Loading...
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