07-01-92 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 7/1/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 1 -
Chair Swenson called the meeting to order at 8PM.
Members present were as follows:
ING ROSKAFT MARK WALLACE
BRUCE RASK CARL SWENSON
JIM KOLLES RON BLACK - CR
Council members present were as follows:
Mayor Norman F Freske Larry
Staff present was as follows:
GENE GOENNER
DENNIS MCALPINE
Fournier
David Licht, Planner Elaine Beatty
Judy Hudson
Roskaft motioned to approve the minutes as printed of
June 17, 1992. Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
STEWART TURNQUIST - PUBLIC HEARING Sec 13, Twp 121, R 24 -
Unplatted land - Lot B of Gov Lot 4 EX N 3 RDS & prt of Lt 3
of SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of a LN Des Com at SW cor of SW 1/4 of NW
1/4 TH LN 1051.51 FT TH E DEF R89 D SS' 378.2 FT to W LN of
LT 3 & POB TH CONT E to E LN of LT 3 & Term. This land is
currently zoned A-1 and W & S. Request is for a PUD, Cond.
Use Permit as allowed in Sec 20-7-1 - 20-7-3 of the City of
Otsego Zoning Ordinance to allow a second dwelling upon the
15.9 acres site. PID #118-800-132202. (See NAC's Report
dated June 25, 1992).
Swenson gave the public a brief overview of how the
Hearing would be conducted. He turned the meeting over to
Dave Licht who gave the public an overview of NAC's Report of
June 25, 1992 as to the background. He noted that a second
residence is being planned to be built. He said there are
three options that the City has:
1. Normal practice is to mandate the subdivision of the
property for a second residence (W/Public access and streets
and filed plat).
2. You can say you don't want to subdivide and that you
do not want a second residence.
3. You can have a PUD (Cond. Use) on this property to
allow a second residence.
In NAC's opinion, it would meet Turnquist's objectives.
The access would be maintained as it is today, with the City
Attorney's review and he can proceed to add his residence as
an attachment to his garage. The residence that is there can
be left as a life estate. When the occupancy is stopped, the
mobile home has to be eliminated. We see it as a logical
concept to long term, the mobile home will be removed from
the site. You have then accomplished removal of the mobile
home and it is back to a structure even though there is no
public frontage. Licht referred to NAC's Report Page 2,
Recommendations, No's 1-11 (See attached).
He commented on the following:
#2. Licht noted that public access for emergency vehicles is
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 7/1/92
AT SPM - PAGE 2 -
a consideration. With another residence being added, the
City should take this issue into account.
47. The topo map needs to be prepared for the site and a
drainage easement needs to be considered.
#9. With the creation of additional dwellings, the Park and
Rec. Committee needs to look at the Park and Rec. Charge.
Swenson asked Turnquist for any comments. Turnquist
started this in 1990. At that time the Planning Commission
approved what he was asking for, contingent on the easement
issue being solved. He had to go back to Court for the
easement. Meanwhile the Township became a City. The
easement also became a controversy concerning Riverwood
Conference Center. The Judge gave Riverwood Conference
Center the house and land to his wife Arlene DeCandia. She
moved the 11 A. as part of Riverwood Conference Center.
Turnquist had a map layout of the area. When the Judge
divided the land, one piece of land became two homesteads.
When this happened, a driveway that had been used for
residential is now again in controversy. Dewey Johnson's
property is now covered on three sides by Riverwood
Conference Center. Dave Licht had said that Riverwood could
use the easement in a letter and I (Turnquist) brought it to
the Council and they concluded that it wasn't to be used by
Riverwood. Pg. #5, #3, Stewart Turnquist brought up as being
a problem and a "Hot" issue. If it is to be maintained, it
has to be opened and flies in the face of what the Council
had stated in the PUD. Turnquist read the Riverwood PUD
agreement as to the use of the easement.
Licht (clarified). First Riverwood only has a right to
access in an emergency situation.
Swenson stated he would like to take more public
testimony before getting into this.
Bob Spencer - stated he has no objection to Turnquist
going ahead with his building. Riverwood hasn't stopped
using the easement yet. They have their own access on the
other side. I don't see why it has to keep coming up.
Mae Spencer - Stated she lives next door to the
driveway. There are a lot of people and bicycles on that
road. I think they may be directed down there.
Joyce Dewey - part owner with the Ethel Johnson property
which is the land beside Riverwood Conference Center. This
easement was given by my Mother and Father. My Mother's
Brother is a resident of the trailer house. The same
problems keep coming up. I thought it was all settled. We
have not been contacted by your City Planner and I think we
should be consulted. I don't understand how this has gone on
this long without us being informed.
Lloyd Dewey - Stated he is the husband to Joyce Dewey.
On 12/8/91 we addressed a letter to the Council, we tried to
get to the bottom of the Fire Marshall deal. He made it
clear to me that they were not in
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 7/1/92
AT 8PM -PAGE 3 -
the businesses of granting easements. They want to work with
the Fire Department, it was Albertville, not Monticello at
the time. Dewey said he gave a copy to Judy Hudson to copy
for the Council.
