Loading...
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