03-24-97 CCCITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OTSEGO CITY HALL
MARCH 24, 1997
1. Mayor Larry Fournier will call meeting to order.
Mayor Fournier called the March 24, 1997 City Council Meeting to order at 6:30 PM
a. Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Fournier led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Larry Fournier; Councilmembers: Mark Berning, Suzanne Ackerman, Virginia
Wendel and Suzanne Ackerman. Vern Heidner arrived late.
Staff: Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney; Bob Kirmis, Assistant City Planner; Larry
Koshak, City Engineer; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator; Judy Hudson,
Deputy Clerk.
2. Consider Agendaapnroval.
CM Wendel requested to add under Item 9.1. Consideration of Elk River Star News as
the City's Official Newspaper. Also, add under Item 7.5. Residents along 101 with access
roads removed.
Mayor Fournier requested to remove Item 5.3 under Consent Agenda and move to Item
7.5.1. Also he requested to add under Item 9.1.1. Set City Council Workshop to discuss
City reorganization.
CM Berning motioned to approve the March 24, 1997 City Council Agenda as
amended. Seconded by CM Wendel. All in favor. Motion carried.
a. March 10, 1997 Special Meeting with District 728
Mayor Fournier noted the word be on Page 1.
CM Berning motioned to accept the March 10, 1997 Special Meeting with District
728 as amended. Seconded by CM Wendel. All voted in favor except for CM
Ackerman who abstained since she was not in attendance. Motion carried.
b. March 10, 1997 Regular Council Meeting
CM Berning requested the revised Page 2 showing the second of the motion be included.
Mayor Fournier motioned to approve the revised minutes. Seconded by CM
Ackerman. All in favor. Motion carried.
C. March 12, 1997 Sewer and Water Workshop with Dayton
CM Berning motioned to consider approving these minutes at the April 14, 1997
City Council Meeting in order for him to listen to the tape for clarification on a
section. Seconded by CM Ackerman. All in favor. Motion carried.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 2.
4. Open Forum.
John Darkenwald, resident: He stated that in the next 30 to 45 days he will be presenting a
request for a PUD for 250 acres. RLK will be representing him. The PUD will be
primarily for the land on the four corners of 42 and 101.
Julie Schoen, 15108 85th Street: She stated she is against the Council accepting the 85th
Street Feasibility Study. She doesn't believe the council will stop this project if the
Feasibility Study is approved.
Ann Boss, 15062 85th Street: She stated concerned with accepting the feasibility report.
Her concern is safety for children, increase of taxes and snowmobile usage.
Karl Trott, 15126 85th Street: Stated he will reserve his questions when the Council
discusses this later.
Earl Lieske, 85th Street resident; Concern if road is widened now and if sewer and water
comes through than it will have to be redone.
4-1- Gary Groen - Update on February Financial Information
Mr. Groen asked if there are any comments on the February Financial Information the
Council received. He briefly went through the report.
CM Wendel asked if the Sheriffs bill is paid monthly.
Mr. Groen replied the November and December payments fell into January.
CM Berning questioned if the outstanding bills from 1996, are charged to 1996 or 1997.
Mr. Groen answered they will actually show up in 1997.
CM Berning also asked if there are items reaching near budget (like legal) and when does
the Council review this. He also questioned the developers escrow.
Mr. Groen said he will put together a schedule and usually review is done in May or June.
The developers escrow is currently being worked on and should have current information
shortly.
Mayor Fournier asked for definition about the engineering bill.
Mr. Groen noted the third item on the invoice of approximately $26,000 for which
$20,000 is for the 85th Street Feasibility Study. He understands this is a reimbursable
amount from the MSA Construction Fund.
5. Consent Agenda_
5.1. Approve merit raises for City Employees_
5.2. Approve recommendation for Clean Up Day_
CM Ackerman motioned to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. Seconded by
CM Wendel. All in favor. Motion carried.
6.1. Consider Resolution for 95th Street Fea_sihility Report (see 11 _ and 8. 1.1
The City Attorney, Andrew MacArthur, reviewed his revised Resolution. Based on a
recent Supreme Court Case and based upon where the City is at with the 85th Street
Project he doesn't feel the City can include within the developer's agreement an escrow
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 3.
amount of the assessment since he not sure that the project will go ahead. Based upon
this, his recommendation is not to ask for these funds in the Developer's Agreement. The
City still has 85th Street and that report constitutes a basis for what the Storm Impact
Fees are and the assessment. He has changed the resolution and read Section 2 (Page 1)
and Section 3 (Page 2). Basically saying what is changed he is not specifically targeting
the plat in front of the Council as far the assessment. The City still has the ability to assess
at the time of the project.
