Loading...
12-18-91 Planning Commission MINCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 12/18/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 1 - Chairman Roskaft called the meeting to order at 8:05PM. The following members were present: LARRY FOURNIER KATHY LEWIS BRUCE RASK JIM KOLLES 'T'he following staff was present: Dave Licht Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson The following Council Members were present: Larry Fournier Norman F Freske Ronald Black Doug Lindenfelser Floyd Roden First item on the agenda was the consideration of P.C. Minutes of 12/4/91. Lewis motioned to approve the P.C. Minutes of 12/4/91. Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Island View Estates PUD - Kent Nielson was postponed until later in the meeting. Maurice Harpster - (Cant. of Hearing) Subdivision of two approx. 2--1/2 acre parcels from PID #118-500-362400 in Sec 36, T 121„ R 23 for a total of 5.1 acres from +83 acres. This subdiv. will rectify a non -conforming cond. (2 principal bldgs on one lot) and allow individual home lots to be saleable. Zoning is W/5 and lies in the long range urban service area of the City. (Hearing was cont, to allow the applicant to get more information). Licht noted that this is a cont. of the Hearing and the applicant has submitted a revised survey. The house was sited properly and the location of the septics and drainfields were added. Wayne Fingalson of the Co Hwy Dept. had called Beatty and told her he had talked to Mr. Harpster at a site inspection of the property and agreed to allow two driveways, one on each property, if two were removed (see attached letter). Licht stated that NAC agrees with approval of this request. This will be brought to City Council on January 13, 1992. There was some discussion on if Mr. Harpster needs to attend the Council Meeting. Staff will check with Council and advise Mr. Harpster. Lewis motioned to recommend approval of the Harpster Subdivision, with the 12 conditions listed in NAC's report. of October 30, 1991, except #10. which refers to location of drainfields and septics. Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Island View Estates PUD Hearing - Kent Nielson - was next to be heard. A11 of Island View Estates and Lots 10 & 11, Block 7 of Island View Estates owned by Mr. Nielson. Section 11, and 14, Twp 121, R24, all of Blocks 1-7, Island View Licht stated that NAC sent out a report and there were two issues; 1) Kent Nielson's property, Lots 10 & 11, Block #; Because one lot being less than an acre, Wright Co had insisted they combine Lots 10 & 11 into one building CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 12/18/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 2 - site. Licht stated that NAC had suggested that they needed a site survey, and in October the P.C. insisted that survey be Provided. Upon completing it, it was found that lot 11 was in fact beyond ordinance standards at the time of its creation. As a consequence of this situation, the basis upon which the lot combination requirement had been imposed was eliminated and there is no need for Nielson to continue with the City with this request. Lot #10, Block 7 it will need to be shown that there is sufficient building site on the lot to provide for principal structure, septic and drainfield, well, etc. Licht stated that from discussion of drainage of the total Island View Estates, it needs to be addressed. The City Council, by general motion, has indicated that any building plans need to be approved by the City Engineer in Island View Estates. The Planning Commission recommended to the Council that all of Island View Estates be put into a PUD. It does not preclude development. Licht said NAC recommends that the P.C. approve that aspect of the PUD. Sherry5hqrry Elleras 10084 Kahler Ave, Island View Est. stated he has a concern about the size of the house which could be build on Lot 10, Block 7 and filling of that ravine. Licht stated we have no more control over Lot 10 & 11, Block 7. In terms of the fill, requiring grading and drainage plans before issuing the Building Permit would require that that ravine not be filled as part of that Process. The DNR would be notified also. The lot size was restored so we have no more leverage now. The issue is the drainfield and well. They need to demonstrate to the City Engineer they can meet all the requirements of the Ordinance. Mike Schneider 10150 Kahler Ave, Island View Est. stated he just needed a clarification of Lots 10 & 11, Block 7. Is the high water mark different today? Answer: Yes, the DNR determines the high water mark. Roskaft called for P.C. response to Nielson. He asked Licht if this is a PUD Cond. Use Permit? Licht said the Property owners do not have to file for a Cond. Use Permit. The P.C. initiated a Cond. Use Permit/PUD to address lots in the Island View Estates development. The initial problem was addressing lots less than an acre in size. The entire subdivision was noticed, within 350' feet of