03-25-92 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 3/25/92 AT 8PM
- PAGE 1 -
Carl Swenson, Chair called the meeting to order at 8:OOPM and
the following Planning Commission Members were present:
ING ROSKAFT MARK WALLACE LARRY FOURNIER
JIM KOLLES BRUCE MASK - ( COUNCIL PC/REP
•y;,,�J:.::.�z `_ `�� ✓>'�'►+.�� FOR RON BLACK)
The Planning Commission meeting was set to address Zoning
Ordinances. Carl Swenson approved minutes of the March 4th
meeting. Elaine Beatty added that she would change the
minutes; Kathy Lewis' name showed position of Chair behind
it. No other corrections were made. Carl asked the
commission if all were in favor to move on. Motion was
carried unanimously.
Carl stated the next item on the agenda was the adoption
of the new Zoning Ordinance for the City of Otsego. Carl
opened the Nearing by clarifying that it was an informational
Nearing. Swenson - There have been a number of changes based
on recommendations. We will have Mr. Licht go over some of
those changes. Licht - Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, the two matters that are before you which are in
regard to the Zoning Ordinance, one the zoning ordinance
text, and secondly the zoning ordinance map. If I can deal
briefly with the map, the map is basically a direct
translation of what exists today in terms of Zoning to the
new nomenclature of zoning districts which are contained in
the draft text, so basically the zoning that is on the
property, the uses that are allowed, stay as they are. We
can discuss that further at a later point. There were a
number of changes which were raised during discussion since
publication of the second draft of the ordinance which was in
January. I've done a memo summarizing those which has been
provided to the Commission and the Council. A good share of
the changes relate simply to clarification, and don't change
the intent of the language. The changes which have taken
place of any significance were first of all with building
type and construction. There was a clarification per the
Council and Planning Commission discussion of what was
acceptable there, secondly per discussions which have taken
place, provisions have been made for the parking of
commercial vehicles in excess of the typical pick up or van
and passenger car on residential properties via conditional
use permit and subject to a number of conditions which had
been stated. There was a clarification on the animal
section, mainly clarification and not a change in terms of
intent. The wetland Zoning district, I think as we discussed
at the last meeting, and I'll pass this out to members,
actually the changes are summarized in the memo which I sent
out, but we've incorporated them into the balance of the
text. In essence what this change does is it updates this
draft ordinance to the current State guidelines which is in
essence a no net loss of wetlands, in other words if wetlands
are to be filled there has to be an equal replacement of that
wetland someplace on the property, or if it can be negotiated
with the city someplace else within the City. Finally I
would point out that we still have not resolved with the DNR
the Wild and Scenic River situation. The main issue being
west of Highway 101 and the City's position is that it should
not be included in the district or alternatively, the
standard should be lessened there. The main issue being
impervious surface that is still unresolved. The DNR is to
have a response to the City for their own indications by
Monday of next week. The City Attorney recommended that you
continue the language which is presently in the draft and
we'll have to wait to see what the DNR states. What the
present language says is that we just continue the Wright
County regulations as they are now and again, that will be
brought up and hopefully resolved in the near term future.
Other than that, that's basically the changes which have, or
modifications and clarifications that have taken place since
the draft ordinance. Swenson -At this point we'll open the
Hearing to the comments of the citizens. Since we've had
Hearings on this before, we would request, if possible, that
you talk only in terms of things that have not been discussed
before. New information, or new questions. We also ask that
you try to state your name and question before the Chair.
Are there any questions? Brisbin- In that area west of 101
that you were talking about.. Swenson - Will you stand and
state your name please? Brisbin-Merlin Brisbin. Swenson -
Thank you. Licht -Merlin right now, there's an area which is
shown on the zoning map in back of you. The DNR has
designated. I believe its 300 or 600 feet west of 101 as Wild
and Scenic, and the city's position has been throughout the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the zoning regulations that
area should be commercial or industrial in nature. The
problem, the DNR is willing to designate it in that
classification, the problem is that they will allow only 300
impervious surface or lot coverage. Any commercial or
industrial development normally goes to a minimum of 70 or 80
percent lot coverage with the building and related parking.
Quite frankly there is no urban type commercial or industrial
development that I know of that's less than probably 60%. As
a consequence, what the DNR, by default, is doing is saying
that land cannot be developed in that type of land use. So
what the city's position is. that the area in essence west of
101, first of all has minimal, if any, relationship to the
river, because its separated by a four lane, or to be a four
lane highway. Secondly their major concern is the water
quality that goes into the river, if you don't have the
direct visual impact. The resolution of that, is the DNR has
allowed, in almost every other instance, is allowing
impervious surfaces to increase, provided there is ponding
and sedimentation basins provided on site. That's not
uncommon, we do that in many of the communities we work for.
For one reason or another, the DNR, at least the staff of the
Wild and Scenic River, are not offering that flexibility at
this dime, and that's basically the matter that's at issue.
Brisbin -That is considered flood plain? Licht - It is flood
plain, but the point is, you can modify a flood plain. You
cannot modify Wild and Scenic other than the 25%, or 30%
impervious surface. Brisbin -Would any insurance company
insure a business that goes in there, being it's a flood
plain? Licht -Sure - if you flood proof it. Brisbin -The
Cattleman's Restaurant that was supposed to go in there,
could not get insurance because of the flood plain, because
of the dyke, if the city would have let them put a building
in it the way it was standing, and they could not get
insurance, then the city would have to be liable to make sure
they have insurance. If they were to put buildings in there
and they flooded out, the City of Otsego would be liable for
that. That's the way the DNR reads it. Licht - Well, that
is not correct. First of all, there are means where by to
flood proof that, it's built into the draft ordinance. They
have to flood proof, and there are houses that are built in
flood plains and business all the time. Brisbin- Maybe we
shouldn't even be in this. Licht - Merlin, there are
businesses being built on flood plains all of the time. As
long as we follow our federal guidelines for flood proofing,
elevation of the structures, we'll get insurance. Brisbin -
You might want to consider checking into that. Licht -
Merlin. Brisbin - Because you want to insure your
business... Licht - you're not, you assume no liability what --
so -ever Brisbin - You won't get any changes from the DNR.
Licht -That's fine, but I'm here to tell you that's wrong
information. Brisbin - Then the DNR is lying. Licht - Well
I don't know what you told them or what, but we deal with
flood plains, Delano is a prime example. Delano is a client
of ours, the whole downtown is in the flood plains, they're
full of commercial development. I'm telling you that the
city is not liable. Brisbin - In a sense it is. Licht -Well
I'm telling you that's incorrect information. Swenson -Any
other questions? Weight - John Weight, I'm presently working
with a project for Thibodeau Minn -E --Golf and we, in that
discussion, we had questioned loading dock parking which is
in your regulations, and we're questioning if it is more
strict than some of the neighboring communities. What some
of the other businesses in other communities and process for
??????? in Elk River it says all ??-> beyond one shall be
separate from the areas used for off --street parking where
your ordinance requests that or specifies that no loading
dock in combination with off --street parking. It would have to
be a separate parking lot. Licht - Again I don't know what
Ordinances you've looked at, and simply because an ordinance
has it, doesn't make it a good ordinance. Normal requirement
of any modern development is that you have a loading area
that is separate from parking so that 1.) a vehicle is not
damaged, passenger vehicles there are not damaged, 2.) they
can access the parking with regard to the Thibodeau
development, not only is there a question of accessing the
building. there's also, where are you going to put the
garbage, a number of things. It is common practice if You
look at Frankfort's ordinance, if you look at Albertville's
ordinance, if you look at St. Michael's ordinance, they all
have the same requirement that's proposed here. It simply
makes sense to have the loading area separate from what is
typically the parking. Again, the deliveries are that take
place, if there's conflict with the customer from just a
commercial standpoint that doesn't make a lot of sense. Many
of you have probably seen gas stations, for example, that
when they pull the truck transport in, what they basically do
is block pump islands. There in essence chasing customers
away or preventing them from accessing the site, not only is
that dangerous, from the safety standpoint of the gas that's
being dispersed, but it also is just from movement on the
site, so the concept of having a separate loading facility,
whether it be for a building or whether it be for a
convenience store, a gas station, whatever, it's certainly
not ?????? and it's certainly not uncommon. Weight-- I'm not
specifically saying that it's possible that it shouldn't be,
but by putting it in the ordinance, that it's absolutely
mandatory to have a separate one. You referred to a gas
station, I built the Darkenwald Food--n-Fuel, and the loading
for fuel is adjacent to the pumps, but in the new regulation
the would be in the wrong location as well. When you're
going to deal with commercial, you mentioned that generally
speaking you get somewhere in the vicinity of 70% impervious
structure, and that will make concessions ?? or work with the
customers on a lot of different issues because due to the
very expensive land, and Thibodeau, the reason we're so
concerned about it on the Thibodeau situation is, there will
be practically never any reason for a large truck to come
into the site, and yet the regulation specifies that we have
to have a semi ?? even though we don't plan on having semis
or very few maybe one a week or one every day or two. The
reason it would be questionable is if the food service
company would decide to deliver with a large truck instead of
a smaller truck, and the ??? regulations specify that they
deliver on off-peak, the fact is generally food service
companies deliver before 11:00 AM, so the recreational
center, on 5 days a week when people deliver, they're
practically ??inoperative just because the customers are at
work or what--have-you, so I'm expressing a concern because
that would be just another stipulation for a conditional use
to address, and if this situation is questioning it and how
many others, I've been in Perkin's in different parts of the
state and I've been in other restaurants and I ser: absolutely
no sign of a semi loading or unloading where they basically
pull up into the parking lot and unload because they usually
come at off-peak hours. Swenson Is there any other
comments? Margaret Thibodeau -- My name is Margaret Thibodeau
and I'm one of the owners of the Minn -E --Golf property. I
have to say that our agreement with th.� people who deliver,
the hours when we have people deliver, prior to 10:00 or
11:00 in the morning, our business is not open. There are
emrlovees there durin the summer. to take whatever comes in.
even with the food service we have that comes out of Hopkins,
he assured us that if we want any food service delivery that
we can specify specifically with the food service we'll be
dealing with, on what type of vehicle should be coming in.
