02-03-93 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 2/3/93
AT 8PM - PAGE 1 -
The following Planning Commission Members were present:
ING ROSKAFT MARK WALLACE CARL SWENSON
BRUCE RASK GENE GOENNER JIM KOLLES
RON BLACK/CR
The following Staff was present:
Bob Kirmis Elaine Beatty
The following Council Members were present:
Larry Fournier Norman F Freske, Mayor
At 8PM there was a call to order by Carl Swenson, Chair.
Roskaft motioned to approve the minutes of the Planning
Commission of 1-6-93. Rask seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
HEARING Initiated by Thomas D Juergens, DUM for a CUP to
build a Vet. Clinic on PID #118-500-352100 in Sec 35, Twp
121, R23, Unplatted Land Zoned A-1 for Anoka Equine
Veterinary Services.
Chair Swenson explained to the group how the Hearing
would be conducted. He asked Beatty if the proper
publications, posting and mailings had been completed.
Beatty answered, yes. At this point he turned the meeting
over to Bob Kirmis from NAC, who explained NAC's Report of
1/22/93 for the Vet. Clinic.
The business history is that Dr Juergens came before the
Town Board and obtained approval for a vet. clinic on the
property. He never proceeded on to the County for their
approval so there are no essential grandfather rights.
The Land Use designation for this area is highway or
neighborhood commercial. NAC feels it does meet the goals of
the Land Use Plan.
See attached recommendations 1 - 20 from NAC's Report of
22 January 1993 enclosed.
#2. Has been responded to.
#10. The applicant wishes to respond to that.
#1S. We have received comment from Dave Montebello,
Wright Co Asst. Hwy Engr., and he had no
recommendations or problems with the request.
RON WEST - Represented Dr Tom Jeurgens and he said the
building is a concrete block building.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE ASKED FOR:
GREG KNOLL= His concern;was there any dogs being housed in
the building? He was told there would be only horses.
KIM VOLLER= Works with Dr Jeurgens. She stated that this
facility is a Equine Facility strictly.
NORMAN F_ FRESKE, MAYOR OF OTSEGO: Read a letter from Gilbert
M Darkenwald in favor of this request for a Vet. Clinic.
DAVIDSON: Questioned if they would have boarding of horses?
Kim Voller stated that some horses may stay for a few weeks.
Davidson -- Stated he Would like to see the building closer to
#101 instead of #37.
Chair Swenson asked for any other comments. None were
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 2/3/93
AT SPM - PAGE 2 -
had. At this point the meeting was returned to the P.C.
RON WEST - Went over NAC's Report
Page 2, #1 - Screening. They propose to use the natural
screening that is there. He showed pictures of the natural
screening between the farm house and the neighbors. He said
the setback is considerable distance. Kirmis said the intent
of the Ordinance is to insure there is screening. They would
like to work within the natural screening said West.
#2 - Has been taken care of.
#3 - Tom Juergens is in agreement that he wants the house
removed when 101 is completed. We can work with it said
West.
#4 - It is coming down anyway.
#S - Has been completed with new plat plan.
#6 - Identified semi area turn -around.
#7 - Designated area for loading has been done.
#8 - Site plan has been taken care of
#9 - Medical waste is disposed of in biological
containers, and PCA approved disposed of.
#10 -It is difficult when loading and unloading horses
that are frightened and in pain and the blacktop is
slippery. The horses can slip and injuries occur. It
is not for the benefit of the horses. They can flip
over. In Kentucky, they would have a couple of areas of
crushed rock or gravel. They would like the unloading
areas gravel.
#11 - Continuous concrete curbs with blacktop parking
for Vet. parking and there is an area for curbs
next to the building. They would like the class 5
or crushed rock for driveway and loading area.
Swenson asked if this would meet the ordinance. Kirmis said
it would.
Rask asked where the tar would be and they looked at a
revised site plan. Where the cars park, it need to be paved.
The curb and pavement and where it would go was discussed.
12 - Conformed to 30' radius.
13 - Conformed to lighting. Lights located on the
building.
14 - Signage will conform.
15 - Wright County Highway Department has OK'd
16 - Conformed to
17 - Revised plan has been approved by the Engineer and
fencing provided to the drainfield and future
drainfield.