To accept the Feasibility Study is a step he supports because it is establishes the impact
fees for the storm water impact fees. By accepting this report it does not commit the City
to the project. He further explained the process which includes an improvement hearing.
Residents along 85th Street asked questions regarding selling their property would that
require paying off the assessment. Questioned what is wrong with current road. Couldn't
see where widening the road would prevent accidents. If widening this road is because of
future development.
Suggested to do just the street from Nashua to Odean.
Staff and Council answered their questions by explaining the preparation of the Feasibility
report is part of the process and any assessing must be done through public hearings.
They pointed out and explained MSA Funding. Explained safety issues, Stormwater
Impact Fees and development is a factor. They discussed the street's deterioration.
CM Wendel thought Odean Avenue would be more feasible to do.
Craig House, representing Mr. Kincannon and Mr. Chuba, requested a copy of the
Resolution. Staff gave him a copy.
CM Wendel asked if accepting this study, and the project is not done for a year or so, will
the report need to be updated.
Mr. MacArthur replied if the project is not acted on within one year, this report would
have to be amended.
CM Berning questioned how much of the surveying has been completed and if in
accepting this study will the rest of surveying be done.
Mr. Koshak explained the City Council authorized him up to $10,000 last Fall for
surveying and about $7,500 has been spent with about 75% completion. The part left to
be surveyed is from OBrian Avenue to the west. Mayor Fournier stated no additional
surveying will be done without authorization.
CM Wendel motioned to accept the Resolution NO. 97-6, receiving report on
Feasibility of proposed bituminous street reconstruction of 85th street and Storm
Sewer System for Land adjacent to 85th Street NE and lying within the Hall's Pond
Storm Sewer District and not for any plans to be drawn up. Seconded by CM
Ackerman. All in favor. Motion carried.
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: CM Berning questioned why, when Nashua Avenue was rebuilt, the water
that goes from the west side of Nashua to Hall's Pond redirected at that time.
Mr. Koshak responded the DNR considered what Watershed the Luconic Pond is in and
previously considered in the Hall's Pond Watershed. At a later date, the DNR advised the
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 4.
City, based on the City's request, the City could remove the pond out of Hall's and put into
the Otsego Creek. This was never discussed during the Nashua Street Improvement
because it was a Street Project and did not include stormwater drainage.
CM Ackerman motioned to stop any further surveying at this time for the 85th
Street Project. Seconded by CM Wendel. All in favor. Motion carried.
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: CM Wendel asked if the surveying can be used if the project will ever be
done. Mr. Koshak replied as long as there are not any physical changes.
6.2. Richard Kinc?non and Tennis Chuba (Heritage Hills Development) Owner
Alvin Fand Germain B .a udry PID 119-506-213100. S21, T121, R23
Request is as follows_
A. Preliminary Plat approval for Heritage Hills Plat_
Mr. Kirmis reviewed this item which was tabled at the March 10th City Council Meeting.
Applicant is asking for approval of a 38 single family lots. He reviewed his report with the
Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to eight conditions
which he read.
Mr. MacArthur responded to Item 7, regarding the Outlot. The problem is with access
and the idea is to have this dedicated to the City so the street could be continued later on.
Mr. Kirmis said typically half streets are not desirable, therefore staff suggested to
establish as a Outlot. Which means land is held in reserve so no building permit is issued,
until the property to the north develops. There would be language so the owner of Lot 11
could build a driveway until the time when the street goes through and he can tie into that.
This would be accomplished through the Developer's Contract.
Mr. Koshak, in response to the Mayor's question, stated any one applying for a
preliminary plat needs to have a wetland delineation done whether wetlands are on the
property or not. There are wetlands on this plat which the developer has identified.
The developer wasn't able to complete this since it can't be done during the winter and
they can't complete the plat until the delineation is determined.
CM Wendel asked if the houses will be built on one side of the lot or in the middle.
Mr. Kirmis responded they will be built on one side in accordance with the re -subdivision
plan.
CM Berning motioned approval of the Heritage Hills Preliminary Plat subject to the
eight conditions. Seconded by CM Wendel. All in favor. Motion carried.
