01-06-93 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 1-6-93
AT 8PM - PAGE 1 -
Meeting was called to order by Chair Swenson at 8PM. The
following Planning Commission Members were present:
ING ROSKAFT MARK WALLACE CARL SWENSON
DENNIS MCALPINE JIM KOLLES GENE GOENNER
RONALD BLACK -CR
The following Staff was present:
Bob Kirmis Elaine Beatty Judy Hudson
Council Member Larry Fournier was also present.
Roskaft motioned to approve the minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of 12-16-92. McAlpine seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously_
KIM AND RON BEAUDRY - Hearing for CUP to move in a house
on PID #118-112-002030 Beaudry's Addition L3, Block 2, in
Section 25, Township 121, Range 24 as allowed by Otsego City
Ordinance.
Swenson explained the Hearing process and how it would
be conducted. He then asked Beatty if the notices had been
properly published and posted. Beatty answered yes.
Kirmis who is the Assistant Planner from NAC's office
explained the report of NAC of December 22, 1992 pertaining
to the Beaudry's request. He said some of the prime issues
are structure compatibility and property value. He had
spoken to Mr Doug Gruber, Wright County Assessor pertaining
to the value issue. He said the home should be brought up to
building code standards, landscaped and proper foundation
installed. NAC recommended approval of this request subject
to ten conditions as follows:
1. A site plan, based upon a current certificate of survey,
is submitted which illustrates specific house, driveway,
well, septic locations, etc. The residence should be placed
so as to conform to minimum R-3 setbacks.
2. The relocated residence comply with the applicable
requirements of the State Building Code. This .item should be
subject to further comment by the City Building Inspector.
3. As required by Ordinance, the relocated structure is
ready for occupancy within six months from the date of
location on the site.
4. A performance security is posted in an amount determined
appropriate by the Zoning Administrator. The security should
be reflective of anticipated improvement costs (i.e.,
foundation work, landscaping, well, sewage treatment system).
5. Drainage and utility easements are established along lot
.lines. This item should be subject to comment by the City
Engineer.
6. The subject property is landscaped using ornamental
grass, shrubs, trees, or other acceptable vegetation.
7. The City Engineer provide comment and/or recommendation
in regard to the submitted sewage system plan.
B. The site plan illustrate any proposed accessory
buildings. Any such buildings must conform to the applicable
,i .:enc n F G rt i nn ^n- i 1,_.1 :-)f' 1 -hr, ' onl nn nrrji nnnCe _
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 1/6/93
AT 8PM - PAGE 2-
9. The applicant waives his right to appeal any assessments
associated with the future potential paving of the service
road which accesses the subject property.
10. Comments from other City Staff.
Kirmis noted that we had received memos from the City
Engineer and City Attorney and that NAC recommends approval
of the request.
Swenson asked if the Beaudry's wished to add anything?
Kim Beaudry - Asked about the site plan requested by the
Engineer. Kirmis explained what they would need and that
they need to have the site plan to get the Building Permit
anyway.
Swenson then opened comments to the public.
.john Beecher - Asked about any damages done to the road
in front of Beaudry's Addition.
Black stated that a permit must be secured by the mover
and the mover has to show he is bonded and insured for that
sort of thing. It is the obligation of the mover.
Larry Blesi - Who lives on LaBeaux Avenue asked about
the type of house it is. The pictures of the house were
passed around.
Gene Goenner asked about monies that need to be retained
in escrow and how would that work? He was informed that the
Zoning Administrator would determine the amount that would
need to be escrowed.
Roskaft motioned to issue the CUP for the property move
in house in question and subject to the ten conditions from
NAC's Report of December 22, 1992. McAlpine seconded the
motion. All agreed.
AGENDA ITEM #4= Planning Commission discussion of the
immediate service area line to be straightened out South of
the New School Dist #728 property. (Should it be
straightened out or left as is?)
Goenner - Asked if the line were to be moved, what would
it be Zoned? Kirmis answered that it would follow the Land
Use Plan and would not be rezoned until the property owner
requested rezoning. There is no Commercial or Industrial
property East of Highway #101.
Swenson - pointed out that there is a valid
rationale for changing the line to include the School
District property. The use of sewer for the school was
included in the original estimate. To include additional
land, Swenson felt, was not desirable because that land was
not included in the original sewer study.
Wallace - explained that this was brought up by the City
Council to even the line out. He agreed that it should be
left around the school and not straighten out the line.
Wallace motioned that the immediate service line should
h� 1 cad t ac
ii- i c ,i i f h thP (-x(-(,of i cin of the School District
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 1/6/93
AT 8PM - PAGE 3 -
#728 property and SA parcel adjacent included. Goenner
seconded the motion. Motion carried with Ing Roskaft
opposing the motion.
AGENDA ITEM #5. Planning Commission discussion of
Accessory Buildings - Wallace explained what the sub-
committee had agreed upon for accessory buildings. On lot
sizes of one acre or less there would be 10' maximum sidewall
height and 17' maximum peak height. Lot size greater than
one acre there would be a maximum sidewall height of 10' and
maximum peak height of 20'.
Swenson asked if there was any discussion or questions?
Kirmis pointed out an item raised in NAC's memo. NAC
holds the opinion that accessory buildings would more
appropriately be regulated by zoning district rather than lot
size. Kirmis explained. See Report from NAC on Accessory
Buildings dated September 29, 1992.
Black stated he feel this revised accessory building
information discriminates against a particular style of house
architecture. A rambler would be allowed a larger garage.
Goenner said they were trying to base it on footprint of
the house and the amount of space covered by the house. A
rambler may look better with a larger accessory building
where a split style takes up less space.
After much discussion of the accessory buildings and
different ways to approach it, Roskaft recommended that the
committee take more time and see if they can discuss it
further.
Wallace asked for suggestions.
Black stated he doesn't understand why the committee
doesn't want to look at a CUP at least to know what is going
on out there. Secondly, what is the proposed Ordinance meant
to accomplish? Discussion of if tin roof buildings would be
allowed under this Ordinance was had. Black also asked how
was this to allow the storage items under one roof and
hidden? As this was a goal.
Swenson said they were attempting to set up some ground
rules to give the Staff direction to work with.
Black brought up a three tier system. Where they could
have a 750 sq foot garage with no questions and with the
larger buildings strings would be attached with a CUP and the
larger building still would have more strings attached. Then
economics would decide what would be built. The reason Black
said he objects to the current plan is it infringes on
individual rights. Discussion of clean up and not everything
was necessarily put inside a building even if they have one,
was had.
It was decided that the sub -committee will again meet
and try to resolve this accessory building question.
AGENDA ITEM #6. Discussion of MN/Planning Association
and possible membership to same.
rr,�nn�,r ^f af- H hP� i �-, not i n favor of ic)i nine _ Swenson
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1/6/93
AT 8PM - PAGE 4 -
and Wallace felt it would be beneficial to join. MacAlpine
said he felt it would help the Commission. Roskaft has been
a member for years and felt it is worthwhile. Beatty will
get the Commission signed up.
There was no other business.
Roskaft motioned to adjourn the meeting. Kolles
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
adjourned at 9=10PM.
JAMES �KOLLES, SECRETARY
BY: Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary
eb