18 - Waterline provided and well tested and copies of
test available.
19 --- They are willing to work with the City.
20 - OK
The only problem is gravel and blacktop and curbs.
Roskaft asked if the clinic is supervised all night long?
AI)—,:'; r [f hnrses need .-are thru the night there= wi11 be
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 2/3/93
AT 8PM - PAGE 3 -
someone there, but, not constantly. It was asked if they are
planning for sprinkler systems? Answer was no. The building
is all concrete and is closed off from the front office.
They are putting in a security system, fire detection system,
but not sprinklers. Roskaft stated he would like full size
site plans. He asked if the rest of the site is fenced? No
they have asked for a building permit for the 60+ acres.
They do not plan to pasture horses. They feel the Ag land
will be rented as it has been in the past. Roskaft was
concerned with weeds. They assured everyone that Tom
Juergens is the last person that would want weeds.
Wallace said that on #11 - on continuous curb we have
the Ordinance because we want our City to be a first class
City. I don't feel that is something that should be allowed
to be pulled out. He felt that the Ordinances should be
followed and they should be willing to look professional.
Rask asked if we could go with natural berm in the
gravel area?
Goenner said the concrete curbs in the unloading area
could be a hazard.
Kirmis said it should be looked at by the City Engineer
to insure no negative impact.
There are two stalls by the old farmhouse that are
driveway parking area for the house.
Roskaft asked when the clinic is proposed to start?
Answer was within 60 days.
The house may be rented out to a visiting vet and
be used for file storage, etc. Black stated the house
should not stay after the C.O. is issued. When Scharber's
plat went in there was a request to leave the farm building,
but they were not allowed to.
West stated that they would be willing to put up a
surety bond to insure that the house gets moved.
Wallace asked if they would guarantee it be used as
storage or a house? Kirmis said we can add it as a
condition.
Wallace motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit
based on the recommendations from NAC and taking in all the
gravel loading and unloading and to insure that there is
continuous perimeter curb provided around the entire parking
area and provide that the existing farm house is not to be
used for a living area until it is removed from the site and
with the 20 conditions of NAC's Report of January 22, 1993,
with item #3, "the anticipated update of #101" reference be
deleted. Goenner seconded the motion_
Goenner said maybe it can be worked out with the
Engineer and Planner that maybe the two stalls for house
parking are not needed.
Black suggested that Item #3 delete the reference to the
Hwy #101. ( See Motion)
W( --tet said Lf the: kA , -,-e the fa) -m house Foi- `3torage can it
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 2/3/93
AT 8PM - PAGE 4 - (Note= This is corrected page to replace)
be an accessory building? Answer was no.
Motion carried unanimously_
This Vet. Clinic Conditional Use Permit will be brought up at
the Council Meeting of 2/22/93 at 7:30.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
CHAIRMAN:
Rask nominated Carl Swenson as Chair. Wallace Motioned to
Close the nominations. Motion carried unanimously.
CARL SWENSON was elected CHAIRMAN
VICE CHAIR:
Goenner nominated Rask, Wallace nominated Roskaft, Goenner
motioned to close the nomination. Motion carried
unanimously.
ING ROSKAFT was elected VICE CHAIRMAN
SECRETARY:
Wallace nominated Goenner, Goenner nominated Wallace, Goenner
Motioned to close the nomination. Motion carried
unanimously.
MARK WALLACE was elected SECRETARY
Consider initiating a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
and Public Hearing concerning the mobile home sub -division
requirements ( set date for same) .
Kirmis explained that this item was brought up by the
Building Inspector, Jerry Olson. He read from Ordinance Page
#108, Item C, and said that this does not provide for
perimeter foundations. Stick built, single family residences
with foundation meets building code.
Black explained that the manufactured home regulations
do not call for foundations or minimum width. The Building
Inspector recommends that the City delete this reference so
all-esidential building would be minimum of 24' wide with
Perimeter foundations and minimum square footage.
Freske said if we make them have a foundation on a 14'
wide and you were to build a stick built home, the
foundations would not meet regulations for a stick built
home.
Roskaft motioned to set March 3, 1993 as a Hearing date
to initiate a Ordinance Text Amendment and Public Hearing
concerning the mobile home sub -division requirements_
Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion on how to review the Wright County Water
Mana=ement Comcrehensive Plan was had.
