Loading...
06-03-92 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 6/3/92 AT SPM - PAGE 1 - Meeting was called to order at 8PM by Chair, Carl Swenson. The following members were present: MARK WALLACE BRUCE RASK KATHY LEWIS DENNIS MCALPINE JIM KOLLES CARL SWENSON ING ROSKAFT ( 9PM ) GENE GOENNER ( 9PM ) RON BLACK-C.R. It was noted that Ing Roskaft would be late and Gene Goenner may not be able to attend. The following Staff were present: Bob Kirmis Elaine Beatty Dave Licht 9PM Mayor Norman F Freske was also present. Rask motioned to accept the minutes of 5/20/92. Wallace seconded the motion. Swenson noted he would like to add to the minutes that Jim Kolles had an excused absence from the meeting. Motion carried unanimously with the addition. ROGER AND JAYNE LUND HEARING: PID#118-500-164403 at 14817 NE 95TH ST Otsego, MN. Lot 1, Block 1, Pludes Addition. A Cond. Use Permit for a garage larger than allowed by the Ordinance. Chair Swenson explained how the Hearing would be conducted and Bob Kirmis was asked to give the NAC Planning Report of May 20, 1992 (background on the matter). The property is 3.6A in size and presently Zoned R-3 noted Kirmis and went over the structure use and compatibility on Page #4 of NAC's Report. Based on NAC's review, they have recommended approval of request, subject to eight ( 8 ) conditions ( See attached Exhibit A) Swenson asked if Mr Lund wished to add anything. He answered no. He stated he agrees with the conditions. Swenson asked if anyone else wished to be heard. No one did. Swenson brought it back to the Planning Commission for any questions or comments. Rask asked if it is being was a two car garage which has Lund said yes. built on Lot 2, and said there been turned into living space. Lewis motioned to recommend approval of the CUP with the eight (8) conditions listed in NAC's Report of May 20, 1992. Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. This CUP for Lund will be added to the Council Agenda of 6/8/92. Mr Neil McMillin, Wright -Hennepin Electric was next on the agenda to discuss street lighting for the City of Otsego: Mr McMillin stated he and Wright -Hennepin are very excited about Otsego's new City Hall and he talked about street lighting. He distributed a street lighting contract which he said is typical. He presented different types of street lighting with a overhead projector and explained lighting possibilities and rates. He stated that Wright -Hennepin does not add in an installation charges. It is billed into the rate and amortized. Mr McMillin showed the .Tames Addition layout and showed CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 6/3/92 AT 8PM -PAGE 2 - a typical lighting plan. He talked more about lighting for the City. He recommends that at least, the major interstections be lighted and the cobra lighting be used with the colonial for residential areas. Discussion of Wright - Hennepin and Elk River Munc Utilities was had and if the lights were compatible with each other. Black asked for the service areas of the different Electric Companies in Otsego and Mr McMillian went over the areas on the Otsego map. REX OSTERBAUER - was returned to the P.C_ from Council for discussion and reconsideration of Zoning (25A on O'Dean Ave NE) . Swenson asked Licht to comment on the Osterbauer Rezoning and how the Otsego Ordinance pertained to it. Licht explained that the City Council received recommendation and part of the consideration was interpretation of the Ordinance and request that the P.C. revisit the matter with some discussion of the Ordinance. Basically two conditions that need to be addressed. 1. Reasons for denial 2. Current Interpretationibf the Ordinance The next item is i= you want the Ordinance changed from the current Ordinance. Mr Licht apologized for not having the Ordinance done, but he is waiting for information from DNR. This pertains to two sections of the Ordinance 20.52-6B and 20.52.8. Section 20.52.8 - The intent is in fact as I read it in four per forty, is when you are dealing with a quarter section that has not been sub -divided in the past, all of these things pertain to this section. Licht said he thinks the clear intent of Section 8 is clustering of development for Ag preservation. Section 20.52-6B - The County did not have a four per forty so they divided down into 2-1/2 acre lots. You could have in one particular area up to 16 lots. The County in this manner had a higher density than the City. If the Quarter/Quarter section was treated as a virgin area, we would not have this section in the Ordinance said Licht. With new quarter/quarter sections, we will allow clustering. If the County allowed subdivisions of 20A or greater, that person is qualifying for density of 4 per 40 or 2 per 20. If they had 19A that would not qualify, they are one acre short. Our reading for that basically the property does qualify for a rezoning. That question before the Council is rezoning. It is critical to get your reading. 