06-12-1995 City Council MinutesCITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OTSEGO CITY HALL
JUNE 12, 1995
5:45 PM - Council Workshop with Auditor Abdo, Abdo & Eick
Mayor Freske called Council Workshop to order at 5:45 PM.
Attending: Norman F. Freske, Mayor, Councilmembers: Suzanne Ackerman, Ron Black,
Larry Fournier, Vern Heidner.
Gary Groen, Abdo, Abdo and Eick.
Mr. Groen went over the 1994 Annual Financial Report with the Council.
He suggested the following:
Monthly comparative budget reports
Combining Road and Bridge and Administration into General Fund
Control the Professional Fees/make sure the billing gets done
(their fees aren't necessary out of line for our growth but they
account for one-fourth of City's expenses)
CM Heidner motioned to adjourn the Council Workshop. Seconded by CM
Fournier. All in favor. Motion carried.
6:30 PM - Regular Council Meejjpg
1 Mayor Norman F Freske called meeting to order at 6.43 PM..
R O J . CALL: Mayor Norman F. Freske, Councilmembers: Suzanne Ackerman, Ron
Black, Larry Fournier, Vern Heidner.
2. Consider Agenda Approval (Deletions or Additions)
Mayor Freske ADDITION: Item 9.9 Elk River Dare Program
CM Fournier ADDITION: Item 7.3 Participation in Joint Powers Water Board
with Albertville, St. Michael, Hanover, Frankfort
CM Fournier motioned to approve agenda as amended. Seconded by CM Heidner.
All in favor. Motion carried.
•, • u 1
a. May 15. 1995 Hearing on Overlay for Mississippi Shores 1 - 7 Additions
CM Black motioned to adopt the Minutes for the May 15, 1995 Hearing for Overlay
Project for Mississippi Shores, Additions 1 - 7. Seconded by CM Fournier. All in
favor. Motion carried.
Otsego City Council Meeting of June 12, 1995, cont'd. Page 2.
b. May 22, 1995 Regular Council Meeting
CM Fournier motioned to adopt the Minutes for the May 22, 1995 City Council
Meeting. Seconded by CM Black. CM Heidner� Mayor Ackerman, Black and Fournier
ske abstained since
they did not attend the May 22, 1995 Meeting.
voted in favor. Motion carried 3 to 2.
4. Gary Groen - Abdo, Abdo and Eick, Presentation of 1994 Annual Financial Report.
Mr. Groen presented the 1994 Annual Financial Report to the Council.
CM Black motioned to accept the 1994 Report as prepared by the Auditor, Abdo,
Abdo and Eick. Seconded by CM Fournier. All in favor. Motion carried.
111' a • lu u 1
NO ONE APPEARED ON THE OPEN FORUM
• :-•- .• • • • --
6.1 Hearing for Pattern Station,.Ine. d/b/a the Riverwood Metro Business Resort
• • . - . • • .. 1- - • -
Mayor Freske opened the Public Hearing.
Elaine Beatty stated that the proper noticing has been done.
There was no Public Input.
CM Fournier motioned to close the Hearing. Seconded by CM Black. All in favor.
Motion carried.
CM Black motioned to approve the newal of the le Liquor License for
Resort. Seconded by CM
Pattern Station, Inc., d/b/a the Riverwood Metro Business
Fournier. All in favor. Motion Carried.
CM Black motioned to approve the renewal Seconded by CM Fournier.Station,ne License for Pattern All n
Inc., d/b/a the Riverwood Metro Business Resort.
favor. Motion carried.
Discussion: CM Heidner questioned the wrthe fees andtha the Sundayfee scheule and Sunay Liquor lnse.
City Clerk/Zoning Adm. Elaine Beattyent over
Liquor License is renewed at another date.
• • •
Mayor Freske opened the Hearing.
Elaine Beatty stated that the proper noticing was done.
There was no Public Input.
CM Fournier motioned to close the hearing. Seconded by CM Black. All in favor.
Motion carried.
CM Fournier motioned to approve the Off Sale Liquor License for Riverview
Liquorette. Seconded by CM Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
Otsego City Council Meeting of June 12, 1995, cont'd. Page 3.
.•• U.. G • s . •••'
•1 • • • - • • - P- - ••a •
Mr. MacArthur went over his letter dated May 3, 1995 and the NAC Report dated May 9,
1995 (attached).
CM Fournier asked the attorney if this propos betterl is To vacavacaten c ting the
owner' approval
r.
MacArthur explained that the City can vacate road
is needed and owner must initiate the request.for
CM Fournier motioned to accept the City Lots of'Re Records andrefer to the inHeidner. All
amendment to Zoning Ordinance relatedto
Planning Commission for the Public Hearing. vier sked if theSeconded by re would be three
favor. Motion carried. Discussion: CM Fou
hearings. Mr. MacArthur said that all proposed changes can be done at the same
time.
•1 • P. , .10
.•• G•• ••u •
Andy MacArthur went over the changes.
CMBlack motioned to table this item un1 Motion carried. Councile next City Discussion ng.
CM
Seconded by CM Ackerman. All in favor.
Fournier wondered how will this affect the Long
Haul ume the Park and Rece
Attorney said this will not effect them. CM
Commission are discussing the numbers and not the language.
and if thacey are ro said
the fees are for the Parks and Trails for Commercial/In gS.
be
different from AG. CM Heidner recommended that they alsoconslid aced that r for the the
Thehe Council directed Bob Kirmis to review this. The y
Park and Rec. Commission should act on this at their next meeting.