Discussion as to Larry Koshak, City Engr and Franklin
Deh Montice'_:o Twp. Supervisor being asked to help with
th i 5 gas had.
=ournier =elt professional input would be good and money
we— =cent.
,�_r3/ �3
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 2/5/93
AT 8PM - PAGE 5 -
It was agreed that Swenson should contact Koshak and Dehn.
Black said he feels the ultimate assignment is the
Planning Commission developing a water management plan for
the City of Otsego. The next assignment after this will be
wetlands. The Council is looking to have the Planning
Commission getting on top of some of these issues.
Goenner said the intent is for Otsego to be better
managers over the water management plan. He addressed
inspections and man hours required to handle.
Black felt those items should be specifically addressed.
If it is a good idea and merits attention, it should be put
in a plan.
Swenson said these things can be prioritized.
Roskaft suggested that we do more studying and the
Commission needs more time to go over the material.
Swenson will check with Koshak and Dehn.
Kirmis said that Rudy Thibodeau of Minn -E -Golf has
petitioned for an extension for one year for his CUP, PUD and
Variance. He felt a good faith effort was put forth. The
reason for this extension is to provide the City to re -look
at the proposal. NAC doesn't see any changes and recommends
we allow his one year extension.
Roskaft motioned to approve the extra one year extension
on Minn -E -Golf for Rudy Thibodeau for one year from the date
of expiration which was April 27, 1993. So this is now
extended to April 27, 1994. Wallace seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously. This will be on the 2/8/93
Council Meeting Agenda.
Swenson brought up accessory buildings and that the
committee has a recommendation. He said that since this
affects the Ordinance, the sub -committee will bring the
recommendation to the commission. If the commission is in
agreement, it will be given to Kirmis to look at and put it
in Ordinance form. Wallace explained that they had looked at
many ordinances. He talked about the advantages and
disadvantages and the changes that were made. Discussion was
had. (See attached accessory Building information). This
item will be on the Council Agenda of 2/22/93.
Goenner motioned to send this to the City Council for
their recommendations and opinions on the proposed Ordinance
Amendment. Kolles seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
On motion the meeting adjourned.
A
Ii':fvvL -f
JAMES R gyLLES, SECRETARY
By: Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary
ER
WE AS A COMMITTEE HAVE MADE OUR DECISION BASED ON EXAMIN(gG
THE FOLLOWING CITIES. TOWNSHIP, AND COUNTIES:
CORCORAN
LAKEVILLE
LINO LAKES
MEDINA
ELK RIVER
FRANKFORT TOWNSHIP
DOUGLAS COUNTY
GOODHUE COUNTY
IN A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE ACCESSORY BUILDING CODES THAT WE
HAVE STUDIED. WE FIND THAT OUR PROPOSSED ORDINANCE IS MORE
GENEROUS AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF BUILDING IS CONCERNED.
SINCE OUR JOB IS PLANNING. THAT IS HOW WE APPROACHED THE
ISSUE.
WE GAVE A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO "SIZE OF LOT" VS.
"ZONING DISTRICT". AND CONCLUDED THAT BECAUSE OF THE VAST
DIFFERENT IN LOT SIZES FROM DISTRICT TO DISTRICT. AN ACROSS
THE BOARD DESIGNATION PROVIDES A BETTER BASIS ON WHICH TO
PLAN OUR CITY ON. i
ADVANTAGES: ,
IT IS EASILY REGULATED.
ALL RESIDENTS ARE TREATED EQUALLY
DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS REGARDING ACCEPTABLE ACCESSORY
BUILDING SIZES MAY BE AVOIDED
THIS PLAN TAKES INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE FUTURE LOT SIZES
THAT MAY OBTAIN SEWER AND WATER
IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT VARIABLE ISSUES SUCH AS
PRINCIPLE BUILDING SIZES
DISADVANTAGES:
A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR AN OVERSIZED ACCESSORY
BUILDING. SUCH VARIANCES WOULD ONLY BE GRANTED UPON THE
DEMONSTRATION OF HARDSHIP (NOT READILY APPROVED).
FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
On lot sizes greater than 1.5 acres.
Size.
