04-07-93 PCAPRIL 30, 1993
NOTE: THIS IS A REVISED MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. PLEASE REPLACE
YOUR PREVIOUS MINUTES WITH THIS ONE.
THANKS,
ELAINE
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL
7, 1993 AT 8PM - PAGE 1 -
Chair Swenson called the meeting to order at 8PM. Members
present were as follows:
ING ROSKAFT CARL SWENSON JIM KOLLES
DENNIS MC ALPINE GENE GOENNER MARK WALLACE
BRUCE RASK RON BLACK/CR
Staff present was as follows:
BOB KIRMIS JOHN HARWOOD ELAINE BEATTY
The minutes of March 17, 1993 were approved on motion by
Gene Goenner, seconded by Mark Wallace. Unanimously approved
with the change on Page #3, last paragraph change not to
"in".
2. Continuation of the Hearing for Robert and Mary
Hosford for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a relocated
single family residence to lie upon an existing lot of record
within the City. (Relocate a stick built home upon Lot 5,
Block 1, Riverside Evergreens Second Addition which currently
lies vacant). Note= Mr Hosford called and said he cannot
find a home.
Swenson explained. The Hosford's were not present.
Hearing was closed.
Roskaft motioned to deny the request. Rask seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for the City of
Otsego to allow mobiles to meet stick built building codes.
Planning Commission needs to re -look at it per City Council.
Kirmis explained that the Council wanted the Staff to
investigate if there were any provisions to allow these
mobile homes to continue. Kirmis explained NAC's memo on
this issue. Kirmis explained that there is no current County
Ordinance for single wides in the County.
Roskaft was called by Larry Fournier and he wanted
Roskaft to express that he wanted to see a period of time
before this ordinance was inacted.
Rask asked what that meant?
Roskaft explained that it meant the effective date would
be moved ahead a period of time.
Rask asked what the justification was?
Black stated he doesn't know why the City should make it
legal and then illegal again. These mobile home subdivisions
are no different than any other plats. There is no special
dedication in the plats to allow any special use. They are
the same as any other subdivision such as Country Ridge,
Antelope Park, etc.
Roskaft said he had been concerned with that and had
researched it. June 6, 1967 was the first time we had a
zoning ordinance in the county. January 1, 1973 was the
first mention of mobile homes. Roskaft explained more about
how the Planning and Zoning in the County worked.
Pearl Adams said her papers say mobile home subdivision.
Beatty explained that there were no Zoned mobile home
suhdivisions, htrt they were allowed to place mobiles in them.
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL
7, 1993 AT 8PM - PAGE 2 -
Guy Rowe - spoke about mobile homes and how they related
to subdivisions.
Marty Carrol - 5tated that a year ago in January they
ir mobile
looked at replacing theIn At that lthoseme
981 we calledthecounty
things were not in the zoning.
and was told that e we e peasafar tas the lY el2mooveehang, HUD
Guy Rowe
requires 10" overhang.
Kirmis - Explained that the City can be more
restrictive, but not less restrictive.
Goenner - Stated that we do have one area in the City
where you can poi mobileeWina mthis obile hamedParkiminatorY and
Marty Carr
scr
predjudical.
Black - It is the same rules for every homeowner.
Pearl Adams - Explained nshe ohasa1,000ouqua e
mobile home androf feet of
has a perm
Swenson stated that last CommissTheyMsentnthWs back for
recommended to the Council on this.
more information. (SEE FILE #PC- 41493-DOC)
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL
7, 1993 AT 8PM - PAGE 3 - (SEE FILE #PC -21093)
Roskaft motioned that the Amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance regarding mobile home subdivisions be adopted as
was recommended to the City Council previously. Wallace
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
4. PC look at the draft amendment which would allow
each home occupation or home extended business to have one
identification business sign not exceeding two (2) square
feet in area or five ( 5) feet in height.
Kirmis explained the Zoning Ordinance currently has a
contradiction in it. It states that signs for home extended
businesses are prohibited. We were directed to prepare a
draft amendment. In addition to the home extended business
issue, it was suggested that a sign for home occupations also
be addressed. It would allow both to have a two square foot
sign ( 2 sq ft) not to exceed five foot ( 5' ) in height.
Swenson asked if there were any questions.
Goenner - Stated he didn't remember the five foot
height.
Bob Kirmis added the height regulations which can be
discussed. Whatever the Commission feels.
Roskaft motioned adoption of amendment regulations for
signs for home extended businesses and home occupations as
recommended. Wallace Seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Roskaft motioned a hearing be arranged for May 5, 1993
at 8PM for the Planning Commission on the amendment to the
zoning ordinance pertaining to home extended businesses and
home occupations. Goenner seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously_
5. ANY OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS - JOHN
HARWOOD, ENGR WILL BE HERE TO DISCUSS WRIGHT CO WATER MGM
PLAN.
John Harwood explained that when the initial memo was
written he was unaware that the plan had gone thru the public
hearing process and was adopted. He had commented for review
information on the parts of documents he had seen. Every
five years the County plan will be reviewed. There is now an
adopted plan. Wright County asked us to submit information
on our plan. That is all that is required at this time and
Elaine answered that correctly.