►�
The City Council discussed inquiring about joining this group. They would like•.- .•• .,, •
to see
what type of response Otsego would receive. eand City Engineer, Larry Koshak, to work
CM Black motioned for Mayor Fres Hanover,
together on a letter to the Joint PweraWater Board Seconded by CM Fournier. All
Frankfort and St. Michael) inquiring
in favor. Motion carried.
•• •- ••• •• • . • . •- . • . • 1 - •, ►•,-• •.• ' ••-
Andy MacArthur reviewed Finding of Facts Bob Kirmis prepared and it looked fine to
him.
Attorney stated this doesn't have to be an Ordinance. He also reviewed and it looks : • •• •- A '••
fine.
•
Council directed Mr. MacArthur to review and report back at next council meeting.
- : ••• • • ••• -
Otsego City Council Meeting of June 12, 1995, cont'd. Page 4.
• ••- • ►,. •••• 10 - • s, 01
Hakanson, Anderson did a cost analysis projection. (attached)
The Council discussed at length different options for this project. They agreed that are
some additions that are more deteriorating than others. Mayor Freske stated that he had
heard from some of the residents who signed the petition and they were opposed to the
mail box supports and not the road improvement. CM Black (who lives in Mississippi
Shores) said he received the same response tout of arom his lst 300 noticeshbrs, hasn't rd senpoutfnr the
to
the road improvement. Council also noted that mo
Hearing, approximately 50 residents attended the Hearing.
The Council also discussed if there would be a cost savings if this project would be
combined with the Island View Project, if approved. There are also some other city
projects to review.
The City Attorney informed the City Council they have six months to do a project from
the date of the hearing.
CM Fournier motioned to table the decision for the Mississippi Shores Additions 1
through 7 Overlay Project until we have the Hearing for the Island View Estates
Bituminous Surfacing of Streets. Seconded by CM Black. All in favor. Motion
carried. Discussion: CM Black requested to come back to this item after the next
item.
CM Black motioned to accept the Feasibility Study for Bituminous Surfacing of the
•-.••• • .••
Streets in Island View Estates. Seconded by CM Heidner. All in favor. Motion
carried.
CM Black motioned to set the date of July 11, 1995 at 6:30 PM for the Bituminous
Surfacing of the Streets in Island View Estates Hearing. Seconded by CM
Ackerman. All in favor. Motion carried. Discussion: City Clerk/Zoning Adm.,
Elaine Beatty was concerned with the early time. The Council felt the time is good,
it is in the evening and not during the day.
CM Black motioned to reconsider the Overlay Project for Mississippi Shores
Additions 1 through 7 Project for July 24, 1994. Seconded by CM Fournier. All in
favor. Motion carried.
(See Attached)
Pipe under TH101 and CSAH42 is inadequate. (See attached Engineer's Report)
Otsego City Council Meeting of June 12, 1995, cont'd. Page 5.
R.4. CSAH 37 Odean Avenue Improvement 94-2:
a. Consider motion to allow side yard variance on Robert Cullinan
Property
Mr. Koshak briefly went over Mr. Cullinants existing garage building is being removed for
acquisition of right of way for the relocation of ODean Avenue. In the process of
completing the agreement with Mr. Cullinan, the City agreed to provide a side yard
setback variance.
CM Black motioned to approve the variance for side yard setback, including the
Findings of Facts. Seconded by CM Ackerman. All in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Freske brought up the address change for Mr. Yanke, stating that Mr. Yanke
wanted reimbursement for this. The Council discussion pointed out that there have been
many times throughout the past years that many residents have been required to change
their addresses with no cost reimbursement.
Mr. Koshak . discussed changing Odell Avenue (from 65th to 70th Street) to ODean
Avenue. The reason for this is because of the relocation of ODean Avenue lining up with
Odell Avenue.
CM Black motioned to change Odell Avenue from 65th to 70th Street to ODean
Avenue at completion of the Project and the City will not reimburse any costs
incurred for address changes. Seconded by CM Fournier. All in favor. Motion
carried.
b. Pre -construction meeting was held at City Hall on 6-1-95 Friday 10AM
Work will begin the week of June 19, 1995.
c. With your concurrence, we need to (Paint)restripe, Packard Ave (60th
to 70th Street) during the project to accommodate the detour route.
This cost will be paid through the Project.
R.5. Update of well at Otsego School
The Fence has been installed. City maintenance installed plastic and rock.
R.6. Consider Wetlands Fee
Kevin Kielb went over the Wetland Issues.
CM Black motioned to accept Resolution 95-23 establishing fees for processing
wetland forms. Seconded by CM Fournier. All in favor. Motion carried.
Discussion: CM Fournier noted that the City Clerk will determine the set amounts
and that the words City Staff in the Resolution will be changed to City Clerk.
R.7 Consideration of Resolution awarding Grading and Play Ground Equipment
for Otsego Prairie Park Improvements
Mr. Koshak reviewed the
cttAw Awards fored ort prepared by Merlin Otsego Prairie Park Improvements of Grading and
o for
Recommendation/Contra
Play Equipment.
Otsego City Council Meeting of June 12, 1995, cont'd. Page 6.
The Council discussed the Engineering Fees. Phyllis Boedigheimer, Finance Director, said
there has been over $19,000 for Parks and Rs•gineering Fees, therefore, Freske reminded the Council that
Engineering
have been paid out throughout the project.Mayor
the City will be getting a Grant from the DNR to help off set these costs.
Mr.Koshak said that the remaining Engineering Fees would be for staking costs and close
out costs.