Now we're talking snack bar, we're not talking a full blown
restaurant like Perkins. We will be offering a few more
things than we currently do, but our main recreation is going
to be mini -golf, and hobby store along with RC racing. Now
the RC racing and the mini -golf, the majority I would say 80%
of the people who come for that, it's during the evening and
on weekends. 80% of our business for our recreation is on
Friday night, Saturday and Sunday and there are no trucks
that deliver on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Licht - Mr.
Chairman, if I could respond, first of all, I think we're
getting, and it's probably appropriate that we bring up this
specific issue. Part of the problem is that I think you only
bring up part of it by raising an issue because I think one
of the things that, in fact, the builder has even suggested
is that you are maximizing out that site, potentially to the
point of over building the site. However, and that's
something that's going to have to be resolved when that
application has brought in. I don't know what research you
did on the ordinance, but there is a provision in the
ordinance as there is in the parking section for loading.
That provision says that if you can demonstrate that there is
a need for a loading space, what you can do is by conditional
use, defer that loading space. You have to show where it
will be provided but you can defer construction of that until
there is a demonstrative need or a change in use, so there is
an out. The very issue that you raised I think demonstrates
what is attempted to be built in the ordinance in terms of
flexibility. If for some reason there isn't any absolute
need for that loading dock on that building, then there is an
out. That can be documented that there is an out so you
don't have to build it. That provision is in the ordinance,
it is on page 132, if you want to look at it. Swenson - Are
there any other comments? Chris Wilson - Chris Wilson, and I
apologize for not being at the other hearings when you were
going over old stuff already, but my question is about the
home business issue. I was told that the Commission was
trying to get it banned, ??. Licht - Do you want me to
respond? Swenson -- Go ahead. Licht - There are two types of
home businesses that have existed in Otsego in the past.
First is classified as a home occupation. That is one that
is conducted solely within the house and is conducted solely
by an occupant of the house. There is also what has been,
what is referred to under the County regulation as a home
extended business and that provision is in fact carried into
the new ordinance. The provisions are basically, if you have
an approved home extended business, if you are a legal
business, and you went through as you were required to do,
went through the Council and got a conditional use permit you
are basically grandfathered in. You can continue that
bu,li ness as long as you meet whatever crit -aria the County
establishes. If you are an illegal business, one that never
had approval, and you didn't go through the proper
procedures, then basically the ordinance's position is that
you are to terminate that business, but the ordinance
provides mechanisms where by that is up to, well depending on
where you are located. If you are basically conflict to the
city, identify what the business is, identify what
investments are in it, that type of thing, and there's a
period up to ten years to remove that business from that
zone. The other comment I would make is that legally, those
businesses have only been allowed in agricultural zones. So
what the position of the city is then is that if somebody
came in there illegally, and started a business, and operated
it in essence without the required approvals, that position
could be shot down right now because you have no legal
standing, you have no property right for it. What the
ordinance says is because we know there's quite a few out
there that might be qualified, at least what we will do is
give a reasonable period of time to amortize that business
out and try to find a suitable replacement. Wilson - What
qualifies as a ???, because we've got forty acres, but it's
in the RIM program now. Licht - then you're in agriculture,
undoubtedly you must be in the A-1 zone, and that's a
qualified. The majority of city today, again if you look at
the map in the back, it shows white, the majority of the cit;
is agriculture, so it is more than likely if you've got land
in the RIM Program and all of that, you're in that
agricultural zone. Swenson - Are there other questions?
Gene Goenner - Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that maybe
you can help me clarify, provision 29.5, Article 7 said there
are no signs allowed to home extended businesses, now if
there going to .allow them to exist for ten years, as long as
they would meet the sign ordinance, why wouldn't they be
allowed to have a sign identifying their business. Licht -
The time set behind that is basically they are in residential
areas. It's not a business district where they're allowed.
that's in essence the philosophy behind it. Goenner - But it
says the ones that aren't Ag. Now they have the opportunity
to possibly stay there and then why wouldn't they be allowed
to have signs also? Licht - That's correct. Goenner - But
if they have the possibility of staying there, then they
should be allowed to have a sign. Licht - Well, that's up to
the Commission. The part that was discussed quite
extensively, I think prior to your being on the Commission,
there was at least some strong opinion voiced that there
shouldn't even be home extended businesses in the
agricultural zone, and by allowing them to exist at all, it
was not to be made into a major commercial operation, so thus
the limitation of the signing. Bonnie Bauer -- How can they
even say such a thing? Swenson Ma'am could you please
state your name? Bauer Bonnie Bauer. I can't imagine why
they would even say such a thing. Because we've got our
business, five years ago, plat that business-, we may be
grandfathered in, it isn't the City's right. How can you
say, no you can't have this business? What do we do with the
damn building then? Licht - That's an issue, if I can
respond. That's in essence why first of all, there's an
illegal use that went in, you have to realize, let me finish,
are you talking about the use or the building? Bauer - The
building is not illegal, and the part of the business is not
legal, I do not believe that. Licht - Do you have a
conditional use for the business? Bauer - We went through
this City, through this Council before we were just a
township, we have also received word from Wright County and I
believe it is grandfathered in, isn't it? Licht - Then it's
grandfathered in. Bauer -- Well then what about the people
that aren't grandfathered in? Licht - Well, understand the
concept of why there is zoning and why we go through it. If
there is an area in the community that is zoned in a certain
fashion, it says you have the right to develop that within
these type of activities. Now that's for your protection as
well as your neighbors protection. So I know that if you're
located on this piece of property and I buy the piece of
property next to you, I know that you have this, I go to the
zoning ordinance and these are the things you can do. So, I
build my house in a certain location knowing that's what you
can do, now without going through the approvals that are
required by the conditional use permit or whatever. Normally
that's where there's consideration of surrounding property
owners, their protection whether it be property value or
whatever. That's where that's taken in to account. If that
doesn't happen and you all of a sudden undertake some
activity that basically infringes on me, you all of a sudden
have extended a bulk of property right that you have. If you
are infringing upon me, you are there by infringing upon my
property rights. Now, and that is protected. I want to be
protected from that infringement. Now, what the City has
said is that basically we realize that many people have gone
thru the appropriate channels, and assuming that they have
gone thru the appropriate channels, they have said you have
to screen on the side or you have to set your activity away
from the neighbors so you don't impact the neighbors. In
those instances where that has not occurred, there isn't any
assurances that there has been protection of the neighbors of
everybody else's property rights. So what the City has said
is alright, you are now classified as an illegal, non-
conforming use. To change that status, what happens is you
come in, and it has to be done on an individual basis,
because you simply can not blanket your regulation and
anticipate everything that is out there. So what has to
happen is you should come thru the process that you should
have done before if you didn't do it. It is then determined
what improvements have to be made. That is not for your
protection, but for the protection of the people around you
that have purchased land under the assumption that this land
is residential and not commercial in nature. There are not
going to be machines running and disturbing what is typical
of a quite neiryhborhood. The point is that if the business
that is out there today did not get legal standing, you can
get the legal standing and then continue on basically in
comfort that you aren't going to be shut down. There is a
termination.and that in fact, can even be extended on beyond
what is stated in the ordinance. But, again, every situation
has to be judged. Residential areas, the way they are set up
in terms of Zoning, setback, allowable parking, all of that
anticipates children, anticipates people living in a fairly
condensed area or the potential of that, and that is not the
kind of environment where you anticipate Commercial
development. Which prevents trucks coming in, which prevents
safety hazards, with streets which are not designed for
trucks. A major cost to the home owner are the streets which
are in front of the house and if this street is all of a
sudden getting used by heavy trucks that tear that street up,
it is going to cost every home owner on that street. Which
again is not fair to the home owner who came in assuming that
this is a residential area. The alternative is that the City
can go out and say that every street is going to have to be
constructed to the highest tonnage allowable. That will add
cost to housing right up front. The point being is, that we
have tried to set up a mechanism. The Commission and Council
has not said that we are simply going to go out and close
these people down. They did not have legal standing. Even
if there has not been legal standing, the point is to work
with the property owner to allow the use to continue,
especially if it is not infringing on anybody. To allow that
use to continue and with some rhyme or reason as to what is
going to happen and without affecting the property rights of
the person that has that business as well as the person who
comes in and buys around it. It was a difficult situation.
Licht read the minimum conditions for a Home Extended
Business= (See Attached Conditions 1 - 18) That was what was
allowable and what the conditions were under the county
regulations. Those regulations have been generally
reiterated as part of the City's regulations now. George
Seebeck - I understand what you are saying, but what if the
Federal Government steps in and says you don't have a
business. You have a hobby. Licht--Well. Brisbin - If it a
hobby it is not a business then. Licht - If you have an
employee, I would assume that, that is a business. We are
not talking tax. We are talking basically use
classification. Seebeck-You can have a business, but not
have a business. Licht-potentially. OK. Swenson-Are there
any other public comments? You have already spoken once. We
will see if there is anyone else. Rex Ostubar - We are
looking at buying some land here and we are wondering about
having a drapery business in the home. We are wondering if
there is any possible problem with something like that. My
wife and her mother comes and helps out once or twice a week.
