Loading...
05-20-92 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 5/20/92 AT 8PM - PAGE 1 - Meeting was called to Order by Carl Swenson, Chair at 8:05PM The following Commission members were present: ING ROSKAFT EUGENE GOENNER KATHY LEWIS CARL SWENSON MARK WALLACE BRUCE RASK DENNIS MC ALPINE LARRY FOURNIER, REP. The following Staff Members were present: Bob Kirmis, Planner Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson Swenson noted McAlpine could not make the meeting. First on the Agenda was consideration of minutes of 5/6/92. Roskaft motioned to approve the 5/6/92 minutes as printed. Goenner seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Rex Osterbauer - 23750 141ST AVE N, Rogers, MN. Requesting rezoning from AG to A-2 (4 per 40) on 25 acres of land PID #118-500-284201. Located in Sec 28, Twp 121, Range 23 on O'Dean Avenue NE. Swenson turned it over to Kirmis who explained NAC's Report of 5/13/92. The Osterbauer Rezoning is generally consistent with the comp plan explained Kirmis. The only concern is the two per twenty (2 Per 20A) instead of four per forty (4 per 40A). The density is consistent with the comp plan. He stated there are two considerations: 1. The City finds that the pursuit of a two (2) dwelling units per twenty (20) acre development is consistent with the intent of the A-2 District. 2. Comments from other City Staff Lewis asked, wasn't the intent of the overall intensity of the Long Range Urban Service Area four per forty acres? This request is to establish a precedent as to how we interpret our four per forty. Goenner motioned to reject this division on the grounds that it does not follow the intent of the City. Rask seconded the motion. Donna Grover - wanted to know why it doesn't follow the plan? Swenson said the intent of the four per forty was to allow limited amounts of development, while allowing as much farming as possible. Donna Grover stated she feels it is a hardship for the owners. They do not farm it and it is 20 acres of weeds. Rex Osterbauer stated he had talked to Dave Licht at a Staff Meeting and Mr Licht felt it fit into the plan and with four per forty it was the intent that you could put four houses on forty acres. If a home was on twenty acres there would be deed restrictions placed on the rest of the land. Kirmis stated that these people are pursuing this rezoning now. Swenson asked for further discussion on the motion. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 5/20/92 AT 8PM - PAGE 2 - There was much discussion on possible scenario on the four per forty and the surrounding splits as how it would work. Motion was voted on and Roskaft, Goenner, Wallace, Lewis and Swenson voted yes. Rask voted no and McAlpine abstained for lack of information as he had come late. Motion carried. At this point Mr Gary Inman asked if this was not a Public Hearing and if the people in the audience had a chance to speak. Swenson said he hadn't realized it was a Public Hearing and we would back up a little. Beatty noted that the proper notices had been published, posted and mailed to the residents. Swenson noted that we had already heard NAC's report from Kirmis. Swenson then asked for any comments from the audience. Gary Inman - 7262 O'Dean Ave NE said he owns Parcels 118-500-284202 and 118-500-784102. He has a house on 284202 and Parcel 118-500-203 has a house. There is 43 acres owned by Frank Morsette. He said there are only two homes on that 40 acres now. Mr Osterbauer wants permission to build on another 40. (4 per 40 zoning). In the event that Mr Morsette would build, it would make the total of four houses, and Mr Inman stated he has no objection to that. His wife Clara Inman stated that she also has no objections. Rex Osterbauer - said he has been working with Dave Licht on this for quite a few weeks. Licht had said that this is consistent with the land use plan and there shouldn't be a problem with this rezoning. Fournier - said he feels it should be clarified as to if you need a forty acres to be able to rezone to four to forty acres. Wallace stated he would like to comment on Fourniers comment. He stated he felt our recommendation to the Council is to deny this rezoning, as per previous vote. Osterbauer said he feels this was a premature vote prior to the Hearing information from the public. Swenson stated they will revote. The Hearing was at this point closed to the public and brought back to the Commission. Swenson stated the P.C. needs to make a decision. Rask motioned to accept the rezoning from A-1 to A-2 for this reason: Lot #118-500-284202 has taken a one per forty now. The five acre split allows 200.00 foot frontage and 1039.00 depth. The one in the North corner is built and it allows Frank Morsette a one per forty and he has four per forty possible. If he asked for rezoning we can deal with it at that time. We would request a deed restriction and a shared driveway for Osterbauer. Roskaft said we should rescind the first motion. Goenner motioned to rescind the first motion_ Roskaft CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 5/20/92 AT 8PM - PAGE 3 - seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Roskaft seconded Rask's motion. Goenner stated he has a problem with allowing this as the main thrust of the Comp Plan was to protect prime ag land. Two houses one on the front of this property and one in the back would split up the land for farming. We are dealing with two precedents and which is more important to us? Wallace stated he disagrees with allowing this because this is in the middle of an Ag area. We are putting this right in the middle of farm land. Rask stated we have no basis for denial now. Goenner stated our comp plan does allow for clustering of houses. Vote was taken and Rask, McAlpine, and Roskaft voted for the motion. Wallace, Goenner, Lewis and Swenson voted against. (3 for/4 against) It was noted that maybe in two weeks the Commission could get more information from the Planner and re -look at this. Lewis stated she feels there is a lot of confusion and this needs to be looked at closer. Rask stated he feels we will gain no more knowledge from postponing this. Goenner stated he feels we are a recommending Commission to the City Council so we should not re -look at it. The Council will see that there was not complete agreement on this. It was agreed that a clarification was needed. This Osterbauer property will be on the 5/26/92 ( Tuesday) Agenda for the City Council. #4. Resolution 92-24= Discussion was asked for on this. Goenner stated he feels he should be able to talk to people. Swenson said he feels in most cases it would be clear if it is an influence or not. McAlpine asked if the Council also has a Resolution to follow? Wallace stated we are employees as a Commission and the Council is a voted in body. He said he doesn't feel it is relevant. If the people don't like the way the Council is doing there job they can vote them out. Roskaft said the State also has rules and he does not feel he is an employee of the Council. Fournier stated he feels that he would hope the Council follows this Resolution also. Goenner brought up the Conflict of Interest. Is there an appeals process on this? (Where the City Attorney could review this) Swenson said it is the judgement of the Chair and it is kind of an appeal. It could be very awkward if we get into a problem at the beginning of a Hearing. It could delay a b CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 5/20/92 AT 8PM- PAGE 4 - Public Hearing. I don't foresee a problem said Swenson. Goenner said it does not handle a conflict with the Chair. Wallace stated that in a conflict of interest seminar he had recently attended, the speaker stated that if there was any conflict of interest whatsoever, you should disqualify yourself. We have to act as a unified body. Roskaft stated that this commission should not play politics. Swenson agreed that we are to interpret the rules. Rask said we are taking our power away by voting split. Beatty noted that the Osterbauer matter will be brought to the City Council on 5/26/92 (Tuesday). Licht will be at this meeting and maybe the Commission would like to attend the Council Meeting. On the Resolution Fournier commented the Council wants The Resolution to be a positive thing and if the public knows about it, the Commission will have more credibility. Goenner asked if anyone went to the Sherburne County Meeting and could they give a 2-1/2 minute summary? Beatty stated that Roskaft, Wallace, Kirmis and herself attended and we had a one hour session with a professional planner on basic planning and a one hour session with Ty Bishoff, Sherburne Co Assessor who gave us tax base information. How taxes in Sherburne Co are figured for the different classes of property. He gave us some charts to relate to. Fournier noted that when he was on the P.C. he remembers 4 per 40 was per 40A. Meeting adjourned JAM R KOLLES, SECR TARY By: Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary eb