CM Black motioned to table this Item until the next meeting to let the Finance
Director take a look at the budget and review all this.
Motion failed for lack of second.
Discussion: Council was concerned with the delay this would and the amounts of the Grants •a d were
ao
disussed the amounts of the prod
comfortable with the amounts.
CM Black motioned to adopt Resolution 95-25, A Resolution Receiving Bids and
Awarding Contract for Grading for Otsego Prairie Park, Improvement Project 95-1,
to Fehn Construction $18,150.00 for Grading. Seconded by CM Fournier. All in
favor. Motion carried.
CM Black motioned adoption of Resolution 95-24, A Resolution Receiving Quotes
and Awarding Contract for Play Equipment, Resilient Surfacing, and Timbers at
Otsego Prairie Park, Improvement Project 9a total , to Jennings of of $21,033 00.1ay Equipment of
Seconded by CM
$17,019, Resilient Surfacing of 4,015.00
Fournier. All in favor. Motion carried.
8.8 Any other Engineering Business
Larry Koshak passed out information on Best Management Practices Manual. He
suggested the Council review this and consider adoption.
CM Black suggested to bring this back as an agenda item.
Mayor Freske and CM Heidner set June 19, Monday, 3 PM for a Public Works Meeting.
9. City Council Items:
9.1. Consider date for Public Hearing for Fire Arms Ordinance and Attorney
Review of same..
CM Heidner informed the Council the Fire Arms Committee will be inviting Elk River
Chief of Police Tom Zerwas, Sheriff Hozempa, and DNR Dale Ebel.
CM Black motioned to set July 24, 1995, 8 PM, for Public Hearing for Fire Arms
Ordinance. Seconded by CM Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
9.2. Consider Appointments to Community Recreation Board:
a. Michele Bergh - (Program Specialist Capacity)
CM Black motioned to approve the appointment of Michelle Bergh as Program
Specialist for the Community Rec. Board as an employee of the City of Otsego.
Seconded by CM Fournier. All in favor. Motion carried.
Otsego City Council Meeting of June 12, 1995, cont'd. Page 7.
Discussion: The Council was concerned if this would increase the City's assessment.
FD Boedigheimer said this won't and she has been working with Jeff Asfahl on this
and the Community Rec. Board will reimburse the City of Otsego on a quarterly
basis.
b. RaeAnn Hanson - (Secretary/Clerical Capacity)
CM Black motioned to approve the appointment of RaeAnn Hanson as
Secretary/Clerical Capacity for the Community Rec. Board, as an employee of the
City of Otsego. Seconded by CM Fournier. All in favor. Motion carried.
9 3. Consider Model #5 Siren and Motor Starter purchase from Avon, MN (ITsed)
CM Black stated that this unit will cost $400.00. If it wouldn't work out for the City he
will purchase it. A new system costs $11,500 but would cover a larger area of the City
than this used one from Avon. A pole will be needed at an approximate cost of $300.
Elk River Utilities said they would install it. A Radio controlled unit would have to be
purchased and the Sheriffs Office would be the responsible party for sounding the siren.
CM Black noted that he has talked to Civil Defense people in other areas regarding
funding and no one can find money.
FD Boedigheimer suggested financing comes out of Administration Capital Improvement
Fund.
CM Fournier motioned to approve the purchase of the Model #5 Siren and Motor
Starter from Avon, MN. Seconded by CM Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
9.4. Consider Fee Schedules for Administrative Fees
CM Black motioned to accept the Fee Schedule (attached) set forth by the staff.
Seconded by CM Ackerman. All in favor. Motion carried.
9.5. Consider Cleaning Service and Lawn Service for the City Hall
CM Black motioned to adopt the staffs recommendation to contract with Long and
Sons for Cleaning Service as stated in the attached quotes. Seconded by CM
Ackerman. All in favor. Motion carried. Discussion: CM Fournier inquired who
will be working with Long and Sons. City Hall Staff will be. The Maintenance
Department will still be responsible for the mechanics and repair of City Hall and
grounds.
CM Black motioned to accept First Choice to do the mowing and trimming at the
City Hall for $95.00 per week. Seconded by CM Heidner. All in favor. Motion
carried. Discussion: The Council stated this m of Insurance the
received. unds around
City Hall and be sure a copy of the
FD Boedigheimer said there is $9,000.00 in the Repair and Maintenance Fund.
9.6. Consider Elaine Beatty, Clerk, Attorney the Minnesota Municipal Clerks
Jnstitute July 17-21.
Motion by CM Black to authorize Elaine Beatty to attend the Minnesota Municipal
Clerks Institute. Seconded by CM Fournier.
All .iDiscussion:
iscu sion CM
Fournier
oucarried. ner noted this
is a 3 year program, one week per year.
CM Heidner said there should be something set in the budget regarding the number of
conferences for staff and council to attend.
Otsego City Council Meeting of June 12, 1995, cont'd. Page 8.
CMSFournier motioned adoption of Resolution 95.-22. Seconded by CM Ackerman.
All in favor. Motion carried.
Discussion: The Council directed City Clerk/Zoning Adm. Elaine Beatty to send
copies of Resolution to the other cities. (She is working with David Licht) ''•
- .. •_•
Coon .r tion
CM Black motioned to set a special meeting on June 19, 1995, 7 PM, at Otsego City
Hall for the purpose of discussing the Municipal Board Order. Seconded by CM
Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
• • $ • i- •
CM Ackerman informed the Council that she and CM Heidner will be meeting for the
purpose of discussing the Curfew issue.
Mayor Freske noted regarding the joint sewer meeting for selecting a Engineering Firm.