Section I and II= Of Wright County's Plan has been
reviewed by the Commission.
Section I=
Is background of Wright County and is well done. It is
generic. The inventory has information the City of Otsego
can use. We should assemble some of that information for
things pertaining to Otsego.
Section II= Issues
I don't see any problems for Otsego. It is a general
description of problems that exist.
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL
7, 1993 AT 8PM - PAGE 4 -
Section III=
This contains Wright County objectives and goals and
implementation of the Wright County Plan and should not
necessarily be included in Otsego's plan. We would have
our own goals and objectives.
Swenson asked if there was any questions from the
members.
Harwood did not see any particular problems in adopting
Sections I and II of Wright Co Water Mgm. Plan. We would not
adopt Section III of Wright County Plan - We would have
totally different objectives then they do. We have land use
plan/subdivision ordinance that set our rules. Our plan may
well contain some verbiage that would add to the existing
ordinances. Our plan would generally recognize that water
quality issues which are under the authority of the State of
Minnesota, Corp of Engrs, etc. Otsego should recognize these
plans and authority much as we have done with Floodplain, and
Wild and Scenic overlays. There is other agency jurisdiction,
we should recognize those regulations and our plan must
conform to them. We need to look at the regulations and make
sure that the City complies with the law.
The new laws requiring a NPDES Permit for non point
source pollution is an example of what the City and Planning
Commission must be aware of. Development and construction
that disturb land must have a permit. This will apply to
major developments, including any of normal
Commercial/Industrial size, but not to single family home.
We must, during City review, be assured the parcel meets
permit requirements. There is increasing concern and
regulation of long term runoff, directly from
Commercial/Industrial sites on water quality. In general,
new developments and long term runoff will be meeting the new
concern of "Best Management Practices" contained in non point
source runoff permits.
We as a City need a comprehensive drainage plan. This
plan is in part, in the process of being done. Some work has
been done as far as Lefebvres watershed and Halls water
drainage project. The plan must be compared.
As far as solid waste, Wright County or EPA handles
that. No new laws or ordinances would be needed.
Swenson asked about the relationship between Otsego and
the County, how much interaction?
The County plan talks about controlling lot size as part
of the water management plan. Otsego has lot size authority,
not the County, right now. Technically, the County could
assume some lot size authority under water management
planning, but I don't see that immediately happening. The
County Plan encourages better practices, and advocates
funding for municipal treatment plants, etc. Septic tanks
are mentioned a lot.. The County Plan for septic tanks says
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL
7, 1993 AT 8PM - PAGE 5 -
that the best way is to let the lending agencies enforce on-
site systems compliance.
Wallace - We discussed a couple of concerns. Ag
chemicals, Assessment no. 8, a person putting fertilizer on
their lawn in a residential area has more chemical per square
foot then an Ag area. Why is that not looked into?
Harwood - The County and State have flagged runoff from
farm lots as a significant issue that we as a City would
leave with the County and State. They mentioned it in the
County Plan as a goal.
Rask - We were concerned with flowing wells. Can that
be addressed in the City?
Harwood - Yes, we could. Other Cities have. The City
has no ordinance right now and probably will not in the near
future have such an Ordinance.
Wallace - Why wouldn't the City want to?
Harwood - You don't want to create a lot of laws that
take a lot of time to enforce, until and unless it
becomes a City priority.
Rask - Explained that he suggested we require a closed-
loop system.
Harwood - The City can adopt ground water use
requirements if they wish. State agencies have jurisdiction
over ground water. We should focus on water quality
management issues that address the over-all water quality
philosophy. These can be within the Ordinances that we now
have.
Black - In the plan then, wouldn't it be politically a
good idea to identify goals and express an interest in
participating in the process in the future? Wouldn't it be a
good idea to state that surface water quality improvement is
a goal of the City much like it is with the County.
Harwood - Very much so. The overview and identification
of issues, specific goals, water issues, etc. Guidelines
belong there.
McAlpine - Minnesota Water wells are governed by the MN
Dept of Heath. As of May 1S, they have a set of rules as far
as flowing wells and prohibits lead packers in wells. They
are aware of it. SLbs of lead goes in each well that is
drilled until May 15TH, after that no lead is allowed. What
about all those that have been drilled up until then? The
rules and regulations on flowing wells are also changing.
Black - Keep in mind that if we start thinking along the
lines of more ordinances, it means more money. Good ideas
all cost money. The plan that would be adopted for the City
is enforced by the City.
Harwood - Whatever projects the P.C. reviews, and acts
on, they should comply with the State, County and Federal
laws. We as a Commission must know what rules apply and
how they must be met by development proposals.
Tf rtites app) i_t wi1l be Otseao's rul;_s. not
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL
7, 1993 AT 8PM - PAGE 6 -
Wright County's.
Swenson - Thanked Mr Harwood for coming and said his
comments are valuable. He suggested that this be put on the
agenda to look at recommendations in the March memo related
to responding to the County and that the Deputy Clerk could
write the required County letter. There is no special
timetable now for water plan completion.
Swenson asked if there was any other business.
Roskaft motioned to adjourn the meeting. Wallace
seconded the motion_ Motion carried unanimously.
r
) A4
MARK WALLACE, SECRETA
Minutes by Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary