09-16-92 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/16/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 1 -
Swenson called the meeting to order at 8PM.
The following members were present:
ING ROSKAFT GENE GOENNER BRUCE RASK
CARL SWENSON MARK WALLACE JIM KOLLES
DENNIS MC ALPINE ARLEEN NAGEL, ALT. RON BLACK,C.R_
Staff present was as follows:
Andy MacArthur, Atty. Bob Kirmis, Asst. Planner
David Licht, Planner Elaine Beatty
Judy Hudson Jerome Perrault
The Following Council Members were Present:
Norman F Freske Doug Lindenfelser
Larry Fournier Floyd Roden
The minutes of 9/2/92 Planning Commi:_�,sion, Goenner
brought up and said that the end of Page 2, the motion was
cut off and needs to be included on the page. Also the
second motion should be an amendment, not a motion.
Roskaft motioned to approve the minutes of 9/2/92 with
the above recommended changes. Wallace seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
HEARING to consider a proposed Wild and Scenic
Recreational Ordinance:
Swenson explained the Ordinance and pointed out that.
Andrew MacArthur- would handle the legal aspects of the
Ordinance and Mr Licht of NAC would handle the specific
Ordinance. After they explain, the public may speak either
pro or con with a three minute limit and if time we will -o
back and take second questions from the public.
Swenson asked Beatty if the proper Publishing and
Posting and mailing of the Ordinance Hearing had been done.
Beatty answered yes.
MacArthur explained the Wild and Scenic rules and change
of boundaries can be changed with Rules Amendment. He said
thatat least one boundary change has been allowed in Otsego.
The boundary is a separate issue said Licht. Licht referred
to the map that NAC's office had prepared. A special
Ordinance that is required to regulate the Wild and Scenic._ in
the City of Otsego. Rules are needed within each County and
City. There are exceptions, etc. The City was subject to
Wright County Ordinance. In 1990 we became Incorpor(�tt-ad.
DNR is Presently Proposing a rule and it is moving thru the
amendment process. We have opposed the rule. We have
written our own rule. We are required to have a proposed
Ordinance Hearing. We broughtthis to the Planning
Commission on August 5, 1992. We were required to rend t.h<at
down to the DNR 30 days prior to the proposed Hearing.
Nothing was heard from the DNR for 29 days. Approx imate ty .at
noon today a fax machine spit out :,5-page letter and DNR i
;till expressing the :Name Position as befor,a. This voe:_
through the Plannin.ry Commiscion -:nd CiC f f'IT"Cl!=h `_i7 1t'i'
Ji. III i—'. T f F EI L takes o1.3,':, .:o-1
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/16/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 2 -
If not, it goes to an Administrative Hearing. At this point,
it was turned over to Dave Licht.
Licht said that the Ordinance for the City was enacted
in April of 1992. Wild and Scenic was left void in the
attempt to get DNR to work with the City. Because that has
not occurred, the City is proceeding with their ordinance.
DNR is: intended to protect the Wild and Scenic River as it
passes through the City. The Council has been discussing
with DNR since 1989. Initially, it was the boundary
situation to build the new City Hall. The City boundary is
arbitrary and capricious. In some cases it is too close and
other cases it does not go far enough. At this time it is not
a dispute. For those of you who are interested, we have met
continually with the DNR. There is a summary of the
discussions that have taken place. The City has been in
contact with other river communities that have expressed
other difficulties with the DNR and share some of the same
frustrations. Licht explained the maps he had brought and
the different colors and how they were to be read. Licht
brought up that the DNR had allowed 2 A lots under the County
Ordinance as a minimum and the City will have a minimum of 2-
1/2 A lots which tends to preserve more of the wild and
scenic of the river. The DNR indicates you cannot modify in
excess of 13%. The City standard is 120. That applies to
the rest of the City. Another approach, is rather than
having a separate base zoning district, the City is proposing
an overlay district so Ag A-11 R-3, Commercial B-1, etc. will
be designations that are applied to property. Over and
above, the DNR Wild and Scenic will be an overlay district we
believe will be more workable. The base effects therefore,
come down to two areas of concern. The blue on the map East
of #101 would be included in the yellow Wild and Scenic Sub-
district.
ub-distric:t.
The districts shown are DNR District` concentration West.
of #101. The DNR proposal is we can allow commercial and
only commercial. It would be a CUP which would come before
the Council and subject to DNR's approval. We reel that
permitted uses do not need DNR approval.
The South portion of the blue West of 101, part of tho
area is for Industrial Deve.lopment because lack of market
demand for that amount of commercial use. You can have
parking c.reas in floodplain, which this is. The DNR has said
that no more than 50% of the property can be impervious
surface. (Pa'i king lots-, roofs, etc.) The Met. area is
between 70 and 9S`G impervious surface. West of 101 the DNR
,admits that. the only major concern of th.V area West of #101
is quality and rate of water running into the river. IIF ti is
i� deve.lopeci with comprehensive storm water control it must
be prepar?d t.hc`'. Developmont. ti3i --� place. Th?.:-:
han�aeW and:s:-!.i. s. t.'ri.at=xist..
