 50 - General Zoning District Provisions. Wallace motioned to adjourn the meeting. Lewis seconded the motion. oti car 'ed n' ously. JAMES R KOL S, SECRETARY BY: Elaine ' -,Beatty, Recording Secretary