The accessory building size shall not exceed the one and
one half (1 1/2) the total square footage of land cover of
the principal structure's living area. If the principal
structure has an attached garage, it is not included in the
size estimation nor subtracted from the total allowed
accessory building square footage. If an attached garage is
added to an existing primary structure, 750 sq. ft. is the
maximum size allowed.
Appearance:
The outer appearance of the accessory building must be
visually compatible with the principal structure. This
includes not only the style of material on the side walls,
but also the roof of the building as well. Corrugated or
galvanized metal will not be allowed on the exterior of the
building.
Height:
The maximum side wall height allowed will be 10 ft.
The maximum peak height allowed will be 20 ft.
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
On lot sizes of 1.5 acres or less.
Size:
The accessory building size shall not exceed the total
square footage of land cover of the principal structure's
living area. If the principal structure has an attached
garage, it is not included in the size estimation nor
subtracted from the total allowed accessory building square
footage. If an attached garage is added to an existing
primary structure. 750 sq. ft. is the maximum size allowed.
Appearance:
The outer appearance of the accessory building must be
visually compatible with the principal structure. This
includes not only the style of material on the side walls,
but also the roof of the building as well. Corrugated or
galvanized metal will not be allowed on the exterior of the
building.
Height:
The maximum side wall height allowed will be 10 ft.
The maximum peak height allowed will be 16 ft.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of
the requested conditional use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Screening, in conformance with Section 20-16-7 of the Zoning
Ordinance is provided along the south and west boundaries of
the adjacent single family residence.
2. Structure heights of the site's two accessory buildings south
of the proposed veterinary clinic are specified. Per the
Ordinance, such heights may not exceed that of the site's
principal structure.
3. The converted farmhouse is removed from the subject site by 1
November 1995 (anticipated date of completion for Highway 101
upgrade).
4. The existing pole building lying west of the converted
farmhouse is removed from the subject site prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit for the proposed veterinary
clinic.
5. The site plan is revised to illustrate nine off-street parking
spaces, one of which is devoted to use by the handicapped.
6. The site plan is modified to identify all horse trailer and
service vehicular loading areas to ensure efficient site
circulation.
7. As required by Ordinance, a designated loading space is
provided for the proposed use. The location and dimensions of
the loading space should be identified on the site plan.
S. The site plan is revised to identify exterior trash handling
areas. Trash handling equipment must be screened from eye -
level view from neighboring uses and public rights-of-way.
9. All medical wastes are disposed of in a manner approved by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
10. The clinic's parking area is surfaced with asphalt, concrete
cobblestone or paving bricks.
11. A continuous perimeter curb is provided around the entire
clinic parking lot.
12. As recommended by the City Engineer, the proposed County Road
37 access point is provided a 30 foot turning radius.
2
13. The site plan is revised to illustrate all exterior lighting
locations. Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street
parking area sign or other structure must be arranged to
deflect light away from any adjoining residential use or
public street.
14. If signage is to be provided upon the subject site, the size,
type and location should be specified and subject to City
approval.
15. Recommendations of the Minnesota Department of Transportation
and Wright County Highway Department relating to adjacent
roadway improvements are adhered to (i.e, right-of-way
dedication, etc.). This item should be subject to comment by
the City Engineer.
16. The site survey is modified to identify all ponding areas.
The City Engineer should provide comment as to the need to
provide easement over the said ponds.
17. Per the recommendation of the City Engineer, perimeter fencing
is provided around the proposed drainfield.
18. The site plan is revised to identify the new underground water
line location.
19. The applicant post a security in an amount determined
appropriate by the Zoning Administrator to ensure compliance
with the conditions of CUP approval (i.e., farmhouse/pole
building removal).
20. Comments from other City Staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Business History. The applicant has held the subject property
since 1986. In November of 1986, the Otsego Town Board approved
the applicant's request to establish a veterinary business upon the
subject site. While the proposed business received Town Board
approval, it was never brought before the County for review or
approval. In 1988 the applicant remodeled the existing farmhouse
on the site into a veterinary office and has conducted his business
on the property since. It should be recognized that because the
subject business was established without County approval, it is
technically considered an illegally established use without
grandfather rights. Also to be noted, however, is that the
proposed veterinary clinic is considered an acceptable use within
A-1 Zoning Districts via a conditional use permit.
3