�•.T,._ =,Tl ':7•.1-I:-;� t }'l i'i,. .:T" !.l"I�:� i.� comm��r-It ?-1' _tl'i t. l.;
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/16/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 3 -
He told them to stand and give the name and be recognized.
Wally O'Dell - Stated he is an employee of Darkenwalds. We
have some concerns and some of Licht's comments has sharpened
it. We have NE quadrant of 11 Acres. It has had a history
of commercial use. You say nothing in the guide plan that the
entire #42 wasn't going to be commercial use. We assumed we
would have commercial zoning on this entire intersection. We
were surprised a couple of weeks ago. Mr Licht made a
comment that the DNR would permit commercial on W & S River
under restrictions. We would like to get whatever it takes
to include this area in the commercial area. The guideplan
does not indicate that this does not include commercial
zoning. We agree that the DNR W&S in Otsego is very
restrictive. We want to be included in that because this is
a commercial corner. We have presented some factual matters
to the Council. We would like this included so we can join
the DNR. We don't need 90% impervious cover. We have
thought about the possibility of a fast food restaurant on
that intersection. In fact, we meet most of the criteria for
commercial usage there. Floodplain and commercial use would
have to be looked at there. We were surprised to find out
the zoning is residential and commercial use is not. That is
our position and we appreciate that consideration.
Candace Crosier - stated she moved into the Sawyer home.
I have a question and I wonder if there is any other way we
can get information on this. How can we get this clear in
our minds?
Swenson answered we have been dealing with this for a
few years. You are coming in at the wrong time. You can
come to City Hall.
Black said these are all the documents, and pointed to
the file.
Ms Crosier Had a question about the overlay district.
Licht explained, IF I own a piece of property in W & S,
a residence, it would be zoned likely R-1 - 2-1/2 Minimum
acres .and there are wetbacks. There are a whole set of
regulations that apply to the R-1 with -the overlay district.
It comes in and overlays the R-1 district. There is certain
additional restrictions thatoverlay district. DNR Wild and
Scenic ;:applies. You don't create a separate district. We
have tried to make thatuniform, keeping the standard
district, plus having: the overlay of Wild and Scenic said
Licht.
John Darkenwald - Ouaday Avenue "aid that "I_rture
COUncils and Planning Commissions are in need of tax bass:.
It Is < T'ltica.l to this commercial to L-,• here <,.n(d UJr need It
for tht, tax bass. for thf - City.
The t'earJ n�:j was closed to ts-,e publ-itc and was
l �'Ia r1,_;rillin' Commi cion f- )r ciu��:3tion� <and/or i(lifil='li(_
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/16/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 4 -
Plan? Licht said that at the time the Comp Plan was prepared
those areas were discussed. It is shown as low density and
residential. There is ample commercial land available. Some
concern is that there is direct exposure to the river. The
other area that is being considered for commercial is West of
#101 and divided by the highway. A noise wall was wanted to
be constructed by MN/DOT. We have attempted to respond by
saying we will have the highest standards. If you allow that
to be commercial West of 101. If you wish to pursue East of
101 it doesn't follow in our reading the comp plan. You have
to weigh how much of a fight .you want with the DNR.
MacArthur said there is nothing against taking your
particular parcel and going to the DNR for removal of W & S.
The procedure for the Darkenwalds is to petition for a
zoning change and a comp plan amendment. We made a concerted
effort to leave the zoning as it was. It would be the
property owners liability to bring all changes in zoning.
That was the procedure that was agreed upon.
Wallace questioned the fax from the DNR. There is only
one change you disagree with? Licht said basically there are
two.
The prime one is the amount of impervious surface
allowed. It is being looked at as one of the prime tax
generators for the City. 50% impervious surface does not
seem like much. 70%, 80, and 90% has been used all over
Minnesota.
The second issue they want to impose per Minnesota Rules
and Regulations is, any commercial development having to go
through their office for a CUP. No Industrial Development.
will be permitted. We have some difficulty with that from a
point of tax base. You can mine all you want without a
permit. That property has not been zoned in the blue area
for commercial. The private owners will have to come forward
if they want it zoned.
Roskaft said the County had allowed the construction of
a office building where the food and fuel is. They applied
to the County to bring other buildings in. Licht said he is
not discussing that, but look at the map north of the
Darkenwald's car lot. That area is still zoned ag. That.
prope-rty is not changing the base zone.
Rask said we are putting that blue area on the Kolle.s
farm as, lone .as we are going thru this ordinance and they
haven't asked for zoning, why can't we Just move that down:
IF you do that you are running into another problem said
Licht. The West area is not Wild and Scenic. DNR hay,
increased to 50": impervious surface from 25%. If YOU m(:.)Vi.�
to the East side you loose the fact that you don't have
impact on the river. River recreational activities di.-> fall
under DNR restrictive regu.1 jit ion„
1'� ?'. i�111311(; Tlt=i �I.l'. f"I 311c_� c)fl-I
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/16/92
8 PM - PAGE 5 -
the Comp plan. Used car lot is Ind/Comm use.