Licht-Basically, I would assume that if all you have is
sewing machines. Ostubar--Ya, there are about four sewing
machines. Licht-Nothing that. isn't uncommon to a home. The
iscue that probably result is if ,ou ha,.-e someone else other
than the mother-in-law, coming in and working. It would
likely not be accepted. Realize that the other thing that
the City is looking at, and it is a major consideration, is
that Home Occupations, and I shouldn't say Home Occupations,
because typically they are not a concern. The reason, let me
explain that. The reason is that is not a concern from a
compatibility standpoint. If you operate them in your own
house, it is pretty self policing. If you have children, a
spouse, or whatever, there is some consideration that they
sleep at night, and if you are up working all night, you have
to be quite or whatever. The problem is if you get to an out
building that is not in the home there is not too much self--
policing that is going on and it becomes potentially the
infringement upon the neighbors rather than what exists
otherwise. The other concern, I think that motivates the
City in terms of concern of Home Extended Businesses is they
are robbing the City, and particularly the tax payers who
live in a house for a residential purpose, of tax base. If
it is a Commercial operation, that should be taxed as a
Commercial Business, not as a residence. That is acceptable
up to a limited degree, but all of a sudden when you start
growing to a point of a major endeavor, there is a loss of
taxes to the City. With tax base, there has to be a concern
all the way around. But again, there is a grey area there.
Where there is an infringement and it is hard to define, but
basically, to define this interim use, there is a process and
you have to go thru. Every one of those cases has to be
judged, typically, on their own merit. If you currently have
a machine shop and you totally insulate the building, to be
soundproofed, that is probably not going to infringe upon
anybody so your ability to exist there for a much longer
period of time, or forever, probably is there. But if you
simply have a building with paper thin walls, 40 feet away,
That may be in jeopardy in terms of how that operation
exists. Everyone of those have to be looked at
independently. Simply because of situations as of how it is
today, that is not to say that we can not rectify the
situation and make it compatible to last a longer period of
time. That is why each one of them has to be looked at as
they come about. Swenson-Anyone else? Denise McAlpine - I
would like to get a little more information on the in home
business and is the in home business considered traffic wise?
Is that why there is such a difference. Traffic coming in
all the time? Is that why they consider allowing it? Licht-
Between the Home Extended Business and a Home Occupation,
Traffic can be actually higher in a Home Occupation. Beauty
Shops for example can be allowed in a Home Occupation within
certain bounds. McAlpine--Do they have to have parking?
Licht-Yes. Well, again, under the Home Occupation, it kind
of distinguishes it from the Home Extended Business. The
operator is only the occupant of the house. Typically, if a
woman herself is doing it, there is no other employee that is
associated with it. If the driveway, for example is long
,ncu h to accommodate one customer, or an overlap of two
customers, then it is an acceptable situation, but there does
have to be parking shown off street. Again, and that is on
site. That can be accommodated, but the point being is and
that is again why these have to be judged on an individual
basis. In house business could potentially generate more
traffic then, in other words, if there was a drapery
business, in an outside building and the mother--in-law came
in to help with sewing and she showed up at 3AM and left at 5
PM, there would probably be less traffic associated with that
then a beauty operation in a house, so that is why it has to
be judged independently. Swenson-Do you have one more
question? Brisbin-Ya, on a Home Extended Business, now if
there is no business being conducted there. If you are just
storing vehicles there, I don't really believe that is
addressed in it. Licht--Yes it is. Brisbin--You sent us a
copy of the Ord. and we already had one, but again there is
nothing about if there is work done or if you are just
parking a truck. You are just storing a vehicle. Licht-That
was addressed in the, well..first of all, the way the initial
draft came out followed in essence Co Regs and that said if
you have anything other than a pickup or a van size
Commercial vehicle it is not allowed. The County regulation
says that today. The revision that I have provided to the
Commission and the Council makes a CUP an acceptable
situation to have up to an 18 wheeler on a site but with
certain safety considerations and considerations of the
neighbors. So again that can be allowed, but the storage of
equipment would fall under that same provision. An example,
If I mow lawns in the summer, and I have all my stuff
scattered all over, the Ordinance does not allow me to come
in the Winter and store all my equipment on my home site
unless I have special permit to do it. But there is a
permitting process now that allows that. Again, I emphasize
that there are no provisions in the County Ord that allows
that, in fact that is in violation of the Co Ord. Now,
whether they enforced it or not, that is another story, and
at least what the Ord does today, the draft Ord, is
accommodation for the potential of it. If that site can
accommodate it, and that is a critical factor. Brisbin--Your
new Ord says, we were told that at no cost you can come in
and get a CUP, but the way I understand it that they want
$250.00 per business to get a CUP? Licht--Well, they haven't,
and I don't know where you got no cost. (Elaine) No, I did
not say that. Brisbin-Yes you did. Elaine--No. Licht-Let me
just say what the cost is. The cost of a CUP I believe is
$250.00. Elaine - $150.00. Brisbin--So it is up to $150.00
now? Licht--It. had been before. Alright? Now, That is on
the application. In other words, when you bring your request
for consideration, and that total is a separate issue other
than the Ord. It has been discussed and it has been in place
for again, a year or better. Anyways, the Application fees
are $150.00 plus expenses. Publication expenses, review time
Planner, Attorney, or whatever, that goes on top of it. Now,
.ghat I i,,jould anticipat-a again. and this is a policy decision
and is getting above and beyond the field we are talking
about, if there is direction for example for the Home
Extended Businesses that are out there that haven't been
processed, the Council may consider waiving the fee. The
other approach that the City is at least considering, and we
have been moving in that direction and the Council at the
last meeting said that I believe that on the 2nd meeting of
April that they are looking at an Economic Development
Commission. They need to work with the existing businesses.
One of the things I would envision is they would be working
with that Economic Development Commission. You not only go
out of the community to see what you can find, but work with
the existing businesses here. One of the things that I quite
frankly would envision, is that when an application is filed
for a Home Extended Business, I assume that they would be
working and I assume free of charge, with that Economic
Development Commission in saying OK, and saying what is
needed here and trying to resolve a problem then, up front so
they can, by the time it got to the Planning Commission, and
eventually the Council a lot of that detail would be worked
out hopefully with the property owner and they would know
what is going to happen. That is what the fee structure is
and it is not what we are discussing tonight. This Ordinance
has no reference whatsoever to fees, it just says that the
fees are established by the City Council and that has been as
part of a resolution that they do every year, the first of
the year. Also there is that mechanism that is hopefully
pursued that will address some of the business concerns.
Brisbin-So you have at least $1SO.00 plus the Planner, Lawyer
and Engineer. That could not be done by the Economic
Commission? Licht-That is what I am saying some of that, you
have to come thru these bodies to get the legal property
right approval, but a lot of that work will likely be done by
the Economic Development Commission. Again the fee thing is
if the Economic Development comes up and says for one reason
or another, we think, as a business promotion thine the fees
ought to be waived or reduced, they can do that, but what I
am saying is that is not really an issue we are talking
about. Swenson--If there are no other questions from the
public, we will close the Hearing and a discussion will be
between Planning Commission Members. Any other changes to
discuss? Goenner•--These revisions of March 19th, Page 7 12)
A.B. & C. Licht-Sec.B4, OK, but it also picks up C. Both
B.4 and C, the 100 will be changed to 200. That is the
intent. Dennis McAlpine-I wanted to speak before, I raised
by hand but you did not see me. My name is Dennis McAlpine
and I wanted to go back to the dome Extended Business and I
wanted to say something on the, something was brought up. A
lot of the people that are here, myself included, have Home
Extended Businesses and it is in their home and it is in
their area, they take pride in what they've got and it is
well kept. Now if you look back at Industrial Parks, if you
go around .and look back at Industrial Parks, and you look at
the materLal that they've ,ot stored in back of their areas.
it is unbelievable. Being a home owner and having a business
in your home you are going to take a little bit more pride in
what you have got there. I think we are being a little
strict. I mean you have a home and you have a business all
in one. Swenson-What are you suggesting Dennis. McAlpine.
