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