6.3. Consider Cheryl Adams recommendation from PC regarding -
CUP Dog Kennel_
Mr. Kirmis reported to the Council the Planning Commission recommendation was for
staff to prepare a letter, to advise the CUP holder, reiterating the original conditions of the
Conditional Use Permit.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 5.
Mayor Fournier motioned to accept the Planning Commission recommendation
with staff writing a letter. Seconded by CM Ackerman. All in favor. Motion
carried.
CM Heidner arrived at this point in the meeting (7:55 PM) and did not vote on the above
motions.
6.4. Consider Chris Bulew/Barthel Bros Dairy_, Rolling Ridge Creek_
a. Final Plat
Mr. Kirmis reviewed the applicant's request for final plat approval. A minor item
following the issuance of his report, is the applicant has prepared a revised final plat. One
lot (Lot 7, Block 1), result of additional ROW, lot was narrowed and needs to be
expanded to 150 feet and this needs to be corrected. NAC recommends approval of final
plat subject to six conditions, with the 6th condition for Lot 7, Block 1 be expanded to
150 feet.
Chris Bulow, developer, stated they have re -submitted a final plat showing the 150 foot
width and all considerations have been addressed.
CM Berning motioned to approve the final plat for Rolling Ridge Creek subject to
the City Engineer's and City Planner's recommended conditions be met. Seconded
by CM Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
6.5 Consider Wilfred Lindenfelser and Hilary Barr; Lin -Bar 11-
A- Preliminary Plat
Mr. Kirmis stated the applicant has requested preliminary plat approval. Property was
recently re -zoned from AG -1 to PUD to accommodate proposed use and development
density. The Preliminary Plat is basically identical to the concept plan, which was
previously approved by the City Council in association with the re -zoning. In terms of
design, the street layout, lot layout, street connections he finds them to be positive.
The majority of the Planning Commission discussion related to Condition #1 of Planning
Report dated March 10, 1997 regarding the re -subdivision plan which he read.
The applicant and developers have concerns that the City's re -subdivision plan requirement
presents limitations on them and their ability to provide the higher value, larger homes on
the property.
In consideration of the applicants testimony and Planning Commission discussions, the
Planning Commission recommended that Condition 1 be deleted and substituted with four
conditions outlined in the City Attorney's March 13, 1997 Memo. The concern was with
the ability of providing sanitary sewer service to those properties in the future.
The Planning Commission recommended that four conditions be included.
1. If the City Sewer Service is available all properties in the plat be required to
immediately hook up.
2. All property owners will be notified within the covenants that they may be faced with
higher per unit assessments for delivery of water and sewer services as result of homes
being constructed in the middle of the lots.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 6.
3. That restrictive covenants be drafted so that the above mentioned provisions can not be
changed.
4. Any such provisions be included in the Developers Agreement on the property.
Mr. MacArthur went over this development which was processed as a PUD and as a PUD
it allows the City to make adjustments to the normal performance standards. One
justification for the PUD was to go along with the Comprehensive Plan that there would
be a variety of housing in the City. The City can't directly go into the covenants and state
a price for the homes which can't be regulated through the covenants. But what he is
trying to present here is that the covenants try to address the fact there will have to be
hook ups to the sewer service. The argument from the developers end, has been is that
sewer won't be out there for twenty years. At least have that in the covenants to notify the
property owners that they would be looking at a higher per unit assessment because they
won't have a re -subdivision plan. Alternatively, could require the developer to submit a
re -subdivision plan and if they demonstrated on a lot per lot basis that the housing pad
with a three car garage (which their covenants requires) makes it impractical to build on
the lot the City can waive on a per lot basis. This is a Council decision. This is a PUD
and is different from regular type of re -zoning. Heritage Plans was a PUD and City
waived re -subdivision plan but they had higher standards like curbing.
Mr. Kirmis noted the PUD for Heritage Plains was used to allow flexibility in lot widths
due to the narrowness of the property.
Ron Black, representing the developer, stated the major topic was the re -subdivision
requirement at the Planning Commission. The applicant firmly believes the City has
already waived this requirement by the re -zoning. For discussion purposes, Mr. Black
stated they support and asked for the deletion of the first item and they object to all four
concepts proposed by the City Attorney. The restrictive covenants that are being used are
intended to enhance and protect the property values and in no way intended to either
enlarge or restrict the power of the City. He went to say that if and when the City has
municipal services in this area, at that point in time its appropriate to talk about who and
when hook ups will be done. The landowners now can not concede to this Council nor
can this Council concede to them that if every land owner will be required to hook up.