I think you are being a little strict when it comes to Home
Extended Businesses. If we are looking at, if we are
pointing out Home Extended Businesses and you drive down any
road out here and you see a residential person and there are
several areas that you cannot believe that people are living
there. Now you are picking on Home Extended Businesses that
you don't want anything in the back yard. You don't want any
vehicles parked, unnecessary vehicles parked in the area and
you can drive up and down the road and residencies throughout
the City it is an eyesore itself and then you are picking on
Home Extended Businesses. Swenson-Any comment on the effect
of the Ordinances on other stuff stored outside? Licht- the
I think Dennis what you are really addressing is two
different issues, basically the way the Ordinance is drafted
on Home Extended Businesses, there has been an extensive
amount of discussion that has gone into that. Again, there
is concern that once you have been legally established, you
should be able to continue, even those that are illegally
established, there should be provisions made to accommodate
them to the extent possible. When you get into what I think
all of us are aware of in the community in terms of
somebody's policing of their own property, there are some
very bad examples. There are also some very positive
examples also. But, in any case, the code enforcement that
existed in the City whether it relates to zoning or public
health, and property maintenance has been a responsibility of
the County up until about two or three months ago. Up until
and continuing at this time, under the County jurisdiction,
the City was always hampered, judges make Cities go thru all
kinds of hoops to make a property owner clean up. There are
certain basic maneuvers that a property owner can make saying
we have already cleaned up some of it and the judge will say
well, we will give you another 30 days. By the time the
whole process is over, you have a year or more involved and
you may not see any improvement. The City recently received
information from the City of Coon Rapids which has a
different policy and has approached code enforcement. What
that policy is, that you no longer go thru the court system,
but you basically, if somebody is in violation, and have
refuse all over their property, they are given a citation,
they are riven an opportunity to come before a hearing
examiner established by the City. They can have that right
to come and present their case as to why they haven't cleaned
up their property, or whatever. If the hearing examiner
rules against them they can have recourse in district court
within a certain period of time. However, if they choose not
to come to the hearing examiner, or if the hearing examiner
rules against them in terms of their reasons for their- debris
the: Citi 1has the right after that hearing to proceed onto the
property with a Deputy Sheriff at hand to remove the material
from the property that is basically the nuisance or public
health problem, or the junk and to charge that property to
their tax bill the cost of the removal. So I think that you
are going to find, if that procedure is actually established
and adopted, it is going to expedite policing of non-
conforming properties in a much more rapid fashion. I,
myself would concur with you, I think there many Home
extended Businesses and Home Occupations that operate very
well. They are very well policed and those, of course are
not the problem. There has been a provision put in to
protect, first of all if they have been legally established
in a proper fashion. And again, even those that have been
illegally established, that operate in a decent fashion,
there is provision in there. The other option also, in some
cases, their might be an option to go from a Home Extended
Business to go to a Home Occupation, in other words,
lessening it slightly and modifying it, that it also
accommodates it and makes it legal. So that there is a lot
of ways to do it, but you look at each one on an individual
basis. Wallace- Would they have to come to the Planning and
Zoning or the City Council, or who. Licht--Initially, it
would be dealt with on an Administrative level. Again the
economic Development Commission you are talking Home Extended
Businesses, and not Code Enforcement. Hopefully this
Economic Development Commission which the Council is
considering would also be the mechanism to work with
initially. Rask-So right now in a residential area, you
would be able to use the Nuisance Ord or the Noise Ord and
you would be allowed to operate a ten year period or five
year period..Licht-and plus extensions, OK. The point you
must realize and I appreciate that this might not be the word
on the street and the general accepted opinion. The City has
to be concerned about two interests. The City is not out
trying to disrupt an operation that is going along in a
positive fashion. It has to balance with the property owners
in the residential area. It needs to accommodate that.
Simultaneously the city has to balance the property right of
the home owner that has moved in next to an operation which
is not established in a legal fashion. What it does is it
forces the City, because both of these individuals are
constituents, they are residents of the City and they need to
be addressed, but because the situation was not legally
approved, the benefit of doubt goes to the existing
residents. Simultaneously, if their can be an accommodation
of the Home Occupation or Home extended Business, that is
being offered as well. That is not, and the Council has made
that perfectly char, a wholesale attempt to go out on a code
enforcement binge and write citations and push everybody out.
Nobody wants to do that, but you simply have to establish the
ground rules to the extent that is needed, there has to be
some, again addressing the ones that were not put in a proper
fashion to bring them into compliance and again, try to
accommodate: them. Goenner -Mr Chair , ma,•be it .dould help the
people that have a Home Extended Business if we somehow
stated in here that the City of Otsego would try to work with
any Home Extended Businesses as long as they do not infringe
on the Health. Safety and Welfare of the Community. If we
put language like that in there. Licht-Now, wait a minute,
you are dealing with the law. You are not dealing with the
policy. They are two distinct things. I think the Ordinance
says that by the wording that is there already so that it is
implied, if not explicitly stated. But, I think what you are
asking the Zoning Ordinance to do is state a policy which is
not the function of an Ordinance. You can adopt a Resolution
saying this is our policy, but by putting that in here you
totally jeopardize the ordinance in terms of validity and we
can not hamper any follow through on the provisions that are
there. I don't disagree with what you are saying, Gene, it
would have to be done in a different method. Fournier-Mr
Chair, Being involved in these discussions from the very
beginning, and considering having no Home Extended Businesses
to looking at the Home Extended Businesses separately, and if
possible, provide a chance for that business to be there, as
long as it doesn't infringe on it's neighbor. I think that
was our objective and we've gone beyond the County's
Ordinance to fulfill a need that was there and so I think we
are heading in the right direction and it is a good
Ordinance. Licht-There is one other matter that I should
bring up and that is in some discussions that I have had
recently, the issue of basically the River District which
extends in essence along #42 on the SE corner of the
Community and also N of #39. The River District Presently
stipulates 2-1/2 acres of lot area per unit. Now that is
recognizing that there are some properties in that area that
are one acre and those were approved by the County and have
resulted in non-conformity because of the Wild and Scenic
classification which is a minimum of 2 acres. However, an
issue that has come forth is that basically the City has now
exceeded the D & R standard of two acres and made that
district or corridor- 1:2 an acre above. It is 2-1/2 acres
and the Wild and Scenic says two. So the issue that I guess
is before you is do you want to persist in that policy?
Again, this issue, I would point out goes all the way back to
the Comprehensive Plan and that is the basis on which it was
founded, but I raise it in case there is any discussion. I
personally, have an opinion and :a rationale as to why it was
there. I think it was agreed to and I think the rationale
was part of a plan and that was for a reason and I think it
was a valid reason but, if there is discussion on the two
verses the, 2-1/2 I think we ought to raise it now before
going on with the Ordinances to the Council. Wallace--I would
like to comment on the 2-1/2 verses 2 acres. I think we are
being excessive by requiring 2--1/2 acres for a couple of
reasons. 1) if a 2-1/2 acre lot is required it is quite a
bit of property for one person to take care of for one thing,
the other issue is 2) In the event of rezoning property, If
a road or sewer and sjat,sr is-oin,-; thru. if asses.cmentc aree
added onto that, it is quite a bit of added cost for the
property owner. We are going far above what the DNR requires
us to do, so as far a benefit I don't see any benefit to the
City by requiring that big of an area. The other issue is By
reducing the lot size down, the City is allowed more lots to
build homes on which is a tax base for the Community. Two
acres is still quite a bit of property, especially when the
DNR is saying two acres. Roskaft--Driving down #39 you don't
realize what is on the river. There isn't much left on the
Mississippi River. When I was out taking the Census, as far
as Residential or any areas, there is just a few farms that
can possibly be developed to be on the river. Having seen
what I have seen, I think the 2-1/2 acres should be allowed
to remain. Wallace -The area we are talking about now is
North of #39 all the way down to the boarder of Monticello
Township. The area along the river that Roskaft was
mentioning, there is quite a bit of property that has
development potential and that is kind of what I am
addressing. The development there in Island View Estates is
already developed with one acre lots but, from where Island
View Ends, there is going towards Monticello, there is also
quite a few spots that could be developed and quite a bit of
tax base. Licht -Mr Chairman, If I can comment. I'd like to
again, and this isn't a position, it is an explanation of how
we got to the 2--1/2 acres. Take it, leave it, modify it,
whatever, it is your decision, it is not my concern, but the
rationale is first of all, 2-1/2 acres has been a consistent
zoning standard in the County for a long period of time. You
have 2-1/2 acres as part of your R -2A district which already
exists. Secondly, the concept is definitely to protect the
river, in other words, and that surrounding area. That extra
step up to 1/2 acres was a benefit in achieving what the DNR
supposedly wants to do. Now, we also said that is an
advantage to us in terms of dealing with the DNR in relative
relationship to Hwy. 101. I don't think it was meant to be a
trade off, but it was meant to be yes the City is concerned.
The next point is that the City is in fact, the idea is not
to disperse housing to any major extent down #39 and when I
Way major extent, the concentration is supposed to be in the
Urban Service Area. There is the other zoning district that
we are creating, and I believe it is the R--3 is also 2-1/2
and the consistency of that is why it was extended down
there. In contrast you have the land down #39 in the rural
Service Area which is basically one per forty. So there was
rationale. Consistency of what has happened in the past, in
essence above and beyond the ploy of dealing with the DNR,
actually protection of the river and the surrounding area.
The desire not to spread the development. If housing costs
go up because of that extra 1/2 acre, that in fact, was a
desirable factor to create the higher end housing to balance
oft the modest cost housing in the balance of the area. The
other thing I would point out is the sewer and water issue.
That is one of the issues we will be dealing with the DNR on.
,;i though that arVa is not even basically contemplated ever to
have sewer and water. Because of the extensions the water
sheds and that almost preclude that potential from occurring.
But, one of the things that we have to negotiate with the DNR
is that if any areas of the Wild and Scenic receive public
sewer and water, then what is going to happen at that point?
That is one of the things that is still not resolved and that
is one of the things that still is not resolved with the
whole Wild and Scenic. Anyways, that is the basis as why it
was created. If you wish to change it to two, change it to
two. McAlpine-My feeling is that 2-1/2 acres on the North
side of #39, you should also take into consideration,
possibly think about it, on the south side of #39. We are
setting here, and thinking about 2-1/2 acres and the concern
of people on this side of #39. They live by the river. What
about the people south of the river? We are already putting
one acre lots in one area of the City and I actually feel
that one acre lots are too small. For the simple fact, as we
talked about before, you are not making ample room for the
sewer to go out. You should have ample room to go ahead and
have enough room to put in another sewer. If you well went
out, you just have to drill another well. But, on the one
acre lots, there is a lot of sewers there and if you start
having sewer problems, what do you do? Do you tax the people
for City sewer? Swenson--In the area we are talking about, we
have one acre lots in Island View we are not considering
going down that far. We are considering 2-1/2 and 2. Rask-
One thing I have as far as two acre lots, the setback from
the high water mark is 200' and you have a road on the front
of the property and there is a 65' setback there and with
utility easements, you have a hard time getting the house on
the lot. If you have a house with a deck on it, that has to
be figured in the setback so the house will be that much
further back. Swenson-Said a two acre lot is 436' for two
acres 200'wide lot. Rask--Take two hundred feet off of that
and sixty--five feet off for the road and the sewer has to be
75' away from you well and you don't have much room left.