The committee has more questions and on June 21st, 6 PM, at Frankfort Town Hall, we
will meet for the selection of the Engineer Finn.
CM Black asked the Council to give some thought to the issue of contracting service to
Dayton because of the Metropolitan Council.
CM Black and CM Heidner will be meeting together for the purpose of discussing joint
services of Police and Fire with Dayton.
Mayor Freske: Regarding the Planning Meeting Seminar. he Council agreed. a mandatory
attendance by employees, they should be paidfor
Mayor Freske: Wright County Mayor's Dinner on July 12, 1995, Wednesday. Otsego is
the Host. At 6 PM there will be a tour of Otsego Cityll folloth
wed
dinner at Riverbed (6:45 PM). Mayor Freske encouraged and Council and Staff to attend.
Cost of dinner will be the responsibility of each person attending.
Elk River Dare Program: Mayor Freske asked to put this item on the next City Council
Agenda.
CM Fournier motioned to change the June 22, 1995 Conflict of Interest Meeting to
September 7, 1995. Seconded by CM Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
CM Fournier motioned to accept the Claims List as submitted. Seconded by CM
Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
Otsego City Council Meeting of June 12, 1995, cont'd. Page 9.
• :•'•. I • 1'U
Motion by CM Fournier motioned to adjourn. CM Black seconded. All in favor.
Motion carried.
F. Freske
R• ald G. Black, Council Member
Suzanne M. Stro g Ackerman, Council Member
CITY SEAL
dson, Deputy Clerk
arry Fo
nier, Council Member
Vern Heidner, Council Member
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Court
May 3, 1995
RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Robert Kirmis
Senior Planner
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.
Suite 555
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Proposed Amendments To Zoning Ordinance Relate To Lots Of
Record
Dear Bob:
As I indicated over the eltheoCounc�.l'se request reviewed
for amendments
zoning ordinance relative to
which would put further limitation on possible developme is related
to the existing Townsite plat. The problem of p e
development rights within the toe
relatedcitytthplanning integrity of could
the
city. I have included my
be a potentially serious threat
e suggested changes in this letter and I
would like to receive your comments prior to submitting the
proposed changes to the Council
e`fo tpossible
� since atheyn. I think that
may have some
it is important that you revs
collateral effects of which I am not aware.
The first proposed amendment is to the definition of "lot of
record". The present defintotifurther mereldef ine y rlot oas the smallest
a "unit" of a
plat. The ordinance needs.
unit of division shown on a plat.
The second problem I discussed with you was that the section
dealing with development rightsoorderly development,d a single-family
flatly states
that, "For the purposes of y be erected on non -
dwelling and customary accessory buildings may
conforming lots of record at the effective date of
thi of way ands ,
c
provided that the lot fronts on an improved p g
provided that the frontage, depth and area measurements are at
least seventy five(75) percent of the minimum requirements of the
district whe,Fe the use is permitted." The granting of such rights
is not explicitly tied to e se to atedequirements etc. of the
district in which the property
Because much of the ambiguity in the existing ordinance relates to
the definition of what csoftthat termlot,
withinithk etordinanceshould be
some further clarification
Letter to Bob Kirmis
May 3, 1995
Page 2
Following are my proposed changes for your review:
1. "Lot: A parcel or portion of land of at least sufficient size to
meet minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to
provide such yards and other open spaces as are herein
estreet required.
Such lot shall have frontage on an improved publicat
In
reference to parcels which are a combination oofoot n the s of
a plat
approved prior to passage of this Chapter,
to be all of that contiguous land held in one ownership."
2. "Lot of Record: Any lot which is legally established according
to applicable regulations at the time of its creation, which is one
of the smallest divisible units of a plat heretofore duly approved
and filed, or one of the smallest divisible units
of an of land itnois
outlot or a registered land survey, or a piel
platted, subdivided or registered but for which a deed, auditor's
subdivision or registered land survey has been recorded in the
Office of the Register of Deeds or Register of Titles for Wright
County, Minnesota, prior to the effective date of this Chapter."
3. "20-15-2: NON -CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD
A. Vacant Lots.
1. For the purposes of orderly development, a single-family
dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on non-
conforming lots of record at the effective date of this
Chapter,
ter,
provided that the lot fronts on an improved p g
that any such construction does not conflict with tions the
n current
nt
zoning designation in any way, including
restriwithin the applicable zone,
aat leastprovided
seventytfivethe
(75) percent ofethe
and area measurements ar
minimum requirements of the district where the use is permitted. If
the owner has an interest in more than one lot of record contiguous
to other lots of record all such lots must bcombined
meet
trithe
e
requirements of this section or the applicableiheldngin onet
standards. If sufficient contiguous property
ownership to comply with . the standards of the applicawill b
le
district, then those more restrictive provisions
pproposalo
. In no
circumstances will there be approval of any nd not conforming for mult iple
lot developments based upon lots of record,
the provisions of the existing zoning district."
4. "20-16-3: PLATTED AND UNPLATTED PROPERTY:
E. When a development is proposed which is to be located on two or
more lots, and such lots are required to meet the minimum district
area, frontage, and density requirements, and/or are required to
accommodate the use, the lots shall be combined in accordance with
the City's Subdivision Ordinance, prior to the issuing of a
Letter to Bob Kirmis
May 3, 1995
Page 3
building permit.
F. When two or more lots f are
of recordtwhen saloc t d residintany
ial
district, or in the case o
zoning district, one or more of which lack adequate area or
dimensions to qualify for residential use under the current
Ordinance requirements, and are contiguous and held in one
ownership, they shall be combined for use in order in order to meet
the lot requirements by resubdividing the property in accordance
with the Subdivision Ordinance."
The above are a rough draft of the Ordinance provisions which I
feel need to be tightened up in order to meet the City's objective
of not allowing the potential for any further developments on the
old Townsite Plat. Could you please review these proposed changes
and get back to me with any comment you might have regarding this
matter.
Very truly yours,
Andrew J: MacArthur
RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
cc: City of Otsego
Larry Koshak, Hakanson-Anderson
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
URBAN PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Andy MacArthur
FROM: Bob Kirmis/David Licht
DATE: 9 May 1995
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance - Lots of Record
FILE NO: 176.08 - 95.10
At your request, we have reviewed your draft amendment to Otsego's Zoning Ordinance which
would place further limitations upon possible development of the original townsite plat.
As we discussed over the telephone, the regulation of non -conforming lots of record is a complex
issue and its ramifications must be given thorough forethought.
In review of your 3 May 1995 letter, we offer the following comments:
Vacation of Plat. Considering that this effort has been prompted by concerns over the
development rights afforded Otsego's original townsite plat, a direct response to City concerns
would simply be the vacation of the plat. Per our earlier discussions, you have indicated that such
vacation would require property owner petition and is not considered a viable option in dealing
with this matter.
Lot Definitions. As part of the proposed amendment, a refinement of definition of the terms "lot"
and "lot of record" have been proposed. Generally speaking, the proposed definitions appear
acceptable. We do, however, offer the following comments:
The first sentence of the "lot" definition should be changed to read:
1. Lot: A parcel or portion of land of at least sufficient size to meet minimum zoning
requirements for use, coverage and area; and to provide such yards and other open
spaces as are liereiil required in tl zone m wh h such par l or portion o ' land
isifoat'
_5775 Wav7nta_Rlvd • Site 5.5.5 •_St_ I ouuis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-963a•Fax. 595-9837
• A revision to the "lot" definition within the Zoning
Ordinance should likely coincide with
an amendment to the lot definition offered in the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
Density. Your letter points out that development rights afforded which the propertyal llislocated
lots are
not tied explicitly to applicable density requirements in the z
While you make an excellent point, we some difficulties would o exist in upholding density
requirements, particularly in the City's
s Agricultural Zoning Districts.
Technically speaking, if lots are allowed a 25 percent reduction in size, they will fail to meet
intended development densities. In this regard, we believe any due grandfather rights would be
more easily tied to lot size.
Vacant Lots. Within Section 20-15-2 A relating to vacant lots, we would recommend form and be expandedttoaread
the
conditions of development right declaration be listed in columnar
something substantially similar to the following:
A. Vacant Lots.
1. For the purposes of orderly development, a single
gemit'delllgad customary
accessory buildings may be erected on non -conforming i ord at the
effective date of this Chapter, provided:
a. The lot fronts on an improved public right-of-way.
b. Such construction does not conflict with the current zoning designation in
any way.
c. Frontage, depth and area requirements are at least seventy-five (75) percent
of the minimum requirements of the district where the use is permitted.
d. Unsewered lots have a lot area judged by the City Engineer to satisfactorily
provide for private on-site sewage treatment.
If the owner has an interest in more than one lot of record contiguous to other lots
of record all such lots must be combined to meet the requirements of this section
or the applicable zoning district standards. If sufficient contiguous property is held
in one ownership to comply with the standards of the applicable zoning district,
then those more restrictive provisions will apply. In no circumstances will there
be approval of any proposal for multiple lot developments based upon lots of
record, and not conforming with the provisions of the existing zoning district.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call.
pc: Elaine Beatty
2
• mummy
fro
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
AC URBAN PLANNI NG • URBAN • MARKET RESEARCH
3CUMENT HAS CEEN CC7iED
DISTR!EUTED TC.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Andy MacArthur
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: 18 May 1995
crag,
C+
ATTORNEY,—
ENGINEER
RE: Otsego - Subdivision Ordinance - Park Dedication Fees
FILE NO: 176.08 - 95.12
1.►i4il
DATE
At your request, I am herewith forwarding my comments on your proposed revisions to Section
21-7-18 of the City's Subdivision} Ordinance addressing park dedication requirements. Specific
changes being proposed are iden4tified in your 3 May 1995 letter to the City Council, Planning
Commission, and Park and Recreation Committee.
In review of the proposed changes, the following comments are offered:
1. I concur with your opinion that any change to the existing ordinance text to assure
compliance with recent court decisions should be done in conjunction with any change to
the park and trail fee structure.
2. Section 21-7-18.T should be reworded to indicate that the City holds the responsibility for
the preparation of a study demonstrating the effect of a proposed subdivision upon the park
and trail system.
In this regard, it is suggested that Section 21-7-18.T read something substantially similar
to the following:
T. If the applicant or developer does not believe that the estimates
contained in this section fairly and accurately represent the effect of
the subdivision on the park or trail system of the City, the applicant
or developer may request that the City prepare an in-depth study of
the effect of the subdivision on the park and trail system and an
estimate of that effect in money and/or land. All costs of such
study shall be borne by the developer or applicant. If the developer
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
or applicant requests the preparation of such a study, no application
for development submitted shall be deemed complete until the study
has been completed and a determination
is
to offset the effects
appropriate amount of land or money necessary
of the subdivision.