He believes that this a policy decision that needs to be made by the Council at the time of
the actual project. They question the concern at this time, why there should be all the
restrictions placed in restrictive covenants when Heritage Plains was approved with no
concern raised about notice, required hookups and Heritage Plains is in the Immediate
Service Area. Mr. Black stated this plat development is being prejudiced by this sudden
concern for notice. He sees the precedent for this whole concept was set with Heritage
Plans and the restrictive covenants are also privately enforceable.
Mr. Black asked for Council approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to conditions #2
through 12 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The concerns raised by the
City Engineer can be addressed. He stated he is very concerned about putting in
restrictive covenants that will cause title problems in the future and cause potential
problems in selling the lots now and homes in the future since that language proposed will
always stay in, even though Otsego may never have sewer. Mr. Black asked the Council
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 7.
that this particular issue be addressed and not speculate.
Mr. MacArthur explained there was a waiver on the other subdivision but in exchange
there were higher performance standards. He feels this language will not affect the sales
and if sewer and water doesn't come out for 20 years it won't be a issue.
CM Wendel stated that 1 and 2 (of the Planning Commission recommendation) concerns
her. When discussing sewer it was her understanding only the residents hooking up will
be assessed. If these are homes are built now and sewer comes in 5 to 10 years and they
already have a septic system didn't think they would have to change over and according to
this it would be immediately.
CM Heidner stated the substantial difference between this PUD and Heritage Plains. The
reason the smaller lot size in Heritage Plains was allowed was because the land was long
and narrow and couldn't run a loop road down the plat and this is not the case with this
plat. He is always concerned with the covenants and restrictions. It is the residents of the
plat that enforce them and not the City and therefore the residents could sign a document
that they won't enforce them.
Mr. MacArthur said #3 covers that possible situation.
CM Heidner feels covenants are meaningless and the residents could agree not to enforce
them. He wants the higher building standards.
Mr. MacArthur said the alternative is for them to re -submit a re -subdivision plan and if
there is justification the City could waive.
Mr. Kirmis said the 150 foot width leaves a 55 foot width to construct a home and the
City Attorney is saying if the home exceeds the 55 foot width the City could waive the re-
subdivision plan for that lot.
Mr. Koshak responded to CM Wendel's previous question that the City doesn't have a
policy regarding hookups, except the City's Ordinance that says hookup when available
and he recommended a complete policy be adopted on this issue when sewer comes to the
City.
CM Wendel thought only new developers would pay for sewer and this says they would
have to immediately hook up and it doesn't make sense.
Mayor Fournier is reading this that if sewer pipe is extended into the development
everyone one has to hook up.
CM Wendel stated #1 should be removed.
CM Heidner noted if that would be the case there could be problems with other groups.
Mr. Koshak said this is the dilemma you face with leap frog development.
CM Ackerman suggested if and when sewer and water reaches this area, a trunk line be
put in and when systems start to fail or they sell their homes they have to hook up.
Mr. Black referred to the copies of the diagrams previously distributed showing problems
associated with starter type homes versus the upper scale homes for re -subdivision.
They do not want a whole street of garages and what Lin -Bar is proposing are the garages
to the side, which the diagrams outline.
CM Heidner stated he is uncomfortable with the restrictive covenants but would support
reviewing on a individual pad basis.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 8.
Mr. Kirmis stated there is nothing preventing the developer from widening the lot and still
be one acre. In case of the Heritage Plains, the City granted them some flexibility from
performance standards - trade off - have a narrower lot provided the developer sod all side
lots, curbing requirements etc. The reason this plat is a PUD is because of location, didn't
want to amend the Urban Service Area Boundary or change the Land Use Plan.
Mayor Fournier stated concern is how would it affect future developments.
Mr. MacArthur responded the issue of the re -subdivision plan in the long term is if the
decision is made with sewer and water and that the Ordinance has to be upgraded and will
come up with specific re -subdivision plans. Right now, the Ordinance says a re-
subdivision plan but it doesn't say what it is. In the context of the PUD we could say here
is a re -subdivision plan, if these houses are of a certain size etc., we will waive this by a lot
to lot basis. Staff is offering alternatives.