1. The density, if that were the basis for denial, qualifies for rezoning. Licht said that any other questions, he will answer. Wallace asked about the lot configuration. Licht said CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 6/3/92 AT 8PM -PAGE 3 - that 150' is the road frontage. Licht said it is recognized that strip would not subdivide on their own, but the adjoining property would probably go along, Licht explained. The further back the house goes, the bigger the problems for the owner, but that is up to the owner. Rask asked if, as a Commission, dealing with 4 per 40 we can rezone, but don't have any right to tell people where to put their home. They are allowed it the way present zoning is now said Rask Swenson stated that the County had done some things that are ackward to deal with, and we are talking about doing the same thing. Licht said that both lots that are being proposed meet the lot frontage requirements. Swenson asked for any other questions. Swenson said he would like to clarify something. What you are saying is 25A even thou it exists in two 40's doesn't matter. Because it is divided, it sets a different context than dividing a whole fresh 40 A. The reason why we have the P.C. is to deal with things like this. There are times when things are not developed as we would wish, said Licht. Swenson asked if being in 2 - 40A parcels doesn't matter? Licht said it did not. Rask said with preservation of farm land do we have the right to request placement of the home? Licht stated as part of rezoning you don't. What you can do, however, is recommend to the City Council that you do not want the house in the back section. Licht recommended making it a separate section. Osterbauer said it is hilly where he is putting the house close to one acre of trees. (it is a nice house setting). Wallace said that a lot of our questions was on the Ag land in the back 40 A. Can we recommend changing zoning on only the front 40 A? Licht said you can recommend. If public safety is a concern you can maybe make note to the City Council. (Fire trucks access, etc.) Swenson asked if farm land being farmed is good land? Osterbauer said he didn't know. He stated that the driveway would go down an area that is now along a fenceline. Goenner said it is fairly good soil with adequate rainfall. (he had looked the information up) . Licht stated you can request to the Council that it be gravel driveway, etc. Black asked if this were not a proposed subdivision of this particular site, what can happen is without anybody saying anything, the property owner can come over and build on the Westerly area? Licht said this is right. Roskaft said this lot could have been created a long time ago. David L+enhardt,Atty. for Osterbauer said there were two CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 6/3/92 AT SPM - PAGE 4 - issues. Now there is three. Rezoning was being asked for. Subdivision has been adequately addressed. The third issue is where is housing going to be put? I agree with Mr. Black, that it can be put pretty much anywhere on the site. The required subdivision seems to be clearly allowed the way it is written in the Ordinance. Swenson said we need to consider this request. Ing Roskaft motioned to rescind the action of the Planning Commission last week on this Osterbauer matter. Rask seconded the motion. Swenson asked for any other discussion. There was none. Motion carried unanimously. Roskaft motioned to Rezone the Osterbauer property from Ag to A-2. Kolles seconded the motion. Black stated he hopes the Commission will debate this and discuss it a little so we can have some understanding of why the decision is being made. Roskaft said he is hoping another motion and discussion would be forthcoming and recommendation to the Council. Motion carried unanimously. Swenson asked for any other discussion. Gunner said he feels it is a Long Range Urban Service area for Rezoning. We are talking about 25 A that we are allowing two houses to be built on. We are creating a one per ten instead of four per forty. Where do we draw the line in preserving Ag land? It was a prime concern in our Comp Plan. Wallace asked if we are giving up Ag Preservation by rezoning Ag -2? Licht said not necessarily. He is researching this further as to house placement with protecting farm land. Swenson said it would indicate that we are interested in preserving prime farm land. Wallace motioned as part of our Subdivision we request the Council to consider that a minimal amount of ag land will be taken. Goenner seconded the motion. Swenson said both Mr Black and Mr Fournier asked that we make clear what our intentions were. Does this do that? Rask said he had more discussion. He would prefer to cluster this up on the front 40A. With 43A He does not have adequate frontage for 4 houses. The frontage would probably allow 2 houses. 