Loading...
08-18-93 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 8-18-93 AT 8PM - PAGE 1 - Chair Swenson called the meeting to order at 8PM. The following Planning Commission Members were present= ING ROSKAFT MARK WALLACE CARL SWENSON ARLEEN NAGEL/ALT RON BLACK/CR BRUCE RASK DENNIS MC ALPINE GENE GOENNER STAFF PRESENT WAS AS FOLLOWS: BOB KIRMIS, NAC ELAINE BEATTY, DEPUTY CLERK/ZONING ADM Agenda #2= Rask motioned approval of the minutes of 8/4/93 as written. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried with Roskaft abstaining because he came a little late and missed out on discussion. Agenda #3: HEARING= For Mary Dare Baufield, 13871 Lawndale Lane, Dayton, Mn 55327 #118-500-174300 in Sec 17, Twp 121, Range 23, Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial outdoor recreational use within A-1 Zoning District. Property is located on State Hwy 101 and Co Rd #39. This Hearing is continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of 7/21/93. Wally Klus - Appeared as a Real Estate Agent for Mary Dare Baufield and thanked the Commission for continuing this hearing. He explained that they have looked at this before. They have read the report from NAC's Office. They want this for an Interium CUP as they do in other Cities. He explained that when the highway is done, he feels the City probably doesn't want a driving range for it's presentation. He explained the site plan. The well is in now and other work has been done since Wright Co approved a CUP. In 1992 MN/Dot told Ms Dare she could use the intersection until the highway is completed. Mr Klus had a copy of the #101 project map. He said we would like to do what the highway has said, let us use what we have now. The building proposed to be to the East is over 80'away. Paragraph #5 of Wright Co Zoning Ordinance in the old CUP should be implemented within six months. Ms Dare had evidence of her activities. I'm not sure litigation is what is needed and I'm not proposing that will happen. We don't think the driving range is the highest and best use of the property. We disagree in making it a permanent use. We want to look at it for a short period of time. They show it 350' back. Paragraph 06 wants parking in. We question hard surface with concrete curbs. Will it be taken out later? I'm not sure that it is timely. Paragraph #2 proposed the well. The well is in. The sewage treatment will be handled by a satellite building. in the Analysis of Issues= We agree with the parking. Access to the property (Mr Klus had a letter from Mn/DOT dated March CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 8/18/93 AT 8PM - PAGE 2 - 30th. He stated that a permanent access seems somewhat questionable. Mark Benson, Pre -Design Engineer from Mn/DOT was copied and he said the driving range doesn't impact the property for now. We are here asking for Ms Dare to be able to use her property. The drainage is natural. Curb and gutter and parking (hard surface) are questioned. On a use such as this, it is not long term highest and best use for the property. Mary Dare - I've been trying to get this going since 1989. In the interim while we were growing grass and when everything was right, I found out that we were a City and everything was cancelled. We had pros that wanted to make this a high-class training center. After looking at the requirements from the Planners, it was impossible to make money. I've been around here for a long time and almost everybody is anxious to get out there and hit balls. I have a well, grass and everything is ready to go and you all get a free bucket of balls. (The Hearing was closed at this point and brought back to the Commission). Kirmis touched on the issues raised by Klus. The County stated that all conditions of approval must be finished within one year. Mr Klus referred to a device for an interim use. This qualifies as a CUP (Kirmis explained). The nature of the use you don't set time limitations on the use. We have treated this development as any other development in the community as any other request would be treated. Kirmis explained what we have asked for. We feel it is to everybody's advantage to locate this where it doesn't have to be removed if the State Hwy #101 road comes in. We have recommended approval if the 17 conditions are met. Swenson - Anyone on the Commission have any comments? Wallace - Point #6 of NAC's Report. Everything else we have approved had to have paved parking lots. We have recommended the parking be relocated on the site plan so it wouldn't interfere with the #101 upgrade. Roskaft - is this a final detailed plan? Have the Tee's been constructed? Answer, NO. Kirmis - There is a lot of site design concerns that would need to be addressed. What are the differences of the County's conditions and what NAC has recommended? The Conditions from the Co. were five. Kirmis - I am not sure the Hwy 101 construction project was discussed when this was brought up. Klus said it was. Rask - Being this is AG, why would we encourage impervious surfaces exempting farming? Kirmis - Any Commercial operation would have to have a hard surface parking lot. The site has to comply with the DNR/PCA, etc. Beatty -- Noted that Terry Humbert of Mn/DOT had reviewed NAC's report and he agrees with it as written. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 8/18/93 AT 8PM - PAGE 3 - Some discussion was had on Zoning and Commercial use. Rask - If it is an alleged use in an Ag area and they are not planning to change the land, why do you need to change it and have a hard surface lot? Mary Dare Baufield - Can I say something? We could hit balls tomorrow. You put down mats or use boards and hit balls. When it wears out you move them back and keep changing. We don't have to move a shovel full of dirt there. Roskaft - Exhibit H: You show size and tee details. Kirmis - That is a typical standard design for tees. It is attached as a reference. Swenson - Did the engineer have a comment on drainage? Kirmis said there was no comment from the engineer . Roskaft - Noted that he thought the land was fairly level. Swenson- We have to have a drainage plan because this is in the Wild and Scenic River Area. Mr Klus - I think when you are this distance from the river and as long as you are not contributing to that, I don't think you have to build that. Swenson - They will park cars there and that is a source of pollution. Rask - Does grading and drainage have to be just the parking lot or site? Black - You have to stick closely to the Ordinance and it is Wild and Scenic and I don't believe the City can wave any of the Ordinances. Rask - I'm confused, The land is not changing. Black -There is a change. Swenson - I feel we need information from the City Engineer. Black - The report states that it has to meet Ordinances. Mary Dare - If you have to have this drainage would we have to dig up that grass or what? Swenson - The intent is that any water running off is restricted so pollutants are not allowed to run into the river. Water should be ponded. Wallace - No 8 of NAC's recommendations. Grading and drainage must be submitted. Wallace motioned to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a commercial outdoor recreational use within A-1 Zoning District. With the basis that all the recommended conditions of NAC's Report of August 19, 1993 are met. Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. This will be on 8/23/93 Council Agenda. Wally Klus - Exhibit H is referenced information and doesn't need to be followed? In #5 it shows we have to follow H. Are we locked into that? Kirmis - You don't have to take that literally. It is a generally accepted design for the golf driving range. Klus - We need sorne flexibility. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 8/18/93 AT 8PM - PAGE 4 - AGENDA ITEM #4.4 TAKEN FIRST: Consider Hearings for the following Zoning Ordinance Revisions: 4.4. One per Forty Density: Kirmis - explained NAC's Report of August 13, 1993. The clustering provision limits leapfrog urbanization. This is discouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. It is not smart economically. Kirmis explained services and more demands for Urban type areas. He went over the report in detail. The question was, "How many one per forty remain?" The potential for approximately 43 one per 40 splits could occur in the City. Rask - Feels we are not preserving farm land if we allow them to put the house anywhere. Goenner - Out of the 43 possible splits, how many are more than 80A parcels? Not many large parcels left was the answer. As far a public service, only roads apply. It would be a benefit to snowplowing. It could be a time savor for the City also. I would rather see clusters of more than two parcels. Swenson - Agreed it protects farm land (clustering). I see no reason to limit clustering. We already know there are no 8 or 900 acre parcels. Nagel - Agrees with clustering, but how much greater is the ground water pollution? McAlpine - Thought that there are people out there that will take advantage of this. More discussion was had on one per 40's. Nagel - was worried about pollution and no sewer or water potential. Wallace - Said the farms use so much chemicals that the house's shouldn't be a problem. Goenner - Agreed chemicals from farms are probably a bigger concern. Goenner motioned to accept NAC's Report that one per 40 be accepted, from non -road frontage to road frontage (transferred) and eliminate the clustering (delete). Rask seconded