it. The PUD is a step in the Building Permit process, rather than the Zoning Process, said Licht. Ing said that the Planning Commission did recommend the PUD/Cond. Use Permit for Island View Estates, right? Licht answered right, as long as the process was already initiated, if we pass this purchasers will be aware of this. It will be filed at the County. Larry Fournier asked if the only route we can take is with the PUD? Licht said that is correct. There was no grading and drainage plans required with this plat. All we ar saying is that we have to be cautioLis .as to how thi_, i- CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 12/18/91 8PM - PAGE 3 - handled. We are concerned about someone coming in and filling. This process is an extra check and balance system. Rask motioned to require grading and drainage plans be reviewed by the City Engineer and included this in the PUD/Cond. Use Permit for Island View Estates and the Hearing for Kent Nielson on Lot 10 & 11, Block 7, Island View Estates be closed as per NAC's Report of December 12, 1991. Fournier seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Hearing on an Ord. Amending Sec. 604 of the City Code relating to lot frontage requirements and to the maximum number of acres allowable for residences as part of the one dwelling per 40 acre designation in the A-2 Gen. Ag Dist. of the City. Licht stated as part of the Zoning Ord. update process we are addressing, as well as several requests we have had this Fall, we are addressing two (2) amendments for the one per forty split. The present ordinance requires 200' of road frontage for the one per forty split. It was the Councils position that this could be changed to 150'. The second matter is that under the one per forty split, the maximum size lot you can have is a 2.5 acre split. That comes from the Co. and they, as a matter of course, deviated from that. on a number of occasions under certain circumstances. In keeping with the over all obligation of preserving prime farm land, the land could not qualify as prime ag property and it could not be more than a ten (10) acre split. The existing buildings covering a larger than 2-1/2 acre area was another reason. Lewis motioned to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment "An Ordinance Amending Sec.604 of the City Code relating to lot frontage requirements and to the maximum number of acres allowable for residences as part of the one dwelling per 40 acre designation in the A-2, Gen Ag Dist of the City". Dave Sheppard stated he understands that the maximum you could cut out .is 10 acres? Licht answered, yes. Kolles seconded the motion. Rask asked what is the reason for not allowing 20 Acres? Sheppard said if you had fifteen or twenty acres of low lying land what would you do? Licht said you could split that land but no building would be allowed on it. The thrust is keeping building down and preserving Ag Land. You could have 9 acres and buy the extra 20 acres, but not get a building permit on it. Licht said if you have 40 acres and take out a building site, you have to deed restrict the land. Darrell Satthoff - Asked why couldn't you take eighty acres, split one otf, and have another twenty? Licht said we ars allowing one sale per 1/4 section. It is to be confined so land isn't taken out of Ag production. All agreed on the motion. Dennis Havel - Request for Cond Use Permit for CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 12/18/91 8PM- PAGE 4 - approximately five (5) acres on a one in forty acre split in Ag land. PID #118--500--202100, The North 1/2 of the Northwest Quarter of Sec 20, Twp 121, R 23, Wright Co MN, in the City of Otsego. 79.30 acres and subject to public right of ways and easements of record. ( Zoned A-2) Licht said Mr Havel is one of the requests which has Prompted the processing of the Ord Amendment. He is requesting a 5.59 acre parcel from a 79.3 acre parcel of land be divided. This land is marginal in terms of ag production. With the approval of the Cond Use Permit, we will handle this matter as an administrative subdivision. We are looking for your recommendation to the City Council which allows the larger lot size. Roskaft asked for any P.C. comments. Rask motioned to accept Dennis Havel's request for a Cond Use Permit to split 5.59 A from 79.3 A, upon acceptance of Zoning Ord. Amendment by the City Council "An Ord Amending Sec 604 of the City Code relating to lot frontage requirements and to the maximum number of acres allowable for residences as part of the one dwelling per 40 acre } designation in the A-2, General Ag Dist of the City" and all the items in Licht's report of December 3, 1991 are met. Lewis seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Zoning Ord Amendment will be brought to the Council for consideration on December 23, 1991 and the Dennis Havel Cond. Use Permit request will be brought to the Council on January 13, 1991. Next on the agenda was the Ordinance on Signs - Ing Roskaft read a letter (attached to these minutes) from the Otsego Homeowners Association "Exhibit A" from Miles Zroka. He also noted that this is a continuation of our meeting on signs. Those wanting to speak should stand, and state their name. Licht said there are two issues on signs. 