(Rask had a little more discussion, but I can't hear the
tape). McAlpine--If that sewer were to fail, where are you
going to go:' What are you going to do? Dig up the sewer?
Licht-Again, the 1 acre lots are really not the matter of
discussion, but I would point out that right now along with
an Engineering firm we are working in several communities
that do not have public sewer and looking at what
alternatives exist besides a typical on-site system and the
reason for that is there is no money today, Federal or State
wide to assist communities in coming in with a centralized
treatment plant. What you are seeing is a great deal of
technology and effort going into what other alternative
systems exist that can be created on a sub--community basis to
resolve a problem that exists. I think everybody here is
caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Especially
in the R-1 area if you make the area too dispersed, you
really jeopardize this area. The philosophy that was
u 1 11zed b, the plan is th,_ commitment to one acre lots in
that area has been made already so since that train of effort
is out there, that majority of the community live on that so
it should be followed in that same pattern, because if in
fact, something happens people would then be able to resolve
it. Conversely, you don't want to spread that pollution
potential to other parts of the City. That is the reason why
we created the Immediate Service Area, the Long Range Service
Area and also the Rural Area. So part of what you are saying
does have relevance and once you get away from that core lot
size does become a concern. Anyway it is literally from two
to two and one-half. Wallace addressed Licht -We are looking
at a minimum amount of lot size of 2-1/2 acres could you say
a minimum of 2-1/2 acres but you could have larger acreage,,
Yes you could Mark, but what you would find is that if you
allow 10,000 square foot lots, the lots are going to be
10,000 sq foot. If you allow two acres, they will be two
acres. If you allow 2-1/2 they will be 2-1/2. Nobody is
going to go out there unless they have a drainage ravine
through their property or whatever, are going to forsake the
potential of capitalizing on that asset that exists there.
Nobody blames anybody for doing that and nobody precludes you
from, if you want to own 20 acres in the middle of the Urban
Area, nobody can stop you, but that will not be the majority
of the people. (can't hear a portion) Swenson - Any other
items to be discussed? If not, we'll have to consider a
resolution. Before we have a motion, we'll have to consider
a resolution on adult uses. The Planning Commission has
received a copy of the Attorney General's Regulations on sex
related uses. I assume you've read it, we also have a draft
of findings of fact draft resolution. You should have a copy
of the resolution also.
See PC-3992.DOC
Continued from PC-3992.DOC
Swenson - Rather than reading the whole resolution, the
recommendation on page 4, which recommends, the section
states; therefore be it resolved that the Planning Commission
hereby recommends approval of the Adult Use Ordinance,
Section 31 of the Otsego Zoning Ordinances. As it will serve
the City's needs by minimizing the adverse secondary effects
of sexually oriented businesses while providing said
businesses a reasonable opportunity to locate and operate
within the City. The rest of the material, we are
comfortable with the recommended finding of fact.
Ing Roskaft - I move to adopt the resolution establishing
findings of fact the zoning and licensing regulations of
sexually oriented businesses are necessary to minimize the
secondary adverse affects of such businesses in the City of
Otsego. Swenson- The resolution is adopted by Ing and
seconded by Mark Wallace, is there any discussion? Goenner
The Planning Commission doesn't have a choice in this, we
have to provide a place for adult entertainment. A vote was
taken NO - Dennis McAlpine YES - Kolles, Swenson, Rask,
Goenner, Wallace, Roskaft Swenson - Now that we have adopted
the resolution, we need a motion now in order to adopt the
rest of the ordinance. Any questions? Larry Fournier -Mr.
Chairman, I would ,just like to note to the people here that
I'm a non-voting member. Roskaft - I move that we recommend
to the City Council that we approve the draft of the
ordinances dated Jan. 16, 1992, and the revision from NAC
dated March 19, 1992, and subject to the City Attorney's
review and comments. Swenson - Called for discussion (No
discussion, the motion carried unanimously). We need the
second motion on the map. Roskaft - Motion to recommend to
the City Council approval of the draft rezoning district map,
dated Jan. 1992, which is to be a direct translation of the
district zoning map Noman-clature contained in the text, in
the draft zoning ordinance text. Swenson - There is a
motion, is there a second? Goenner - (Seconded by Gene
Goenner - motion carried unanimously). Swenson - This is
some kind of a milestone. Fournier When did we start
working on this originally. Licht - About last July or
August I suppose. The city still proceeded faster than the
vast majority that has ever worked on one of these. Mr.
Chairman, I would also like to make a comment, one of the
things we have emphasized all the way through this, is the
ordinance isn't perfect and as we go through we're going to
find there are some problem. The philosophy that we had in
drafting it, and the city has adopting it, is that if a
problem comes, we will change the ordinance, that way you
keep the ordinance up to date and you make it responsive so
it isn't set in concrete. It's law after it's enacted by the
city but you can change it. I think it's advisable to be
flexible and build in those things, but don't be surprised if
you see in the paper, a text amendment, directed to change
something in the ordinance. It's simply too big of a
document, and too big of a city, you have to make sure that
you have all the "i's" dotted and all the "t's" crossed.
Swenson - A vote on the long range urban line change for the
City of Otsego, this item has been discussed at a previous
Planning Commission meeting. The Council had an
informational meeting a week ago on it. So we'd like to
attempt to move along by accepting only questions or comments
that might be new. Wallace - Can we have it stated how we
have the urban service line drawn now? How we're handling it
with 37 with 660 feet below, I think we should also consider
that 39 to equalize that 39 south side west of Nashua to
Monticello township. (More discussion - unable to
understand) Roskaft - We can tackle that later, it's not
necessary to lay that out right now, we've got farms on both
sides of the road... Licht - We haven't commented one way or
another on that proposal although it was mentioned by the
public in the informational meeting, and as I indicated at
that time, that is something if the city wishes to consider,
it can and likely should, again whether it should or
shouldn't go, that's a decision you have to make after a
public review. The problem we have at this point including
it, is we have not advertised that change to anyone that
would be affected by it, and so what I would suggest that you
can take whatever action you want on the proposal which
you've been offered, and then if it is your desire to then
also look at that, and I would agree it's a valid thing to
look at, and as part of the motion, simply initiate another
comprehensive plan amendment to consider that stretch of 39,
in essence from Nashua to the West boarder. In fairness to
those property owners, I think we have to notice them that we
are going to consider that, I don't think it would be fair
otherwise. Rask -- Is there, I think a study on that line
should be done, from Island View Estates along a portion of
39, Nashua on down to the Monticello Township boarder. Ing -
The question in my mind is whether we should do anything at
this time. Swenson -The question as I understand it and the
original rationale in including that line at all is to get
Urban use and Rural Use off of the road and we did that on
70TH, we did it on Nashua and then based on your motion, we
did not do it on #39. Then I would question why we moved the
line at all, because if it is not important to have the
interfaced off of #39, why is it important to move it off the
others? Roskaft-If you go down #37, I don't think we should
move it 660' off of #37 because if we don't do it
then ... Swenson -But we did do the other side. Roskaft-I will
say that I made the motion. I asked you if you wanted a
motion made and you said yes and I made the motion for the
purpose of discussion and nobody argued with it. Swenson -
Alright, is there other discussion? Licht -We should have a
separate motion to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
consideration to extend the Long Range Urban Service line
South, but don't specify a distance. You can discuss that as
we get into it, but South of 39 between Nashua and the West.
Wallace motioned to consider moving the line South 660' in
accordance with what we have done on 37 for the reasons being
that it is a transition to Ag and the Long Range Urban
Service District. Swenson -Alright, you have heard the
motion. Is there a second? Swenson --Seconded the motion.