the motion. Swenson - wanted clarification. I thought the whole purpose was protection of farm land. Deed restrict non -road frontage 40 to another road frontage 40. Goenner withdrew his motion. Rask withdrew his second. Black felt it didn't protect farm land. Kirmis - Maybe reference the draft Amendment and say provided Item #4 is deleted. Acceptance of the Amendment with deletion of #4 with reference to contiguous 40 acres and reference to quarter quarter section. More discussion was had. Roskaft - Felt we should require the transfer of property rights to be put where there are trees or not CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 8/18/93 AT SPM - PAGE 5 - ag land. Wallace - Felt we are taking away property rights. Wallace motioned to accept the Ordinance with changes, delete #4 and add contiguous 40 acres and quarter quarter section. Goenner seconded the motion. Motion carried with Wallace, Goenner, Nagel and Swenson For, and Roskaft. Rask and McAlpine opposed. Agenda Item #4.3. Accessory Buildings Kirmis explained P9 2 of the draft amendment. 6. a. Currently 750 proposed is 1,000 sq ft, so it complies with attached accessory building. b. You are allowed this size providing these conditions are met. d. Currently 1,500 sq ft, change to 2,000 sq ft. 7. a. Same b. same C. Changed to Page 4. Conditions Kirmis read A -G. Swenson asked why had. 2,000 sq ft, was 1,500 sq ft. imposed on administrative approvals. we need seven B. Some discussion was Wallace - questioned the whole draft. Wallace motioned to accept the ordinance draft amendment, but change 1,000 to 750 and 2,000 to 1,500. Motion failed for lack of a second. Roskaft motioned to accept the Ordinance draft amendment with one change, "Home occupations" be changed to "Home Extended Business". Rask seconded the motion. Goenner - Page 5G: Item G, matching color and add "material". Rask seconded the amendment. All agreed. Wallace -Page 4, Item B. Depreciation of property values, how is that determined? Kirmis explained. The amendment passed and was added to the original motion. Rask and Wallace were opposed, Roskaft, Goenner, Swenson, Nagel and McAlpine was for. Motion carried Agenda Item 4.2. Temporary Dwelling Units= Kirmis - explained. Pg 2-E. New material added listing of conditions to be upheld. Kirmis read. It was processed administratively subject to building inspectors approval. Wallace motioned to recommend approval of the draft Ordinance as written. Roskaft seconded the motion Goenner - felt the setbacks being met would be a problem. Kirmis - felt it should meet setbacks to protect neighbors. Black - agreed. Rask - Felt #5, 25'high was a lot. Roskaft said it is to allow bunk beds. Also there are no regulations to make them move it. (See: #14, Page 4) CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF 8/18/93 AT 8PM - PAGE 6 - Nagel - Maybe add #14, Pg 4: "The said temporary dwelling permit is non-renewable". All agreed. Goenner - Motioned #5, Pg 2, amend to read 15' not 25' high. Roskaft seconded the motion. All agreed. Agenda Item 4.1. Petroleum and Chemical Storage/Dispersing Facilities. Kirmis explained. Farm operations are exempt, etc. City Permits would be in addition to PCA permits. Purpose is to insure public safety and provide the City with information as to where they are. A Home Extended Business was identified that had a rather large tank. Discussion was had. Roskaft motioned to continue this for clarification from Council and for further study. It will be on the next Planning Commission Meeting of 9/15/93. All agreed_ Motion carried. Goenner motioned to have Hearings. Elaine Beatty will pick dates and notice the Hearings for the following: 1. Temporary Dwelling Units 2. Accessory Buildings 3. One per forty Dennis McAlpine seconded the motion. All agreed. #5 - Sub -committee to work with EDA on the third industrial site. Wallace who is the Chairman, reported to the Planning Commission and handed out copies of the minutes of the meeting. "Site D" was discussed. Previously "Site C" had been recommended. (See minutes) The Planning Commission Sub -Committee and the EDA Advisory Commission unanimously agreed to recommend "Site D" which is the NE Corner of #37 and O'Dean. Black - Asked if "Site D" was on one or both sides of O'Dean? ( NE Corner only) . McAlpine - What about home owners in that area, they were upset about a large pole building being put into that area. Roskaft - Motioned to approve "Site D" as the third industrial site . Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried with Goenner opposing. Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Rask seconded. All agreed. MARK WALLACE SECRETARY MINUTES: By Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary eb