1. Business Identification Signs 2. Off Premise Advertising Per City Council direction, we did send you comparison o1" sign regulations of various communities. Franklin Sign has submitted to you their suggestions for off -premise advertising of signs. You have the Ord. we have prepared for you which addressed the position of the P.C. and the Council. at that time. This was intended mostly as a discussion on the part of the P.C., and any public. We will eventually go to a Public Information Meeting and then a Public Hearing. Roskaft asked the audience not to restate information only any new information. James Kleinke -- Franklin Outdoor Adv drew attention to letters from numerous surrounding area Chamber of Commerces and said they are very interested in the safety issue. There is a 10,00 sign on 101 and we have reports saying there is no problem with this 1--i-u ture . It meets MN/DOT CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 12/18/91 8PM - PAGE 5 - regulations and they have safety cocerns also. I am also concerned with safety features and in an independent study, there is no indication that it will jeopardize safety. If there is any questions, the City of Albertville parallels these signs for there community. Licht stated that in fairness, the studies are Franklin Sign studies, not Frankfort Twp. It is a third party independent study by a reputable engineering firm sand Franklin representative. Roskaft asked for any other remarks. Clem Darkenwald said there are two issues; 1) The billboards and 2) The existing signs. He mentioned that Morries Fish sign on #371 works for them. This sign is in Brainerd. He said exposure is very important. Darkenwald said his taxes have gone up 15% since last year and this year when he took his trailer down his business has gone down. He doesn't have any exposure. He needs a billboard on #101. The second issue relating to sign regulations, etc. I notice there was a break down on non -conforming signs said Darkenwald. I would like to express my feelings. It is very unfair for existing signs and I would ask that you grandfather them in. I got my approval. I paid my permit and have over $15,000.00 in that one sign with my Phillips s'66 logo on it and I ask that you grandfather these in. It is my concern. Rask asked Darkenwald if his sign is too big? ( See File PC --12199t) CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 12/18/91 8PM - PAGE 6 - Darkenwald said because this Ord is so constrictive it puts me under non --conforming. Keith Franklin - said that 50 or 60 people signed a permit to not allow that billboard in Frankfort Twp. The people in the residential area were in favor of it when polled later. Roskaft asked for any further comments. Fournier said they are talking about a sign in Frankfort Twp. It says here that they don't allow sign. Franklin said when they applied for that permit it was allowed. It was a legal sign. Licht said that sign is allowed for ten years. Their present Ordinance for Frankfort restricts signs. Roskaft asked for any more comments. Fournier said as far as the business signs, his opinion is that it should be large enough to attract business customers right there. I have heard from citizens that it should be large enough on-site. Lewis said there are a lot of different methods of regulation on-site businesses. Rask stated he has a concern if we are trying to bring Ind and Lt. Ind out there, it really doesn't advertise for the community that are traveling thru. Are the restrictions too strict to promote Otsego businesses? Licht said different Cities have different philophies. There are different Cities advertising for other Cities. Licht said that Franklin Signs do advertise businesses. The point is that you can not regulate content or message. You have to figure the safety prospects, etc. You can have too small of a sign as well as too large of a sign. It is basically a judgement call what you consider acceptable and safe. Franklin said most of the signs going into Elk River are directional signs. Other signs are awareness signs. Two Elk River businesses are advertising in Frankfort. It is awareness. Hasson Twp has for signs on the Interstate, none on #101. Quality structure costs money and a high quality client will advertise on a quality sign. Darkenwald said he can't get ahold of a billboard on I- 94. Can you have existing business and future business and industrial have billboards? No, Licht said. You cannot regulate content. We can regulate use, but not message, said licht. Darkenwald said you are not talking a lot of billboards on #101. Roskaft said there is no garantee that Otsego businesses will be advertising in Otsego. Licht said size and spacing 800' is six or seven signs per mile. Albertville is 500' and