150' lot frontage is needed per lot. Licht said that lot 284102 is undevelopable until a street goes in there. There is no street frontage now. It is a recorded lot so it was approved. We have six potential lots on the 80A now. That is within the density regulations. Swenson asked about the driveway. Is it along the North end of the property? Answer. Yes. Goenner said we are creating a one per 10 within a 40A where there are lots of record, because you are saying without a Zoning change they are allowed one lot. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 6/3/92 AT SPM PAGE 5 - Licht said if you are a farmer and own 640A and you own that land, the City does not say you can put your farmstead right in the middle of that. There is nothing you can, or want to do about that. The reason that 4 per 40 is in there is to convey or simplify the 1 in 40 concept. Concept is to say for 40A we allow 4 units. You can cluster and whatever, but in one cut up forty we will deed restrict the balance so you can't get more than 4 units. If you have a lot you are still dealing with the 40, but you have to recognize that those lots were legally created and they have their lots . 25A qualifies. 19-1/2 or 19.8 doesn't qualify. I think the Ordinance need to be clarified to convey this. Roskaft said the County does the 4 per 40 in bad farmland (Ag Residential. Rask said the big confusion was 40 and it was split years ago. If you have two tens and a 20 could the 20 split? Licht said following the density it would qualify. Swenson said the two sections are separate and not tied to 4 per 40. Motion carried unanimously_ Black asked if 20.52.6 B density is clear? Licht said Sec B and Sec 8 have to be related and clarified. Lewis said it seems like the IOA needs to be looked at. Rask asked does the lot for Osterbauer need to be that configuration? Osterbauer said yes. Licht said NAC looked at it and it was approved. Roskaft had questions to ask of Licht. The Met Council article, what does non -attainment areas mean? Licht said it has to do with pollution control matters. Licht said it is starting to show that the Metro is starting to move out. Licht explained further and discussion was had. Meeting adjourned at 9=45PM. LW �_ k _�k _//_ _—) JAME R KOLLES SECRETARY MINUTES BY ELAINE BEATTY, RECORDING SECRETARY Exhibit A / Roger and Jayne Lund RECORKENDATION : Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 960 square foot accessory storage structure subject to the following conditions: 1. City Officials determnti uedt seere of the siis a te's pole bui need ding potential for the co for the purpose stated (storage of antique cars and motor home) . 2. City Officials determine that the site's pole building has an evident re -use related to the principal use. 3. No commercial or home occupation activities are to occur on the site in association with the site's accessory buildings. 4. The proposed garage is painted to match the site's principal structure. s. The roof pitch of the proposed accessory building is the same as the site's principal structure. ture is fted 6. The placement o ion of the proposed approved resubdivision Cplans to allow execut(see Exhibit G). 7. If the applicant pursues further subdivision of the subject property, either the existing pole building should be removed or the following conditions should be complied with: a. Extensive screening, in a manner judged acceptable by the City, is provided around the existing pole building to screen it from view of the public right-of-way and neighboring residences. b. The pole building is brought into compliance with Section 20-16-4.1 of the Ordinance which notes that accessory structures exhibit the same or similar quality building materials as the principal building. 8. Comments from other City staff. 2 June 5, 1992 From: City of Otsego Deputy Clerk/ Zoning Adm. Office To: Norman F Freske Floyd Roden Doug Lindenfelser Larry Fournier Ron Black Jerome Perrault Planning Commission Kathy Lewis called me 6/5/92 at 9AM to inform us that they have sold their home in Otsego and are closing on it the 3rd of July. She will not be sending another letter to the Council and Planning Commission. She also will not be able to attend Planning Commission Meetings from here on. This is for your information. Elaine Beatty Deputy Clerk/Zoning Adm