IfY ou have any questions or comments regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call.
pc: Elaine Beatty
William S. Radzwill RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
Andrew J. MacArthur St. Michael, MN 55376
Michael C. Couri (612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
May 3, 1995
City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
Parks and Recreation Commission Members
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN
RE: Proposed Changes In Subdivision Ordinance Relative To Park And
Trail Dedication And Pees In Lieu Of Dedication
Dear Members:
The City Council had previously asked me to look at possible
revisions in the Subdivision Ordinancerelated At thetlast City Council
o Park and Trail
Dedication and Fees In Lieu of Dedication
meeting the Park and Recreation Commission also money amount thee
in this pe
possibility of looking at possibly raising
current Park and Trail dedication for changes in the language tof
presenting my recommendation
Section 21-7-18 of the Subdivision ance it would be most prudent to
Ordinance. If the Council wishes
to amend this section of the ordinance the park and trail fees at
consider the issue of possibly changing
the same time.
As you will recall, the purpose of making changes in the ordinance
was to assure compliance with recent
indicatedsthats mun reme cipalities
Court
and Minnesota decisions which haveanyexactions
are now held legally to a higher standard in relating n
upon approval of a land use to the actual affect that the approved and City services. n oved
land use change will have on the City
correlation tion between the amount
words, there now must be a strong
of money or land requested for park and trail dedication to the
actual impact that a specific project will have on the City park
and trail system.
Obviously, any increase in the number of residents will have an
affect on the use of park and trail lands. To determine what, if
any, difference there would be between used changes kindsifferent in the
of
developments would be difficult. The prop
ordinance which I have drafted are based upon the premise that a
Letter to Otsego Officials
May 3, 1995
Page 2
specific amount per lot for park and trail fees, or a specific
portion of a developed property represents the city's best estimate
of the affect of that development on the city's park and trail
systems, but allows the possibility that these figures may not
Y � Thus, the Developer is
always represent the actual affect. which is Developer
presented with the alternative of funding a study,
to City approval, to set forth the actual effect on the sysCtem
caused by the development which would then be reviewed by
staff and an appropriate recommendation would be made to the
Council in light of that study.
r
oth
My review of the NAC memo rity park ofhose tcitiesrail e have made ea
cities indicates thethat ma
distinction between the necessary land contribution or fees for a
residential development as to pment I believe that the Cared with the amounts ity should
uired for
a commercial/industrial dev p
look at this matter to see if Otsego would
that desiremosuchiea
a
distinction in the city ordinance. It would appear
are receiving more funds than hat Otsego based for on theme rationale of rthe
ial
developments. I would note,
Dolan case, that fees for
to a commercial or industrial development may be more problematic
than those fees related to residential subdivisions, depending upon
the nature of the business being established.
Following are my proposed changes to 21-7-18 of the Subdivision
Ordinance:
"A. As a prerequisite to final plat approval, and at the sole
discretion of the City, applicants and/or developersahail all dedicate
land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces
shall make a cash contribution
elated to the anticipated affectuofl_ the rplat
pose
Trail Funds roughly rted in this section
on the park and trail syto of the dedicationm. The amounts s or cash contribution
are the City's best esti
needed to offset the effect
also be met with a combination of land and cash if approved by the
City Council.
G. The City, upon consideration of the particular type of
development, may determine that a lesser parcel of land should be
dedicated due to particular features of the development. In such
cases, a cash contribution shall be required above the land
dedication to insure that compensation is received for the full
amount of the impact on the City's park and trail system.
cre
I. When, in the opinion of e City forand at its sole subdivisions to tmake la
is impractical or inappropriate
dedication of land for public use, or if no land in the subdivision
is suitable for such use, the applicant shall instead be required
Letter to Otsego Officials
May 3, 1995
Page 3
subdivi
to make a cash donation related to the affect of has determined to be in thesamount
ion on
the park system which the City
of three hundred fifty ($350.00) dollars for each lot or dwelling
unit for lots located within hUrban ollars for each lottor dwelling
he City, or
one hundred seventy five ($175.00)
unit when the subdivision is located within the Rural Service Area
of the City.
K. In lieu of a trail land donation, the City at its sole
discretion may require a cash donation rail system whiche the affect
City has
subdivision on the city widedollars for each
determined to be in the amount of fifty ($50.00)
lot or dwelling unit when the subdivision is located within the
Urban Service Area of the Cwhenty or twentn the subdivisifiveon tis 5.Olocat dawithin
rs for
each lot or dwelling unit
the Rural Service Area of the City.
T. If the applicant or Developer does not believe that the
estimates contained in this section fairlyark o
and trail system represent
eht
the affect of the subdivision on the their atown expense, provide
City, the applicant or Developer may,
the City with an in depth study of the affect of the subdivision on
in money
the park andstudy
trail uyem and an estimate of that shall be provided to city staff for and/or lannd.. Saidsfor their
review and recommendation. Allcostss submitting review the st study. beborne
othe
by the developer or pp no
Developer or applicant chooses to submit such a study,
application for developmenitte1Aand reviewed and staff have made
itted shall be deemed complete
until the study as been submitted
recommendations as to the appropriate amount of land or money
necessary to offset the affects of the subdivision."
Prior to making any amendment to the Ordinance I think it would be
advisable to have the Parks Recreationand the Ci y C uncil nas retoethese
the
matter and make recommendations to
proposed changes, the present fee structure, and the possibility of
differentiating fees for residentindicates th t ial and 110/ lisutheluppe1
would note that present case
allowable limit of what land area can be required for dedication.