Turnquist asked if the City is aware that Riverwood is
burning down the residence.
Swenson asked if anyone else wished to speak?
Rask asked for a clarification. When the Judge gave
Riverwood to Arlene DeCandia, did he give her that road too?
Turnquist said the Judge wasn't clear enough about that
easement, as it was also to be given to me. It took a year
to go back to Court and Turnquist got joint easement with
Riverwood.
Dewey said 18 Mos. or two years ago, it was coming up.
We heard these stories what is to happen and I went to the
Courthouse to get the information. I gave that information
to Jerry Perrault. First the easement was given entirely to
Riverwood. Second it was joint easement with Riverwood and
Turnquist. When the PUD came up for Riverwood, the neighbors
spoke out against the public easement. With a public
easement there would not be a problem now.
Black - If you look at Exhibit B, Lot A & B were
commonly owned. When Lot A & B were conveyed from Spencers,
owners of Lot 2. They conveyed A & B as a package, subject
to the easement on the W. side of the W. line of Gov. Lot 3.
The divorce happened. Someone screwed up and left the 15.9 A
landlocked because the easement went to only Lot A. I don't
know if a proposed ingress and egress easement has been
granted. Lot B also has access to easement after going back
to Court. There is no commonality anymore.
Wallace - Pg 5, #3, the Fire Emergency route is serving
Riverwood and the Turnquist property. For the fire
emergency, are we talking about vehicles of the Fire
Department or people going thru Riverwood?
Licht said as it stands now, to my understanding that
the PUD for Riverwood cannot use it for Commercial purposes.
Notice should be given by the City to prevent whoever from
using the easement for bicycles, etc. It is my understanding
it has to be maintained for fire emergency, nothing else. It
is fire access for Turnquist also and I would take issue with
Turnquist. When the property was divided and given to Ms
DeCandia and Turnquist, the access was there. The point we
bring up with public use, is you have an existing residence
and a second, band new residence. It has not changed in
terms of the Ordinance. You should make a comment as to why
you are not requiring it to be subdivided and no public
street. So you do not allow Turnquist to be treated
differently. There are circumstances to allow you to do
this. Because second residence will eventually be down to
one. If they raise this as a precedent, you need to be able
to protect yourself. It is a critical issue from prospective
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 7/1/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 4 -
of the City to protect itself.
Goenner said if Mr Turnquist and his parents have to
move, could that be considered as terminating? How can we
protect ourselves? The Developers Agreement will specify
that no one else can occupy the unit. It being there for a
couple of Months shouldn't be a problem said Licht.
Wallace - Said that whatever infringements Riverwood is
making is an enforcement issue, not an issue here.
Licht stated a lot of times we tend to cry wolf a little
too often. Maple Grove had three houses at the end of a long
driveway. Everybody watched the house burn because the fire
truck got bogged down in the driveway. It is only property
damage, but it can't be taken lightly. By PUD you are
allowing and facilitating Turnquist to do what he wants to
do.
Roskaft said he drove that easement road a number of
times and I don't know how you can get a fire truck up that
road.
Spencer - stated that big tandem trucks are getting
through there.
Roskaft - If it is a private road, why can't a gate be
put on there?
Licht - We are getting into Riverwood Enforcement
problems. The City hasn't been aware of it. A gate is a
civil problem in terms of vitalization of the easement.
Turnquist can explore it.
Turnquist - This fire access issue you have to remember
it was never an issue all the years Riverwood was in
operation. They could never do that before because of a
residential road. It was a concept planted in the Fire
Marshall's ear. You have to go another 300' to Riverwood.
It is not a straight forward road. It is a hot issue because
it is a new issue. I request if you make a decision look
into it closer.
Roskaft - After discussion, we have a conclusion. I
would consider after the Council has decided what they want
to with it a Findings of Fact should be made to state the
reasons because of this unusual situation.
Licht - said we make a Findings of Fact on all Hearings.
Swenson closed the Hearing.
Roskaft - Motioned to recommend approval of the Cond. Use PUD
for the Stewart Turnquist property, subject to the conditions
listed within the Executive Summary of NAC's Report of June
25, 1992. Motioned seconded by Mark Wallace.
Rask - Asked if they asked to subdivide into 2-1/2
acres, can they do that.
Licht - Said only if they have direct road access.
Public access is important. The PUD (Cond. Use) accomplishes
what Turnquist wants to accomplish. The PUD goes with the
property.
Spencer -said you have to look at the lay of the land.
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 7/1/92
- PAGE 5 -
There is no way you can divide it up four ways. A lot of it
is Wild and Scenic and Floodplain.
Rask - stated he didn't want to vote for this saying
they can Rezone to R-2 and have lots of houses in there.
Goenner - asked what happens if the mobile home is gone?
Licht - stated that the PUD is a means to bridge the gap with
two residences. We are going two homes in 16 acres
temporarily and in the long term we will have a single
residence. The PUD is addressing the density issue. With
the mobile home moved, the PUD is all but gone. We are
dealing with transition.
McAlpine - Stated that the road can get a machine back
there. When you get to the end of the road, there is a Y
going to Turnquists property and one to the Conference
Center. He asked about internal fire service and Licht said
the Fire Marshall today said it needs to be available for -
emergencies.