Goenner - Mr. Chair, I'm in disfavor of this motion for four
primary reasons, actually three primary reason, first being
the Comprehensive Plan mentions the preservation of prime
agricultural land over 30 times. Which would be infringing
greatly upon by moving the line this distance, second we are
not allowed any single access driveways onto 39, since the
short time I've been on this board, I've already seen some
different styled proposals to try and get around building a
service road. Third, the topographical arrangement of the
land is very different on the side of the road especially the
further you get to Monticello. One side is almost on a high
plateau whereas the other side at certain points, and the
other point is level approximate, they are different soil
basins. Swenson - Any comments? Wallace - I have a comment,
the present lot size that was split in half 660 ft, should
there not be a road running parallel to 39 with an access, it
is possible by going back and that's the reason we picked 660
ft along 37 so as not to allow driveways on to 37 but to
allow the lots to be split and a service road so one lot
would be entering... Licht -Let me clarify, it is not the
concept to have a service road parallel to any major road,
that' very critical because one of the whole premises of
moving the line beyond 37 and Nashua is the fact that you
have an improved road there today, that Dennis had suggested
for example moving the line back instead of south of 37 move
it north of 37, the problem is then you would create road
construction problems and in essence have to build a parallel
type of road or a distance up before you could experience
development, the idea is in fact that there could be some
type of development of roads but it would be minimal and
basically a stub so that if you have two houses they simply
front on what is a right-of-way and then exit so you don't
have a direct driveway, but there is no idea about running a
parallel road along the ones that exist today, because that
in essence would defeat the purpose and at that point you
would just be moving the whole concept one tier further and
that certainly would not what this is about. Rask --
Otherwise, shouldn't the road on the side where the lots are
??? Licht- yes, you could have, you could do that. Rask -The
reason I'm not in favor of that is that 660 ft to the south,
is pretty much what Gene is saying, that will enable 4 per
40, correct? Swenson - (Something about 2 1/2 acres) Rask -
okay, so that would end up being what we had with Barthels
and that Addition, possibly four driveways, five driveways
and later when we go to develop the property we have to have
four or five driveways coming out plus a major intersection,
what you would do is move 330 ft, came down a 60 ft road, and
then back to the lot on 39 facing the lot the other way, the
interface then between the two, the rural and the urban, is
at the back side of the second double lot, we don't have any
driveways on ??. Rask - If you're only going to allow,
little spots of developments, you are going to allow how many
along there, 2 1/2 acres is how long? Swenson- Yes so we
would be extending the R-1 zone 660 ft. Rask -Okay, and then
I view on the north side, I view Ag and Wild and Scenic more
compatible than Wild and Scenic... (New tape) Licht -
certainly is not what is being suggested on the 37 -Nashua
case, we're talking an R-2 which is a 4 per 40 and again I
don't want to get the zoning confused with the other line,
but everything you're talking about needs to be analyzed and
literally the question is, should you analyze it? Again,
whatever your call is, is your call but that's the question.
Swenson - Okay, I think we've had enough discussion on that,
the question is do we want to move the line off of 39 south
660 ft. All those in favor say "aye"... Goenner - Mr.
Chair, shouldn't a notice be given? Swenson -I'm sorry,
you're correct. Beatty - But I have to say the motion didn't
read like that, his motion was, Wallace's motion to consider
moving the line south 660 ft in accordance with what we have
done on 37. (Conversation in background). Licht - I think
he followed my wording and I said you had to initiate a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to that, and I think that's the
intent of the motion. Beatty - Well, I just wanted to say
that wasn't the way it was read though. Licht - But the
intent is, the consideration of an amendment to consider
moving the line. Beatty - So what do we do at this point?
The intent is Wallace amended the motion to consider an
amendment to the Comp Plan to move the line south 660 ft
moving along 39 from Monticello township line to Nashua Ave
NE. Carl seconded the motion and a vote was taken. Swenson
and Wallace voted "yes" - Roskaft, Rask, Kolles, Goenner and
McAlpine voted "no". Goenner - Did we vote on the
amendment? Swenson - We rewrote the motion. Goenner - We
can't do that Carl. We have to vote on the amendment to the
motion. Swenson - Goenner, we are trying to get some ,jobs
done here, not play games. Goenner - We are not playing
games sir, this is the proper way to run a meeting. Licht -
In terms of the procedure and what this body does, it is a
recommendation to the decision making body. We normally
operate according to generally according, I emphasize
generally, to Robert's Rules of Order, and I think the intent
of the action as it stands accordingly, if it were a City
Council motion that has legal binding, then I would be
concerned. This is a recommending body, and as long as the
intent is conveyed I think that's the main issue. Goenner -
And so I'm interested in are we voting on the amendment and
not the motion. Swenson -Alright, to go on to item 5, is
there any other changes'? Goenner - Mr. Chair, I don' t
believe we've discussed the Nashua 37 item, it has been voted
on in the past but isn't that why we sent it back, because
there was no public hearing prior to the vote? Mr. Chair, I
move that the Long Range Urban Service Area be moved 1200 ft
west of Nashua and County Rd 39 to 87th St., that would be on
the west side of Nashua, continue down Nashua 660 ft on the
east side to 70th St. and 660 ft north of 37 to 660 ft from
there. Beatty - Will you repeat that please? I didn't get
that? Goenner - 320 ft west of Nashua and 39 to 87. And
then at 87, 660 ft east to 70th St., and 660 ft north of 37,
660 ft from Nashua. Rask - So you're going 660 back to the
north on 37? Goenner - Correct. (Conversation amongst
everyone). Licht - Gene? Your statement was south of 87th on
Nashua to the east of Nashua? Goenner - South of 87th on
Nashua. Licht - To the east of Nashua? Beatty - West of
Nashua, right? Goenner - 87th goes to the west again, or
east again, yes, so I would go back across Nashua to the
other way, so you'd have equal basins interfacing each side
of the road. Beatty - So you're going east? Licht - And how
far east? Goenner - 660 ft east. Licht - And then what was
your proposal on, and I assume that goes down to 37. Goenner
-Down to 37, 660 ft north to 37 (can't understand) Licht -
alright (pause), what has just been proposed, (conversation
again on exactly where the new line proposals are) Here's
Nashua, here's the proposal, you're saying down 320 ft down
to 87th across at 87th, 660 ft east of Nashua down on the
east side... Goenner - The main purpose I was going back
across... Beatty - Did you say 1320 or 320? Goenner - 320.
(People all talking at once. Licht and Goenner trying to
figure everything out, discussion among everyone). Goenner -
Amend my motion. Swenson - Let's get back to order here,
you've heard the motion. Let's see if we can get a second.
Rask - I'll second, only to clarify it. Swenson -Okay,
seconded by Bruce. Goenner - The main purpose I'm making
here was that we try maintain equal interfacing on each side
of the road, and by moving it back to the east on Nashua and
north on 37, we'd accommodate that purpose. And at this
point all land along that area is agricultural for the
intended purpose, but if the board would like and feels that
it's more important to not contain a landlock with the last
40 acres on that section line, I'll amend my motion to state
that I'll go 1320 ft to 87th and then continue down the road.
Licht -Down where they are then today? Goenner - Correct.
(More open discussion). Goenner - Once we have finished
discussion on it, I have reasons why either leaving it on
Nashua and 37, or moving it back, whichever the board wishes.
Swenson - If we're talking about changing the motion we need
some advice
on this. Would you explain it again Gene? Licht- I think I
heard it, you want to leave it 1320 ft west of Nashua, to
87th and then bring it back over to where it is today
basically running down Nashua to what would be a connection
with 37th and on 37. Okay, and you've amended your motion?
Goenner - I would be willing to do that. Licht- Okay and
then whoever seconded the motion, should second the motion
for consideration, to second the amendment. Rask?? - I'll
second the amendment. Licht - Alright, now, what is the
question? Swenson - If I understand it correctly, we're
moving the line west of Nashua from 39 to 87th. And then
going back on the road ... Beatt; - West of Nashua? Licht
West of Nashua, from 39 to 87th, west of Nashua 1320 ft. and
then as it is now. Swenson - The rest of it then stays on
the road. Licht - Right, that's the amendment. Do you want
any comments? Swenson - Yes. Licht-- Alright, Gene raises
his initial amendment, it certainly follows a concept that
has been part of a philosophy of the move, and that is so
that existing uses front each other, and the rationale behind
the motion I assume is that you move it back so that then you
have Ag fronting on 37 and Nashua, and the compatibility or
the fronting would occur back further. The problem with that
is, and I emphasize, and I've got a handout here I'm willing
to give to anybody, because it explains the difference
between the terms we're using here tonight, Comp Plan, zoning
and what--have-you. But, by following Gene's suggestion, what
happens is an area surrounding Nashua south of 87 and totally
surrounding 37th, would be staying A-1 zone under the new
zoning ordinance, which is 1 per 40. Even though if we tie
up that section is what I'm saying, with the potential of one
house being built. The problem that would do, if you look at
the map in back of you, which does show the extension of what
has been proposed under this plan amendment. In moving that
north of 37th and east of Nashua, you would in essence
proclude likely all development in any of that gray area.
The reason being is that you can only have one house in that
front section and you would then have to construct a road
right -of --way 60 ft in width, 32 ft pavement or 640 ft into
the next section, where then you could have 4 per 40 and then
you have to continue the road construction. Basically what
would happen, you would proclude all development because the
cost of that initial frontage construction would be
prohibited, the housing price would be so high, the lot
price, that nobody would buy it, it wouldn't even be
competitive. Now again, the rational, you're right Gene, was
the frontage. That technical issue of that construction I
think makes the practicality of that, if it's your intent to
allow that other area develop, it diminishes that, so again
that's a call you have to make. Again I want to emphasize,
what Gene sited was one reason, and only one, a prime concern
is that the city does not want to go in and invest new money,
or have property owners responsible for additional costs.
Nashua and 37 are defined as major roads in the city today,
they are improved or they will be improved, the concept is
because they are improved roads, the opportunity to utilize
them should be focused on them at least to a limited degree,
certainly we're not talking R-1 or 1 acre lot development.