that is 10 signs per mile. From #42 S to the City boarder there would be only two sites to pick up that billboards could be on, assuming it would be allowed in Ind. or Commercial Zones. The rest is allresidential. North of i#42, that whole stretch on the CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 12/18/91 AT 8PM - PAGE 7 - West Side would be open. Two miles is potentially 12 billboards at 8001. The issue that is not resolved is on the East side of 101 would remain Wild and Scenic. We are still having a debate on the West side of #101 also. The City is agressively prusuing allowing removal of W & S on the West side of #101. Franklin said there is more demand for billboard space then there are billboards. Gil Darkenwald asked if our present Ordinance restricts any major change that may be coming in the future? Like a K -Mart. Licht said they will conform. Business do not come in and out because of sign regulations. Licht said it dosen't determine the logo, but it does determine the size. Roskaft said that this session on signs is for recomendations on changes for the proposed Ordinance. Licht said we intend to have a information presentation as well as a public hearing. Roskaft said it is up to the P.C. to make any changes to the Sign Ord. Fournier said that in the last Otsego View he had an article on billboard signs and every person that talked to me did not want billboard signs. They did want business signs. He said he had 30 or 35 calls. He noticed that Frankfort does not allow signs. Lewis stated she thinks that #101 and appearance and buildings being restrictive on those should be carried on to the sign regulations also. She said she felt if the Ord. allows adequate on-site signs they shouldn't need billboard signs. Roskaft said the thing that bothers him is that the sign company does not have to advertise Otsego Businesses. We are in the middle and Rogers dosen't allow signs on #101, only on the interstate. Rogers and Elk River does have a sign Ord . Roskaft said if our businesses can't get advertising then why allow other businesses to advertise in Otsego. Franklin sign said there should be community friendship. It effects Otsego Township. Roskaft said there is no guarantee that businesses in Otsego will be covered in other communities. Franklin said hopefully Otsego will take a positive attitude. Dave Sheppard asked if Otsego could put their own billboard sign up and own it? Licht answered no. Fournier asked to get Hassan Twp. information on signs. Licht said the question is are you going to allow it or not? We also need to go into size spacing also, if you say you want them. Franklin asked when you posed the question "Do you want outdoor advertising"? tiC CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 12/18/91 8PM - PAGE 8 - Rask said he has a concern of 35 square feet on a sign. Licht said it is the loosest Ord he has ever seen. (Wright Co) . There are two distinct questions, business idenification or advertising. There is a line drawn between the two. The point is not every business has #101 frontage. Question is how does the City set the standards? Rask said now we are trying to keep everybody within the ID of the business. I would rather stay with the sinage that we have and concentrate on the businesses that are here. Roskaft siad he wants to take a straw vote of the commission. Do you want billboard in the City of Otsego or not? Yes or No. Votes were tabulated by Beatty and there were five no votes. ** Reasons, see below. Darkenwald said what concerns him is the existing signs. He doesn't believe the Animall or his signs should be changed. They have gotten their permits and followed the Ord. Roskaft said that will be taken under consideration. Fournier said what he thinks he is hearing from the Commission is that they want to see on site business signs. Clem is talking about his sign may be too tall. Licht said he feels that his sign is probably not too tall. Licht said the Commission should comment on Pg #6 of the draft Ord. Amritization schedule. We should redraft it and Licht will check Hassan Twp. We can make it available before the next meeting. In the meantime we should provide to you some examples of what the present ord allows us, what some other ord allows, so you see an actual application. If this is the direction you want to take you should so state. Roskaft said it is the direction we should take. Roskaft called the discussion on othe sign ord closed. January 8th is when the revised Ord will be brought back to P.C. Licht noted. Licht had one more thing to review as pertaining to Zoning Ord. Two zoning maps 1) Alternate Zoning Map and 2) Map will replace the map we now have. Licht talked about the Zoning Map. Some discussion will be had on it. Roskaft called the meeting officially closed. ** 1. Avoid porblems of public safety resulting from driver distraction. 2. Avoid conflicts of purpose in the Highway 101 area boardering the Wild and Scenic Recreational River District. 