Swenson asked if there were any other comments?
Wallace motioned to accept the Wild and Scenic Ordinance
with the corrections that the Department of Natural Resources
has recommended as far as typos, but not to include the
impervious surface recommendations and restrictive uses not
included. Motion seconded by Rask. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mike Weidenbach - 13474 NE 95TH ST, Otsego, MN PID #118-
800-144400. Unplatted land owned by Don and Vernon
Weidenbach, Sec14, Twp121, R24, E1/2 of NE1/4 of Sec23 & the
E1/2 of SW1/4 of SE1/4. Request is for a one per 40 split
greater than 2-1/2 acres (4.3+Acres).
Swenson asked Beatty if the proper notices had been
Published, Posted and mailed? Beatty answered yes.
Kirmis from NAC explained the report from NAC dated
August 27, 1992. He said that this parcel is larger than the
2-1/2 acres that the one per forty split allows without a
Hearing. Because of the proposed larger lot size a Public
Hearing was necessary. This property is South of #39 and
West of Co Rd #19 (LaBeaux Ave). Kirmis read the issues
analysis on Page two of NAC's Report Numbers 1 - 3. Wright
County soil survey shows Glencoe Pete Muck soils and has a
high water table. There is some concern that it can sustain
a residence.
Exhibit "C" of NAC's Report of August 27, 1992 shows an
odd shaped lot. The subdivision ordinance says it should be
perpendicular to the street except when other circumstances
exist. We find the lot configuration to be acceptable with a
deed restriction on the rest of the 40 acres.
NAC recommends approval subject to the nine conditions
on page #1 & 2 of NAC's Report dated August 27, 1992. An
additional #8 should be added. The existing roadway to the
residence will also be used to access the farm fn response
to the poor soils and evaluation of the existing roadway.
At this point it was opened to the public. Swenson
asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or opposition of the
request? There was no comments from the audience.
It was then turned over to the Planning Commissioo for
Comments and/or questions.
Roskaft asked if the City Engineer had looked at it.
Beatty told him that he had and commented on it and it had
been sent to the Co Soils and Water Conservation Department
and the DNR and they had both commented on it..
Roskaft motioned that the 4.3+ acre lot be permitted.
Wallace Seconded the motion.
Go:ginner asked if they tilled the land. The answer wa::3
no, it was pasture by Weidenbach. Motion carried unanimously
This will be .added to the September _8 . 1f92 City
Cnju nc i l Agenda. at 7 ' 'OPM .
Review of the oroQo^ed ::ontract from Wright -Henn- Elec
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/16/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 6 -
for Street Lighting.
Bob Kirmis noted that they have not found any
inconsistencies with our proposed street lighting policy in
this contract.
Black had some questions:
1. Emergency repairs.
2. Location (who)
3. Easements
4. City's right to determine the street light locations
and write that into the language of the contract.
Swenson asked if there were any other questions?
Goenner stated he has read thru this and a couple things
should be addressed. Paragraph 42, line 5, "Once every
calendar year it will be reviewed as to changes in service".
I believe those changes can come up any time. "As needed"
part of the sentence, Swenson asked who would be reviewing it
on a yearly basis?
Goenner read some of the conditions.
Wallace said doesn't that sum up the explanation in that
line? No size or type of light is addressed.
He felt it was addressed as it was not restricted to
that.
Goenner - Said that the Sth page, Item G:
If the light is vandalized three times in one year it
would be disconnected for six months. Maybe the City should
pick up the cost of that light instead of removing it.
Swenson asked if everyone is in agreement that it should
be changed? They agreed that the City should replace it as
it is our duty as a City for the law enforcement. More
discussion was had on this.
Wallace said the whole purpose is for safety for the
City. It is not a convenience. It is a safety measure.
That is our intent.. I agree that. this should be stricken, or
the City pick up the tab.
Black agreed that what Goenner had said was valid. Why
should the utility determine if the light stays or not?
Wallace said he feels it should be striken as the City
does not have a choice on vandalism. All the Planning
Commission agreed on this.
Goenner said that his first issue had been resolved by
Wallace.
Swenson stated that if there are no other concerns, a
motion to approve this contract format is in order.
Roskaft motioned to approve this contract with changes
as stated above. Kolles seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Black told the Commission that they will pbe
:a request soon from School Oistr i ct Probably4728 for •a Zon.
C h a n g,,e . i. from to INS
Roskaft motioned to adjourn the muting. Rask seconded
1-; rn< Motion carried unanimousl; .
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 9/16/92
AT 8PM - PAGE 7 --
JAM R KOLLES, SECRETARY
MINUTES BY ELAINE BEATTY, RECORDING SECRETARY
EB