But then if development is going to occur on that 4 per 40 or
whatever in the parallel frontage, you'd want to stay focused
on 37 on Nashua, maybe potentially 39 if you want to consider
that. But that's a very critical rationale of part of it, in
other words the road itself that is there today, you don't
have to build another facility for the city to maintain in
terms of Nashua you don't have the County build something,
because realize when the developer comes in and builds it,
undoubtedly the property owner will pay for it, but it's the
city in total that will pay for the maintenance, and
potentially the eventual repair. So you want to capitalize
on that investment that is there today, and undoubtedly again
following the policies we're not trying to get major
development, but realize there's only going to be so much
development happening in this city in the next so many years,
so why not put that development to the extent possible and of
that type, on a facility that is out there today and
improved. Don't run any more and simply add you maintenance
cost and all of that. That is a fairly critical factor in
back of the full rationale as well and again, what you said
was not wrong. That was one of the factors, but that road
factor is a prime consideration. Rask --I want a
clarification. So if we move like this map here, the thing I
am concerned about is it is four per forty for possible
rezoning. Licht -Bruce, let me .. Bruce --If it is staying
consistent with what the board just did the other night with
Steiners denial, I'd rather see the development go there than
see 4 houses on this Ag. land, I can see this is way out of
the picture. Licht - You're right, first of all the Steiner
property was to development 1 acre lots, and the fundamental
issue there is to know we've got ample land yet in the
immediate area to develop, and before we spread into that
other area, which in fact is another drainage area, which
makes it doubly critical, we ought to stay there, so that's
that issue. What this simply says, and we did send out to
the Commission a new listing of Comprehensive Planning
policies that this follows, and basically what we're saying
is the plan says, and I emphasize again the opportunity, the
opportunity, all that we're doing is suggesting is that this
line be moved, and I won't set a distance, west of Nashua and
south of 37. It's a policy decision, it is only a policy, it
has nothing else, it does not open development per say. In
terms of what it does, and I'm just going down what I've got
written here and I think it's important to clarify that Mr.
Chairman, what it does is, it would potentially allow it,
potentially allow 4 units instead of 1, there is a right foi-
1
or1 there today, and so you'd have potentially three more units
in a section, in a section, it has to be in a section. The
Comprehensive Plan amendment does not effect taxes one iota.
The only thing that will effects taxes is if you potentially
change the zoning and then, maybe not even then, but if you
develop it single family residential then it will certainly
the effect taxes. The next thing is the zoning, because it
is the zoning that will potentially change the tax, and it is
the zoning that will change the right to develop at for 4 per
40 vs 1 per 40. The city, is a matter of its policies today,
it does not go out and initiate changes on private property,
it is the property owner that does it, so all this does is it
opens up the potential for the property owner to come to the
city to say I want it changed. Now I again stress the word,
it opens the potential for the property owner to come to the
city, because if you do come to the city, and you a°�k for
this, you then have to go through a subdivision, and a prime
thing as Gene has pointed out, part of the plan is that the
subdivision ordinance says you have to comply with the plan.
If the land is judged as prime agriculture, that is a reason
for denial of that subdivision and that subdivision has to be
public notice, it has to come through this body, and it has
to go through the Council. So it's not an administrative
thing that somebody walks through the door, Elaine signs it
and nobody else looks at it, it gets full public scrutiny.
Again I emphasize, it's only if you open up the potential,
without any changes in property rights, in taxes, in
subdivision, whatever, it's got to come through this body,
through the City Council on an individual basis as you may
want to request it, and there is absolutely no guarantee that
simply because that line moved you're going to get it,
because you have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and
that's all it does, is it opens the potential. Swenson - Any
further comments or questions? Goenner - Mr. Chair, as Dave
has just emphasized with potential, but if it doesn't comply
with the Comprehensive Plan, according to the plan we should
deny the access or permission to subdivide that land. So
with the amended motion, so right now I feel we might be
saving the Council and the Planning Commission some time by
discourage, I mean encouraging people to come in and apply
for this, and then have to look at the property and say, no
that's being billed as good agricultural land at this time,
we have to turn you down, because of our Comprehensive Plan
telling us so when dealing with splits, so that would create
hard feelings on behalf of the property owner towards the
Commission and the Council for following what the written
rules are already, so this would not give the person false
expectations and that's part of the reason why I stopped at
87th where I feel prime Ag. land starts and begins in that
area. Swenson - Are there any other comments? Carron - Mr.
Chair - My name is Randy Carron, I believe it should go to
83rd, the only Ag. land that would be taken away is that from
Ray Carron's, and they would like that line to end on 83rd.
(Janette Carron makes a statement, but cannot be heard) Licht
- Excuse me, are you referring to her? Carron - It's her
land, why can't it go to 83rd.. Licht - Okay, let me
explain what her request is, we talked the other night...
Mrs. Carron - I haven't requested anything. Licht - I know
but you and I talked the other night, can I talk about what
we talked about? Mrs. Carron - No. Licht - I won't if you
don't want me to. Mrs. Carron - It's up my husband and he's
not around... Licht - Alright then I won't, okay, I won't
discuss it. Goenner - Maybe you could tell what a definition
of what prime Ag. land is? Licht - Basically anything that
is tillable we would consider prime Ag. land. Goenner -
Tillable or grazable. Licht - Yes. Goenner - So the only
thing that "wouldn't" be considered prime Ag land would be
lowlands and swamplands. Licht - Potentially yes, areas
going into it. Goenner - The irrigation can ??? crops.
Licht-It has to be shown, if a property owner comes in, here
they've ,got this chunk of land that's relatively small. To
get any yield out of it they have to go in and irrigate that
small thing. It's not practical or economically feasible to
do. Goenner - I understand, what I'm saying is, it's a very
broad basis of what is considered prime ag land. Licht -
You're right. If it's reasonably tillable, workable land,
that's not what the city is saying, but on the other hand, if
it's rocks and hills and trees and whatever, that's not
tillable. I should point out, one of the advantages of 4 per
40 is first of all, basically in the 1 per 40 there is not
necessarily a restriction that you can't take prime ag land.
Secondly, in the 4 per 40 the thing that is allowed is, you
can cluster develop. So you can tie up a 40, but in doing so
you can cluster that development in one area so that you
still maintain agricultural viability on the vast majority of
it, but you're concentrating in what may be marginal soil or
question... Goenner - In a 1 per 40 you can go as small as a
1 acre lot is that right? Licht -Yes. Beatty -Yes. Goenner
- then in a 4 per 40 you'd have to go 2 1/2 acres. Licht-
Right. Goenner- So if a person is concerned about using
prime ag land and they've got 39 acres that's available for
tilling on a one for forty, then under- a four per forty, a
person is likely to keep all two and one-half acres, but
their property use, you are only talking about thirty acres
maximum that can be tilled. Not many people maintain ten
acre lots is what I am saying. Licht-I agree with you and we
wouldn't want them to do that. The reason - The rationale
between the 2-1/2 acre requirement is basically what we're
saying, and we've had requests in the past, of basically
people on..in the ag area wanting sons, daughters, whatever-
who are farming, to have a chance, they aren't on a
homestead, and have a chance to live on that property.
That's really the thrust behind it. Undoubtedly there are
some farmers that parcel off bits of it for an economic
benefit. Normally in the 4 per 40 area, especially where
there's again criteria for the preservation of agriculture,
one of the main marketability factors of going into that area
is a hobby farm. If you're simply looking for a lot to live
on, most people are looking for a platted area where there
are services or whatever. You don't go, and I'm not saying
this is true in all cases, but you don't go out on a 2-1/2
without some intent to have animals or whatever. You will
note that in the zoning ordinance that we dropped the
standard, it used to be under the County regulation, you had
to have 5 acres for an animal, we dropped that to 2-1/2. The
reason behind the 2-1/2 acre lot size is in fact the animal
situation, that in that area where you're going to expect
somebody moving in with a horse, or whatever, that you've got
to have more separation than a 1 acre lot, and don't have
someone go in and chop it all up into four 1 acre lots. Low
and behold. have everybody turn around now want an animal.
Now you've got a neighborhood fight on your hands. So that's
the rationale, but that doesn't proclude the criteria of the
marginal agricultural criteria, and that's in there as well.
`�_.o all those factors come to play, so the 2--1/2 wasn't juct
the seat of the pants, you know, let's have 2-1/2. Goenner -
You mentioned something I never even thought about, you
mentioned say a family member wants to move onto 40 acre
section where there's already a house, would it be possible
to get a variance then? Licht - Law, state law prohibits a
use variance, okay. Swenson - Any discussion? Mrs. Carron -
(She asked if her property was considered ag land, she said
they have already set up her land as ag land). Mrs. Carron -
We've already set that up as ag land. We will not redevelop.
Goenner - The fact is it's still tillable. Mrs. Carron - I
know it is but... Goenner - Considerable for agricultural
use. Mrs. Carron - but we didn't set it up for that.
Goenner - Well I understand that, but 10 years from now it
could be considered agricultural use. Licht - Maam, you're
setting that up, you're doing that, putting it in that
program... Mrs. Carron - But we still have the security of
subdividing it. Licht - You would have the security of sub-
dividing it? If what Gene says, if you follow his
recommendation, you won't subdivide it, you'll be stuck with
your S2 acres. M Carron - It's been a site for 10 years, it
won't be agriculture or nothing... Licht - When you
subdivide property you have to compare a plat that shows how
the lots and properties are laid out, and on this document
there is a place on there that everybody who has interest in
that property willfully signs the division of the land. So
if you are the property owner and you don't sign it, you
can't record that subdivision so it is divided. If there's a
banker that has interest in that property and they don't sign
it, you own the land and you haven't mortgaged it for some
reason, and you want to subdivide it and the banker says, I
don't agree with this until you pay off your mortgage. I'm
not going to sign it. You can't subdivide the land.
Everybody who has interest in that piece of property has to
sign. So what the city cannot just simply say, we're going
to cut up your land. They would have to have your signature
and you control that all the way through, so it can't be
forced upon you. M Carron - (says something to Licht, cannot
hear her on tape) Licht - This is a recommendation to the
City Council, the City Council will address it on the 13th of
April. Mrs. Carron says something else to Licht - too quiet
on tape - then says thank you) Swenson - Can I have the
motion read again? Licht - Gene moved that the line is
supposed to be 1320 ft west of Nashua to a point south to
87th, and have 87th continue as it now is. Seconded by Rask.