CM Wendel stated the Planning Commission recommended the Council to approve this
Preliminary Plat with eliminating #1 and she supports this but she also supports leaving
off the 4 conditions the Planning Commission recommended.
CM Ackerman asked the developer if when building a home would it possible instead of
having the garage to the front that the garage be placed to the side the house or in the
back.
Hilary Barry, developer, all garages would not be in the front but no matter where you
place them with the re -subdivision plan, if only have 55 feet to work with you can't
landscape the property or place the driveways properly. A high-end housing project, is
going to take landscaping to make this project look good, which means a lot of trees.
With this setback you can't plant trees as they would be too crowded.
Mayor Fournier motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the 12
conditions in the report and would like to add to #1 - a re -subdivision plan is
submitted which illustrates a logical manner in which lots could be possibly re -
subdivided in the future and the re -subdivision will be waived on a per lot basis as
the developer demonstrates they can not meet all conditions and requirements of
putting a house on a re -subdivided lot. Also to include Item 1, 2 and 4 of the
Planning Commission's recommendation. Seconded by CM Heidner.
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: CM Berning questioned the City Attorney, assuming 1 and 2 are left in
and at some time down the road, sewer and water comes in and they attempt to change
the covenants or not abide by them does the City have legal action to enforce them.
Mr. MacArthur said part of the problem right now is the City doesn't have any specific
policy. If by that time, the City would probably have an Ordinance in place that would
dictate who has to hook up. These covenants are enforceable by the property owners.
CM Berning than asked why doesn't the City have these requirements in every subdivision.
Mr. MacArthur said because the City has the re -subdivision plan. CM Berning stated
concerns with the re -subdivision plan, with a new house placed next to a house that is
several years old, which he doesn't think would look good.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 9.
Mr. MacArthur said the policy was adopted because at that time the City did not know
when sewer and water was coming and it was a way to deal with it.
Mayor Fournier questioned that without a re -subdivision plan maybe we don't need these
other four items.
Mr. MacArthur said his alternative was if they do submit a re -subdivision plan than the
City can waive on a per lot basis.
Mayor Fournier amended to remove 1, 2, 4 off the motion.
CM Heidner agreed as the second.
Mayor Fournier asked for a legal opinion.
Mr. MacArthur suggested the motion could be that the concept, and he could look into
the language which could be instituted into the Developer's agreement.
Mr. Koshak agreed with the City Attorney that there could be language put into the
Developer's Agreement. In the past there have been cases where the subdivision splits
have been waived. The Developer's Agreement would allow the Building Inspector and
staff to base a decision on certain criteria. He does agree with Mr. Kirmis that there
should be a plan to allow the process to waive it.
CM Heidner agreed to include in the Developer's Agreement.
CM Wendel asked on re -submitting another plan, if they already have an idea what they
want, building one house in the middle of the lot, but now they have to do another plan, is
that what your asking for.
Mr. Kirmis replied what is being asked for is to prepare a re -subdivision plan. There is a
submission requirement of preliminary plat which requires a re -subdivision plat which they
haven't submitted. The applicants feel that the approval of their PUD zoning waived that
requirement. The City Attorney is saying if you submit that re -subdivision plan and if your
houses are as you say they are (large houses with 3 car garage) than fine. If you don't
provide those houses than you have a re -subdivision plan to follow.
CM Wendel questioned if these 4 items (Planning Commission recommendations) are to
be left in the motion or not.
Mayor Fournier stated he took them out of the motion and his motion will be Condition 1
through 12, with language that could be waived on a per lot basis.
CM Beming asked if these lots will be sod or seeded.
Hilary Barry said they don't care, if there is a good job of seeding it is better than sod.
CM Beming questioned why wasn't there a Landscape Buffer on the east or north side.
Mr. Kirmis said the intent was to respond to the anticipated higher traffic volumes on
Odean and CSAH 37. Basically to minimize the impact of the vehicles passing by.
CM Heidner asked what is the status of the covenants, can they be changed or approved.
Mr. MacArthur said he has looked at the covenants they have. If they are written in the
way the Council is going then the one submitted is acceptable.
CM Heidner verified if the covenants can not be changed.
Mayor Fournier believes CM Heidner's point is should we include that language in this.
CM Heidner suggested to adopt the covenants now.
Mayor Fournier questioned if that is the City's responsibility.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, contd. Page 10.