Letter to Otsego Officials
May 3, 1995
Page 4
If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
Andrew . MacArthur
RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC
Merland Otto, Larry Koshak, Hakanson-Anderson
I1
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
June 5, 1995
Elaine Beatty
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Re: CSAH37 & Odean Avenue
Improvement Project 94-2
Cullinan Property
Item 8.4a
222 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
Dear Elaine:
In the process of completing the agreement with Robert Cullinan, we agreed to
provide a side yard setback variance.
Mr. Cullinan's existing garage building is being removed due to the need to acquire
the right of way for the relocation of Odean Avenue. Mr. Cullinan wishes to
relocate the building to a location
the
andattached
t therefore drawing.
I mitedehas an
as to the
existing drainfield location northeast of the home
location of this structure. He will comply with the setback from Odean Avenue
which is 35 feet from a City street. We feel a side yard setback of 20' is
adequate for future easements. The adjacent property is farmland.
The minor variance is covered in Section 20-5-3 Procedures of the Zoning
Ordinance. The granting of the variance is due to public action in acquisition a
portion of Odean Avenue Right of Way from Mr. Cullinan.
We are also requesting that the fees if any be waived. We also request that action
be taken by City Council without a public hearing.
Item 8.4a (c
Elaine Beatty
Page 2
June 5, 1995
The adjacent landowner, Mr. Jerome Kolles, has sold the additional property to
Mr. Cullinen so that the pole garage could be placed in this location.
Please find a complete and signed request for variance form attached.
If you have additional question on the matter please contact me.
Yours truly,
HAKA : • AN rn ERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
fr enc- G. Koshak, PE
/jlg
Enclosure
ot323.od4
YA2/ANCE
)1r2ppOSEO
F2a"f7 35 FEET
70 :72/,gr S,4DK/N
ti9o000'00"E
208.9/
oa
N
oW
o
O
25.00
.590°00'00"W
C. 5. R. h!
scALE
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., InC.
Kr_ nrzys,
Sir /.. Lurd3L"c
37
Lki
W
* vAIR /AIS/ C E -,-o
..Sio 5 YAR oSEraI,? Ck
FOR
,toe&/rr COLLJt/AN
SHE
Of
CITY OF OTSEGO
ENGINEER'S AGENDA ITEMS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6/12/95
Item 8.1 - Consider resolution ordering plans and specifications for Bituminous
Overlay Project for Mississippi Shores Additions 1 thru 7.
Find attached a copy of the resolution for this action. Should the council
determine to proceed with less than the project proposed, the resolution can be
modified to fit the order.
Also, enclosed is a cost analysis of a failed street conditions. This analysis was
requested by Council at the Public Hearing.
Item 8.2 - Consider Resolution to accept feasibility study and order a public hearing
for Bituminous Surfacing of the Streets in Island View Estates.
Also find accompanying this packet a copy
of the Feasibility Report. We will
present the report to the Council at the meeting for comments.
Item 8.3 - ST101 Project (CSAH 42 - Crow River)
We have been working with Mn/DOT engineers on several matters as per
Mn/DOT's request.
We have assisted the Mn/DOT staff on R.O.W. and easement matters, drainage,
access to property and design issues.
We were notified by Mn/DOT that recent evaluation of the warrants for signalizing
CSAH37 and TH101 intersection did not meet the requirements for a signal to be
installed under the new project.
The next issue of major importance is the hydrology (drainage) issue. It is difficult
to get Mn/DOT to increase culvert sizes without a comprehensive plan that reflects
development. This is the case south of 70th Street. However, we did negotiate
most drainage with them without cost to the City for pipe, etc.
The one area where there is a problem the
howevere thus area on of fTH101 was
H42 &
TH 101. The pipe under TH 101 is inadequate, leted.
constructed by the County when the intersection was comp
JUN -12-1E495 16: 44 1111C
INRE:
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
612 595 9637 P.02/05
6/12/95
Minor Variance
Approval (Setback)
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
The property owner has requested a variance from the City's A -I Zoning District setback
requirements.
scheduled meeting to consider the
On 12 June 1995, the Otsego City Council
� � lallowet aiits vaz�:an�l rly
from the City's A-1 District setback of the property owner
requirements.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is legally described as:
See Attached Exhibit A
2. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District.
ualifies as a minor variance in that it satisfies the following criteria as
3. The request q
outlined in Section 20-5-3.A•2 of the Zoning Ordinance:
property
•
Cases where hardship to existing buildings or platte��ex(exception: created as a
a.changeCityCode stands P
result of public action or :sr
shoreland, wetland, and/or Wild and Scenic River regulations).
20-51-6,C.1 of the Zoning
4. The properly owner is requesting a variance from
Section
35 fcc:t.
Ordinance which imposes a local road setback
• e reali `ie1t of the Odean Avenue/County Road 37 intersection shall.
5. The City's pending .�
cause to create a non -conforming setback condition.
6. Section 20-5-2.B•1 of the Zoning C' Ordinance stating statutory egirLr;ment.s aid judiciai
,
precedent provides. that a variance may not be issued unless certain criteria are' satisfied .
The criteria and findings. regarding them arc:
JUN -12-1995 16:44 HNC
612 T95 9837 P.10.7.05
a. Impair an adequate guppy of light and air to adjacent property,
Approval of the requested setback variance. will riot impair an adequate supply of
Light and air to adjacent properties.
b. Unreasonably increase the congestion of the public street.
Approval of the requested variance will not increase congestion on public streets
as the use is not to be intensified.
c. Have the effect of allowing any uses which. are prohibited, permit a lesser
degree of flood protection than the; flood protection elevation for the
particular area, or permit standards which are lower than those required by
State law.