Twice. (More discussion between one another on exact place
of the line.) Licht - That's fine, let's just vote on it,
let's get this thing over. Swenson -All in favor say aye.
Favor - Rask, Goenner, Roskaft, Kolles, McAlpine. Opposed -
Swenson, Wallace. Swenson -Chairman needs a show of hands
please. Licht - The recommendation to the City Council is
that it will be moved 1320 ft west of Nashua to a point at
87th and then revert back to Nashua south, its logical
intersection with 37th is now described in the plan. East on
v7. That's the recommendation that will go to the Citi
Council. It's been a long time getting here. Beatty -- I
still don't understand. Swensons - The Planning Commission
has a letter from Rita Johnson, Planning Commission of Elk
River, I will read it. 'On behalf of the Elk River Planning
Commission I would like to invite the City of Otsego Planning
Commission to join us for the training session on the topic
of tax base and the role of the Planning Commission. We have
scheduled a session for the evening of May 19th at Sherburne
County Government Center. Ty Bischoff, the Sherburne County
Assessor will present information and we are working with the
government training service for additional training. We are
also inviting the Planning Commissioners from the City of Big
Lake and Big Lake Township. While our plans for the meeting
are still being worked out, we expect to begin at 6:00 box
lunch, and networking, and then follow with the training from
7:00 to 9=00. I will keep in touch with you when I find out
the details.' I would like to find out if the Planning
Commission wishes to attend. It is on May 19th. (Those that
will try to go are, Roskaft, Goenner, McAlpine, Swenson,
Wallace). Swenson - Are there any other items that have come
up? We didn't have the revised copy of those By-laws.
(Fournier brought up the Darkenwald's property on 101 and 42.
Licht made some comments, suggested that this was not the
time to bring it up. Debbie Carron had a question about
paving, Licht also told her that would need to be addressed
and discussed at the staff meeting scheduled for April 9.)
Swenson made the motion to adjourn the meeting. Roskaft
seconded the motion and the meeting was then adjourned.
JAMES(P'. KOLLES, Secretary
By: Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary
m
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
riome txtenaea business - lne minimum requirements for a home
extended business shall be:
(1) Business must be located on the homestead of the business
operator.
(2) No more than one employee in addition to the
owner/operator.
(3)' No outside storage of supplies, equipment or maintenance
items; all work and work related items shall be kept in an
enclosed structure.
(4) Shall provide two (2) parking spaces per employee or one
(1) space for each 400 square feet of building area,
whichever is greater.
(5) Excessive noise levels are prohibited (that which may be
considered a nuisance, L10 at 55 dBA decibels as regulated
in NPC regulations).
(6) No more than 30% lot coverage.
(7) Site must be capable of supporting on-site sanitary
facilities; sewer and water.
(8) All effluent consisting of ariy liqufd, gaseous, or solid
waste substance resulting from any process of manufacturing
(ie: sewage or industrial waste) shall not be discharged
into the soil, water or air unless it is at a location
determined appropriate by the Planning Commission,
Planning Staff, and/or Pollution Control_.Agency.
(9) A contract between the refuse hauler and the owner shall b
provided for all other waste including but not limited t--
garbage, decayed wood, sawdust, shavings, bark, lime, sand
ashes, oil, tar, chemicals, offal, and all other substance—
not sewage or industrial waste which may pollute or tend
Pollute the waters of the State. The contract shall be
provided prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit
and shall state the destination of the waste and shall be
renewed annually on or before January 1st of every year.
(10) Working hours shall be set by the Wright County Planning
Commission.
(11) A business sign shall be permitted which is no larger than
12 square feet; non -illuminated and attached to the
building.
(12)•If located :on a Township road, a letter of agreement
containing any dust control measures determined necessary
by the Township shall be provided prior to issuance of the
Conditional Use Permit and renewed annually. (January is,
of every year)
(13) All posted road limits shall be obeyed.
(14) Distance from building to next residence shall be at leas,
500 feet.
( 5 ) must be outside of platted areas .
(16) Building shall be no larger than 2,000 square feet.
(17) After four (4) founded nuisance or permit violation
complaints have been made and verified with written notice
to the holder of the Conditional Use Permit a hearing shall
be called to re -consider the Conditional Use Permit within
60 days.
(18) Building must conform to present buildings and to
neighborhood.
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 25, 1992 - 8PM
Chair Swenson called the meeting to order at 8PM.
The following Planning Commission Members were present:
ING ROSKAFT
MARK WALLACE
LARRY FOURNIER
JIM KOLLES
BRUCE RASK
(COUNCIL/REP)
DENNIS MC ALPINE
CARL SWENSON
GENE GOENNER
Staff present:
DAVE LICHT
BOB KIRMIS
ELAINE BEATTY
JUDY HUDSON
Council Members present:
NORMAN F FRESKE
Roskaft motioned to approve the minutes of 4/1/92 as printed.
Goenner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing for Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance for The City of
Otsego was turned over to David Licht. Licht said we had the
Zoning Text and Zoning Map and explained there were a number
of changes. There was a clarification on the animal section.
Wetland Zoning Ordinance was discussed. Licht Passed out the
proposed Ordinance. He stated that West of Hwy #101 has
still not been resolved but hopefully it will be addressed in
the near future..
.john Weight - Builder for Thibodeau's Minn -E -Golf
brought up some issues on the parking and loading required
for this site.
After much discussion from a number of people (See
transcript of tape) the Hearing was closed and it was brought
back for Commission action.
McAlpine brought up some information he had not had a
chance to bring up before.
The 2--1/2 Acres of the Wild and Scenic area was
discussed as to maybe being excessive.
Wallace felt we should go with 2A lot sizes. Goenner
voiced a preference to 2-1/2 Acre, Kolles, agreed.
Swenson brought up we need to consider the Resolution on
Adult Uses. He read the recommendation.
Roskaft Motioned to adopt the Resolution establishing
Findings of Fact, the Zoning and licensing regulations of
sexually oriented Businesses are necessary to minimize the
secondary adverse affects of such businesses in the City of
Otsego. Mark Wallace Seconded the Motion. Motion carried
with all members voting yes except for Dennis McAlpine voted
No.
Fournier noted that he is a non-voting member.
Roskaft motioned to recommend to the City Council that we
approve the draft of the Ordinances dated January 16,
1992 and the revision from NAC dated March 19, 1992 and
subject to the City Attorney's review and comments. Wallace
seconded the Motion. Motion carried unanimously
Roskaft motioned to recommend to the City Council
approval of the draft rezoning district map dated January,
1992 which is to be a direct translation of the draft zoning
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 3-25-92
- PAGE 2 -
ordinance text. Goenner Seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Swenson noted that this is some kind of a milestone.
Long Range Urban Service Line was brought up and much
discussion was had.
Wallace motioned to consider moving the line South 660'
in accordance with what we have done on #37 for the reasons
being that it is a transition to Ag and the Long Range Urban
Service District. Swenson seconded the motion.
Goenner stated he was in disfavor of the motion. for the
following reasons=
1. Comp Plan mentions preserving Ag Land over 30
times, which would infringe greatly by moving line this
distance.
2. We are not allowing any single access drives on #39.
3. The topographical lay of the land is very different
on each side of the road.
Rask stated he is not in favor of the motion.
It was noted that Wallace's intent was to amend the motion to
consider an amendment to the Comp Plan to move the line south
660' moving along #39 from Monticello Township line to Nashua
Ave NE. Swenson seconded the motion. A vote was taken
Swenson and Wallace voted Yes. Roskaft, Rask, Kolles,
Goenner and McAlpine voted No. Motion failed
Goenner motioned to move the Long Range Service Area
Line 1200 feet West of Nashua and County Rd #39 to 87TH
Street on the West side of Nashua. Continue down Nashua 660'
on the East side to 70TH ST and 660' North of #37 to 660'
from there. Rask asked if he was going 660' North of Nashua_
Goenner answered, correct. Goenner asked to amend his
motion. Rask Seconded the motion only to clarify it he
stated.
Goenner stated that the main purpose he was making here
was that we try to maintain equal interfacing on each side of
the road and by moving it back to the East on Nashua and
North on #37 we's accommodate that purpose. At this point
all the land is Ag. If the Board feels it is important to
not landlock the 40 acres on that section line, I'll amend my
motion to state that i'll go 1320' to 87TH ST and then
continue down the road where they are today. Clarification by
Licht (West of Nashua from Co Rd #39 1320' to 87TH St. The
rest of the line would stay on Nashua and #37 as it now is.
Carron asked the line to go to 83RD ST. Rask again seconded
the amended motion. Voting in favor of the motion was Rask,
Goenner, Roskaft, Kolles and McAlpine and Opposed to the
motion was Swenson and Wallace. Motion carried.
Licht note that the recommendation to the City Council
is that the line will be moved 1320' W of Nashua to a point
at 87TH ST and then revert back to Nashua Ave S, it's logical
intersection with #37 as now described in the plan and go
East on #37.
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 3/25/92
- PAGE 3 -
Swenson brought up a letter from Rita Johnson, Planning
Commission member of Elk River and read it about a meeting
scheduled at Sherburne Co Gov. Center on May 19, 1992 at 6PM.
with box lunch and networking and follow with the training
room 7PM to 9PM. Members noting they will try to attend were
Roskaft, Goenner, McAlpine, Swenson and Wallace.
Swenson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Roskaft seconded
the motion. Meeting adjourned.
JAMEY R. KOLLES, SECRETARY
Minutes by Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary
eb