Turnquist - stated you can't get through unless you cut
trees. He wanted to throw out this reference to emergency
vehicles.
McAlpine said he had a hard time getting back to the
well at Riverwood.
Roskaft - stated that is part of the problem outside of
this PUD.
Swenson asked if the Commission is ready for the motion?
Mr Licht will check on the Fire Service Emergency issue.
Dewey - stated that the Fire Marshall said Albertville
will settle it.
Licht stated we will do that.
Wallace - stated we are talking about Turnquist's
property, not Riverwood's. In order for us to grant this PUD
for Turnquist, he needs a fire access. Riverwood is another -
issue.
Black - Stated he has yet to have this kind of concern
being raised on a farmstead where a mobile home is hauled in.
Obviously, it is two houses and a driveway. Unless as a
policy we mandate everybody to maintain the driveway.
Licht stated in this case you are taking a parcel that
is already exercised their property right.
Black - said the uses on farm mobiles and this issue
needs to be looked at.
Licht - said we are going to the Fire Marshall and let a
letter from them as to what their jurisdiction is.
Swenson - called for the question.
Motion carried unanimously. Will be on the Council Meeting
of 7/13/92
SUBDIVISION ZONING ORDINANCE=
Swenson asked for questions or comments_ Licht gave the
information to the Planning Commission on setting monuments.
He stated that it seems reasonable and it is only exercised
if the P.C. and Council ok's it and there are financial
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 7/1/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 6 -
guarantees. This is for information if you wish to go ahead
we need to hold a Public Hearing.
Black - asked about why the delay? What is the
rational?
Licht answered if approved in the Winter, they may not
be able to get it all done. It is possible it wouldn't be
used that much.
Roskaft stated the stakes should be wood lath.
Shouldn't they be replaced by metal posts?
Black said the lath stakes are for easements.
Licht said the wood lath is for easement location for
the phone co, Minnegasco and elec. etc.
Goenner feels we should go ahead. Wouldn't six months
be OK? Licht said the State Law says it should be up to a
year. The financial guarantee is there.
Roskaft motioned to schedule a Hearing for the Sub -
Division Ordinance Amendment Sec. 21-8-1 for August 5, 1992.
Goenner seconded the Motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing will be noticed for then. ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION=
Licht - Explained and said that Osterbauer's request
raised some of your concerns. We have addressed A-1 and A-2
Zoning District said Licht. We dropped A-1 because of it
being redundant. We should offer to you via CUP the ability
to take the one in 40 in A-1 off of one forty acres and put
it on another so you could have two units in one forty acre
parcel, but deed restrict the entire eighty acres. If, for
example, I owned eighty acres and on one corner I had a
forest, ponds, etc, it would allow me to take the density and
put it in the non -prime AG area. We have built in a number
of protections ( See #1-#11) .
Sec 2= Density of not greater than one dwelling per
forty acres (We got rid of the legal lot of record). The
section addresses A-2 and follows the same logic. Section 4
gets into Osterbauer regulations. B. Density - Licht
explained. To clarify we have the Subdivision and pulled
that in under the density. Sec. 4-B, #1 (A -F) #2. Licht
explained, A,B,C & D. We are not looking for an answer
tonight said Licht. Set a public hearing date if you wish.
Roskaft - Sec 1. #3. If you have a farm of 160 Acres
and you have a farmstead on forty acres and have two other
possible building sites, why restrict it to two?
Licht said it is an idea to consider but you don't want
to create this high concentration of development in the
AG area. If you have high density it is not the intent.
Where a one quarter section is not on public road you can't
use it for a one for forty split.
Roskaft - said he thinks the people in this community
should have the same right as the County (he then explained).
Licht explained to him about too much density. Licht
said he will look at the County Ordinance and attach it along
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 7/1/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 7 -
with the ordinance.
Goenner - Does this give us the right to placement if it
is a CUP?
Licht - said that when anyone comes in we normally see
if this is marginal land and then we process it. It is being
looked at there.
Goenner - four per forty, if they had 50 acres could
they have four houses? It would be a Subdivision and would
come before you, said Licht. (Licht explained).
Rask said he would like transfer tied to the road
frontage, allowing transfers.
Licht - said our main concern is where there are lots of
record.
Roskaft said in the AR the Co. can create the four per
forty. Usually in wooded land, etc.
Licht - Will provide information by the next P.C.
meeting of 7/15/92.
Roskaft motioned to have the Hearing on an Ordinance
Addressing Development Density Requirements and the Transfer
of Development Density Rights Within A-1 and A-2 Zoning
Districts. Rask Seconded the Motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Swenson asked if there was any other P.C. Business.
Licht said we have not received the Shoreland/Floodplain
regulations yet. We are proceeding with Council directions
of the Wild and Scenic Ordinance and probably will be on the
8/5/92 agenda.
Wallace motioned to adjourn the meeting. Roskaft
seconded the motion., Adjourned at 9:50PM.
i
JAM R KOLLES, SECRETARY
Minutes by: ELaine Beatty, Recording Secretary
OV