Approval of the variance will not have the effect of allowing prohibited uses or
permitting a lesser degree of flood protection than required by State law,
d. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
Approval of the requested lot width variance will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety.
e. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood, or in any way be contrary to the intent of this Chapter.
The allowance of the proposed setback will not impair neighborhood property
values.
f. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed realignment of the County Road 37/Odean Avenue intersection
fulfills the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan by improving traffic flow
and area safety. The processing of the requested variance is necessary to Legalize
the resulting setback conditions.
7. Section 20-5-2.E.2 of the Zoning Ordinance further states that a var.i nce shall not be
granted unless it can be demonstrated that:
a. Undue hardship will jraelt if the variance is denied due to the existence of
spacial conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the laud, structure,
or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures
or buildings in the same district or area.
612 595 98717
JUN -12-199`• 16:45 NFHC
The requested variance is unique to the subject property result
the at is valn rice vete
eed results
from a public action. Thus, undue hardship would
denied.
the
b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter in Ruld d ri�t ct
applicant of rights commonly en.1 Dyed by other properties
�
under the terms of this Chapter or deny the applicant the ability to put the
property in question to any reasonable use.
T
he i np ositiori of the required 35 foot setback would deprive then ptlicanwith
of
Frights enjoyed by other properties in the same district as compliance
applicable setbacks would negatively impact the functioning of the site.
c. The special conditions and :circumstances causing the undue hardship are not
the result from the action of the applicant.
The proposed Odean Avenue; County Road 37 realignment and resultant need for
variance has not been caused by actions of the applicant.
d. Granting the variance request will not confer on the sari c applicant
or any
special.privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lams,
in the same district under the same conditions.
Granting of the setback variance will not confer on the applicant any special
privileges denied to other lands under the same conditions.
e. The request is not a result of non-vonforsniug lands structures' or buildings
in the same district.
The request is not a result of non -conforming lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
f. The variance requested Ls the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the
intended purpose of the applicant.
The variance being requested is the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended
purpose of the applicant.
3
JUN -12-1'1195 16:45
I'if iC
612 595 9837 P.05/0
DECISION
City
on the foregoing considerations, applicable ordinances, and the acknowledgment of
a Citysponsored project, the applicant's request for minor variance from the City's A-1 District
Po
setback standards is approved in its present form.
ADOP'T'ED by the Otsego City Council this 12th day of Tune 1995.
CITY,OF OTSEGO
By: —
--
Norm_an F. Freske, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: die Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
4
Mn/DOT tells us that any additional pipe to be jacked or pushed under the TH101
would have a cost to be borne by the City. The significance of this, is the potential
of flooding under full development in the area in the southwest corner of this
intersection. Another alternative is to take the stormwater from south side of
CSAH42 to the north side and utilize the large pipe under TH101 which now is part
of the Lefebvre Creek.
The cost of jacking pipe under TH101 is prohibitive at the time. I don't believe we
need direction on this matter, but we should inform the landowner of the potential
condition.
Item 8.4 - CSAH37 & Odean Avenue - Improvement Project 94-2
a. Consider a motion to allow a sideyard variance in the Robert Cullinen
property.
The attached letter written to Elaine explains the reasons for the variance.
This is considered a minor variance and is a result the acquisition of R.O.W.
for the above mentioned project.
b. Preconstruction meeting was held at the City Hall on 6/1/95, Friday at
10:00 a.m. Minutes of the meeting are in the process of being prepared.
c. With your concurrence we need to restripe Packard Ave. (60th to 70th St.)
to accommodate the detour proposed. The cost will be paid through the
project. The approximate cost is $636.30.
d. Construction of the street will start the week of 6/26/95. Utility relocations
will be done the two preceding weeks. Telephone Company is part of the
delay due to delivery dates on cable.
Item 8.5 - Update of Well #1 at the Otsego Elementary School
a. The fence has been installed around the well, manhole and controller. City
maintenance personnel installed plastic and river rock inside the fence to
control weeds and to help with aesthetics.
b. Trout wells and RL Larson have completed their respective construction
activities and are gathering paperwork for final payment.
c. Custom Electric is in the process of completing minor items required by the
electrical inspector.
d. Test results from the State Department of Health on the water have been
good to date.
Item 8.6 - Consider setting fees for Wetland Issues
Please find enclosed a resolution establishing fees for processing wetland forms.
Costs will be those directly incurred by the City. The resolution states that rates
and collection procedures will be an administrative issue.
Item 8.7 - Consider approving resolution awarding bid for grading and Play
Equipment for Otsego Prairie Park improvements
Find attached a letter from Merland Otto on his recommendations. Also find a
resolution for Receiving Bids or Quotes and Awarding Contracts.
Item 8.8 - Any other Engineering issues
RESOLUTION NO. 95_21
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
PROCESSING FEE
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.2242, Subdivision 5, authorizes Local
Government Units to charge processing fees in amounts not greater than are
necessary to cover the reasonable costs of implementing the Wetland Conservation
Act of 1991.
AND WHEREAS, the City of Otsego is the Local Government Unit within its corporate
boundaries with respect to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO,
MINNESOTA.
1. Processing fees in amounts not greater than are necessary to cover the
reasonable costs of implementing the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 shall
be established within the corporate limits of the City of Otsego Minnesota.
2. The determination of the amount of said fees and method of collection shall be
an administrative task assigned to City staff.
Adopted by the council this 1 2TH day of June , 1995.
aot._t_444.4
Honors le Mayor Norman Freske
laine Beatty, Cler