3. Minimize problems of sign clutter and resulting problems with onsite businesses and property identificaiton and fairness to sign. 4. It would be unfair to the onsite Otsego businesses to have 400 sq ft when the onsite Otsego businesses would have to comply with the onsite signage ordinance. SIGNED .TAMES R KOLLES, Secretary_ __ CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 12/18/91 8PM — PAGE 8 — Rask said he has a concern of 35 square feet on a sign. Licht said it is the loosest Ord he has ever seen. (Wright Co). There are two distinct questions, business idenification or advertising. There is a line drawn between the two. The point is not every business has #101 frontage. Question is how does the City set the standards? Rask said now we are trying to keep everybody within the ID of the business. I would rather stay with the sinage that we have and concentrate on the businesses that are here. Roskaft Siad he wants to take a straw vote of the commission. Do you want billboard in the City of Otsego or not? Yes or No. Votes were tabulated by Beatty and there were five no votes. Darkenwald said what concerns him is the existing signs. He doesn't believe the Animall or his signs should be changed. They have gotten their permits and followed the Ord. Roskaft said that will be taken under consideration. Fournier said what he thinks he is hearing from the Commission is that they want to see on site business signs. Clem is talking about his sign may be too tall. tall. Licht said he feels that his sign is probably not too Licht said the Commission should comment on Pg #6 of the draft Ord. Amritization schedule. We should redraft it and Licht will check Hassan Twp. We can make it available before the next meeting. In the meantime we should provide to you some examples of what the present ord allows us, what some other ord allows, so you see an actual application. If this is the direction you want to take you should so state. Roskaft said it is the direction we should take. Roskaft called the discussion on othe sign ord closed. January 8th is when the revised Ord will be brought back to P.C. Licht noted. Licht had one more thing to review as pertaining to Zoning ord. Two zoning maps 1) Alternate Zoning Map and 2) Map will replace the map we now have. Licht talked about the Zoning Map. Some discussion will be had on it. Roskaft called the meeting officially closed. �-j, --, e e i da=ea -) e& Dec 17-1991 RE: Signage in the City of Otsego. Dear Zoning and Planning Officials of Otsego, Regretfully we cannot send a representative of the Otsego Home- owners Association to this meeting tonight. We would like you to review this letter to inform you of our feelings toward\pignage on Otsego's Higway. We feel as a group of forty concerned Citizen that 11 _ Wright County's ordnance should set Precedence Business on the.101 /\ stretch of Hwy should be allowed approbate signage, Lit, but not . flashing in accordance. Large signage and all Billboards should not be allowed. Highway 101 is a far to dangerous Hwy to distractions of this nature. Maybe this Billboard signage could be reviewed when Highway 101 is widened to 4 lanes. This is a unanimous decision on our part~ Please review this with utmost sincerity. ' Thank You Otsego Homeowners Association Miles Zroka Co.Chair C.C. Otsego Town Board Zoning & Planning December 17, 1991 ►y,n."cxnT U0UNTY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS W elrt County publie WOMS 8tcIIah,8 route ,No, 1 - lynx 97•I3 Bt UIQ, MiM60ta 6631$ jot, T H. 26 and C.A.1�1$ 7'0e00rro M2) OW -7$$$ Elaine Beatty honing Administrator City of Otsego 13474 N,E, 9Sth St, Otsego, MN $5330 Re; Proposed Preliminary plat of Harpster Addition tp City of Otsego - CSAH 42 Dcar Elaine; WAY111; A. FIN ��khwuv rngbu,'r G87•iJtltl navro x, �tiar�,w�r;tt�,r,r.o. r. At,, (6 ilt F�Ikhwuy 02.74A7 Atrftnm) z MAWVXN*Ir, 1(101 ,,r Woo Agent ffl2�7,9{i0 This letter will document may position On the access to CSAH 42 for the two lvts in the subject Harpster Addition, As I mentioned to both you and Mr. Morrie Harpster in phaa® conversations today, I will allow two aceosses tone for each lot) to replace the four that presently exist including the fizid entrance at the westerly edge of Block I which is Shared with the Talbot property, Another field entrance exists further west on the Talbot proporty allowing access to that veld, We certainly appreciate your City,s efforts In restricting accesses to our County highway system, A shared entrance for the two lots, In this sltuatlon, would not have worked very well for ,access to the one existing garaga, Please advise Aster access permit form which that he should contact my office to obtain the necessary is needed for changes such as this. This permit will Identify specific locations for the accesses, r Please contact me if�you have any questions on this matter, Happy Holidaysi Sin/�cerely, At Wayn A, Fingalso,n Count Highway ling er pc; Harvey Engelma> D. Montebello Morrie Harpstor Maintenance SuperinCendent