Mr. MacArthur responded no, we just look at them. But with what we are doing , if they
change the covenants and came in with smaller homes they would have to go by the re-
subdivision plan.
Elaine Beatty noted the covenants are recorded with the Developer's Agreement.
Mr. MacArthur replied that is right but they can be changed.
CM Berning stated he not going to vote in favor of this motion as it will set a precedent
for all future PUDs.
Mayor Fournier stated his reason for his motion is not to set precedent requiring re-
subdivision plans.
CM Heidner stated he is not convinced that will be the case. Every developer can do this
and therefore supports to make the lots wider.
Mr. MacArthur believes one way to address that concern is that the use of the PUD has
already been approved on this. The answer is, at the initial stage of approval of rezoning,
this should have been addressed.
Voting For the Motion: Mayor Fournier, CM Wendel
Voting Against the Motion: CM Heidner, CM Ackerman, CM Berning
Motion failed three (3) to two (2).
Break was taken at this point.
CM Ackerman motioned to reconsider the previous motion on Lin -Bar II
Preliminary Plat. Seconded by CM Wendel.
Voting For the Motion: CM Wendel, CM Ackerman, Mayor Fournier
Voting Against the Motion: CM Berning, CM Heidner
Motion carried three (3) to two (2).
CM Ackerman stated she did not understand the first motion on Lin -Bar II Preliminary
Plat and thought the Planning Commission recommendation of the addition four items
were included in the motion and since learning they were not she has changed her
decision.
CM Ackerman motioned to approve the preliminary plat subject to the twelve
conditions including #1,A Re -subdivision Plan is submitted which illustrates a
logical manner which lots could possibly be re -subdivided in the future with the
concept language being a re -subdivision plan is submitted and be waived on a per
lot basis as the developer demonstrates that they can not meet all the conditions of
the requirements of putting a house on a re -subdivided lot. Seconded by CM
Wendel.
Voting For the Motion: CM Wendel, CM Ackerman, Mayor Fournier
Voting Against the Motion: CM Heidner, CM Berning
Motion carried three (3) to two (2).
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: CM Heidner asked what are the enhancements on this development.
Mr. MacArthur feels this motion to have them submit a re -subdivision plan and may be
waived on a per lot basis. He feels CM Heidner's question is that like on Heritage Plains
and others there were enhancement performances.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 11.
Mr. Koshak noted he has recommended landscaping on the pond sites, setbacks be 50 feet
rather than the 35 foot, Stormwater drainage plan require no discharge from the 100 year
storm. Hillary Barry replied the 50 foot setbacks wouldn't work on all lots especially the
lots along CSAH 37 where the lots are more shallow and where the Stormwater drainage
is located. He noted there will be three rows of trees planted around the site.
Mr. Kirmis noted and discussed the current ordinance requiring two (2) trees are platted
on every lot.
CM Ackerman asked if the lots along CSAH 37 could be larger. Mr. Hillary said they
have had four or five sets already of different plans and this plat before the Council was
submitted as a comprehensive plan for the entire tract when the previous five lot plat was
approved. After developing the different patterns but the dimensions of the site itself and
the topography any changing will end up with lots not as desirable as these and felt this is
the most desirable plan for the good of Otsego. CM Berning suggested adding a certain
number and size for trees.
CM Berning motioned to amend the motion to include landscaping around the
pond, 50 foot setbacks where applicable, no discharge from the 100 year Stormwater
event and a minimum of five (5) trees with 4 inch diameter. Seconded by Mayor
Fournier. All in favor. Motion carried.
7. Andy MacArth
7.1. See 6.1
Previously considered.
Previously considered.
7.3. Council consideration of interim uses along State Highway 101
Mr. MacArthur reviewed his March 17, 1997 letter regarding certain uses along Highway
101 have been allowed to continue operating even though the uses were either not legally
established, or do not meet the performance standards of the City's current zoning
ordinance. The City agreed to defer enforcement due to the special circumstances existing
along 101 until the completion of this corridor. Mr. MacArthur asked the Council if they
want to extend the time period since the sewer and water issues have not been resolved or
to start enforcement.
Mayor Fournier supports waiting until a decision is reached on the sewer and water.
CM Heidner thought at least until the roads are accepted. CM Berning, CM Wendel and
CM Ackerman also supported to wait until the sewer and water issues are settled.
Mr. John Darkenwald noted they are going with monthly rentals in the anticipation of
doing something different on their property. He also stated his company wants to work
with the City.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 12.
101 Service roads/101 _
CM Wendel was concerned with the resident on the east side of 101 who approached the
Council earlier in the year stating he can't get across to 101 easily and did this matter ever
get addressed.
Mr. Koshak responded he wrote to MnDOT and hasn't received a reply about putting a
street in.
Mayor Fournier offered to contact the resident and let him know the City did contact
MnDOT regarding this.
7.4. Hearing for Pattern Station, Inc_. DBA Riverwood Inn and Conference
Center 10990 - 95th Street NE (Otsego) MN 55362 to consider:
a. Renewal of Consumption and Dismay Permit_
Mayor Fournier opened the Public Hearing at 9:30 PM.
Elaine Beatty stated the proper publishing was completed.
Mayor Fournier opened the Hearing for public comment.
There was no public comment.
Mayor Fournier closed the Public Hearing to public comment.
CM Heidner motioned to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by CM Ackerman.
All in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Fournier motioned to renew the Consumption and Display Permit.
Seconded by CM Berning. All in favor. Motion carried.
7.5. .Any other Legal Business.
Mr. MacArthur reported there has been no decision made on the Lef-Co Case. He
anticipates receiving word within the next couple of weeks.
7.5 1. Approve Elk River Fire Service Contract (This was removed from the
Consent Agenda)
Mayor Fournier stated it has been suggested that the language be changed to reflect that
the contract is to remain in effect as long as it is agreeable with both parties.
The City Attorney asked for time to review and bring this back to the Council.
Mayor Fournier directed staff to put this item on the April 14, 1997 City Council Meeting.
8. ,•• .• 1., \Engineer-
8.1.
east of Nashua Ave) and Staimwater drainage study for the -Qf
• '•11 Watershed.• .11 7. 1.1 above)
Previously considered.
PM -
Consider Resolution • support the City of Michael • change the
functional Classifica• 1 • \ abor Avenue • 11 minor c• • to
11 .
or • • and • support future alignmentof 1 ' inter-count
highway-
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 13.
Mr. Koshak reported on the recent meeting he and CM Berning attended at Wright
County. This project is where a intra -county highway is proposed to begin at CSAH 39
and Nashua and end in Wright County at the proposed Crow River bridge at Hennepin
County CSAH 116. This route includes a proposed interchange or overpass at I-94. The
cities of St. Michael and Otsego would be responsible for constructing the road and then
the County will take the road over.
Because this would be a intra -county road and ISTEA Funds are involved (98 ISTEA)
Nabor Avenue needs to be upgraded to a major collector from a minor collector.
St. Michael is looking for support from Otsego and Albertville to do so. There are two
parts to this, the upgrade and the commitment from Otsego to set aside corridor available
for the street. This would have to be put in the Comprehensive Plan so the corridor can
be protected.
The Resolution states there would be no costs to Otsego for anything outside of Otsego's
jurisdiction.
After Council and staff discussion.
CM Heidner motioned to adopt Resolution No. 97-4, Resolution supporting City of
St. Michael in designating Nabor Avenue as a Major Collector Street. Also to be
included is that the City of Otsego wouldn't be forced to construct Nabor Avenue.
Seconded by Mayor Fournier. All in favor. Motion carried.
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: Mayor Fournier asked where in the Resolution does it eliminate Otsego from
financial obligation.
Mr. Koshak pointed out this is in #5 on Page 1.
CM Wendel asked if St. Michael will get the okay from MnDOT and if they don't agree
than will the road be a dead end. Mr. Koshak replied they have to have MnDOT involved
but up to this point they are trying to get support to build Nabor Avenue.
CM Berning questioned how difficult it would be for the city to establish the corridor.
Mr. Koshak said a line can be drawn, identifying some width and the City can review such
property if a proposal comes in.
CM Wendel asked if something should be included that Otsego wouldn't be forced to build
the street.
Both CM Heidner and Mayor Fournier accepted to include this in the motion.
8.3. Consider Resolution establishing Municipal State Aid Streets and
Revoking Municipal State Aid Leets.
Mr. Koshak went through the changes discussed at the previously held workshop.
CM Beming questioned if the added pieces and the discussion held earlier about the
proposed street by 42 and 101 - could the developer force the City to use MSA money to
build a road there.
Mr. Koshak responded no and that the City has to initiate it.
CM Berning motioned to accept Resolution No. 97-5 establishing the Municipal
State Aid Streets under the provisions of Minnesota Laws. Seconded by CM
Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 14.
Mr. Floyd Goenner asked about the sand bagging in regards to the recent letter he
received from the City. He feels the sandbagging will create more water for him.
Mr. Koshak replied the sand bagging was completed this day.
Mayor Fournier said the idea was to control the water, it will be monitored daily and if
there is flooding, the bags will be removed.
Mr. Goenner also questioned the Council why there wasn't a drainline put in east of
Nashua Avenue to drain to Otsego Creek.
Mayor Fournier answered that this is a issue they will have to address.
8.4. Update on ISTEA 1996 Bike Path Project
Merland Otto reported the ISTEA FY96 project will be let out for bids this Spring.
Estimated project was over budget and needed to reduce down to $230,400. Approach
recommended was to modify project by cutting back on 96th Street and Ohland and delete
bikeway by-pass at CSAH 39 and frontage road. The plans have been revised to reflect
this.
Mr. Otto showed the Council a map of the revised Plan and went over the issues.
CM Wendel asked how this will be paid for. Mr. Otto replied through ISTEA and Park
Dedication fees.
Mr. Koshak stated the MSA City Fund has money left over from projects in the past and
the money should already be there.
The Council expressed concerns with the trail crossing CSAH 39. Mr. Otto said the
County will be notified of this.
Mr. Otto said the project estimate is down to $243,000, still 5.6% over of target budget
and hopes the bid will come in lower.
Mr. Otto informed the Council that a maintenance plan will be needed - paved shoulders
would have no snowmobile travel, sealcoating, no motorized vehicles except for
emergency, no snowplowing in the winter.
CM Berning motioned to approve the Plan. Seconded by CM Ackerman. All in
favor. Motion carried.
8.5. Discussion of proposal for aerial topographical maps for old
Frankfort area_
Mr. Koshak suggested, with the potential sewer treatment plant, it would be beneficial to
have Mark Hurd do aerial topographical of the former Frankfort area. He went over the
costs.
The Council agreed to hold off on this.
None
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, contd. Page 15.
Newspaper.
CM Heidner motioned to set the official newspaper for the City of Otsego as the Elk
River Star News for the balance of 1997. Seconded by CM Wendel. All in favor.
Motion carried.
9-1 h Set Council Workshopreg regarding City Reorganization.
Mayor Fournier set April 21, 1997 at 7 PM.
9.2. City Clerk's Update.
Elaine Beatty went over the following items:
Letters she sent to residents regarding potential flooding.
MN Planning Association - May 8, 1997 at Otsego City Hall
Committee meeting with MnDOT regarding Grand Opening of 101 Celebration
Elaine also presented to the Council discussion the Administrative Staff Committee had in
regards to the City Hall Hours of operation. It was recommended a four (4) day work -
week -10 hour days, closed on Friday. This concept would give Otsego residents more of
an opportunity to get to City Hall since this is basically a bedroom community. Elaine
went over the notification plan.
CM Berning asked if the Council Packets could be prepared by Wednesday.
CM Heidner was concerned with the facility renters who want to set up on Fridays.
Elaine explained how the renters will be notified and arrangements made. She also
supported CM Berning's suggestion with the Council Packets prepared by Wednesday and
sees no problem with that.
Mayor Fournier supported this change of administration operation days and hours on a
trial basis. The CM's Ackerman, Berning, Heidner and Wendel also supported trying this.
The week of April 14, 1997 was selected to start the new hours.
9.3. Consider Claims List fora r1�1oval-
CM Wendel motioned to accept the Claims List as presented. Seconded by CM
Heidner. All in favor. Motion carried.
9.4" Adjourn by 10 PM.
CM Berning said he talked to Gary Hale, Administrator in Albertville, about the Blanden
Foundation. He felt there should be an article in the Otsego View about this and
suggested asking members of the Parks and Rec and Heritage Commissions if they would
be interested. CM Wendel reported she went to a meeting, discussed this with Elaine and
received a list of residents who might be interested in joining. She said she will be going
to the next meeting in a couple of weeks.
Otsego City Council Meeting of March 24, 1997, cont'd. Page 16.
CM Ackerman motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Mayor Fournier. All in favor.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 11 PM.
i
Q L
Mayor L Fournier
t: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/ Hing Adm.
Recorded by: Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk
City Seal