11-03-93 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
11/3/93 AT SPM - PAGE 1 -
Chair Swenson called the meeting to order at 8PM. The following Planning
Commission Members were present.
CARL SWENSON BRUCE RASK DENNIS MC ALPINE
ARLEEN NAGEL/ALT ING ROSKAFT RON BLACK/CR
The following Planning Commission Members were absent:
GENE GOENNER JIM KOLLES MARK WALLACE
The following staff was present:
BOB KIRMIS ELAINE BEATTY
The following Council Members were present:
LARRY FOURNIER, COUNCIL NORMAN F FRESKE, MAYOR
AGENDA ITEM #2: Consideration of Minutes of 10/20/93
Roskaft motioned to approve the minutes as printed. Nagel seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously. (Bruce Rask's name will be added as being
present at this meeting).
_ AGENDA ITEM #3: Discussion of a possible amendment to the Ordinance
re: application submission requirements - Set possible Hearing.
Kirmis explained the application submission requirements amendment to
the ordinance. Large scale copies would be required (19 copies). He explained why
it is necessary.
Where the City Council review is required and.the Planning Commission is
optional, the Ordinance requirement would be (11 copies), but additional is
required if the Planning Commission needs to look at it. Landfill and excavation is
a City Council review, not the Planning Commission, only the City Council would
receive the copies. Four (4) copies need to be submitted for Staff and additional
copies if the Planning Commission and Council review is needed. This was brought
up by the Planning Commission and City Council to have a look at an amendment.
Swenson asked if there were any questions.
Roskaft - Asked what does it cost to make additional copies? Kirmis replied it is
reasonable. There were no other comments.
Swenson said if the Commission is generally in favor, we should schedule a
hearing.
Roskaft motioned to schedule a Hearing for December 1, 1993 at SPM.
McAlpine seconded the motion Motion carried unanimously,
AGENDA ITEM #4: Discussion and clarification on size requirements re:
Temporary dwelling units (sent back from Council for clarification).
Kirmis explained that the Planning Commission had recommended approval
to the zoning ordinance where they would allow a temporary dwelling unit on lots
that had been destroyed by natural disaster. 320 sq ft was recommended in the
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
11-3-93 at 8PM - PAGE 2 -
amendment. The Council felt 320 sq ft was too limiting and they asked the
Planning Commission to re-examine the size and return a clarification to the
Council. Kirmis had a memo dated October 27, 1993 and he explained the square
footage and three alternatives from Page two of his report.
Arleen Nagel asked if we had said the temporary dwelling could remain for
six months? Answer was 90 days. She said she felt that option #1 should be ok
because of the short time it was allowed and it is in case of a disaster.
Swenson - said he felt we should not put a limit on size.
Mayor Freske said that the guy is hurting and he should be able to have a
motor home.
Ron Black - Asked if it is wise to leave a no -review as an alternative. If it's
not a healthy environment it might be a way of it getting out of hand.
Swenson - said the Building Inspector will look at it. It seems for 90 days we
can leave it a little loose.
Roden - If sewer hookup is required you are getting some inspection and
some protection.
Kirmis - Said that alternate #3 was suggested by the Building Inspector.
There was more discussion.
Rask - Said something that small wouldn't have a sewer hookup. Maybe we
should set a minimum limit.
Black - Said Roden has an excellent thought, by requiring hookup to the
septic it should take care of legitimate concerns.
Swenson - If an emergency happened to me, we would want to use our RV.
We are talking an emergency.
Rask - Motioned to adopt Alternate #2, Page 2 of NAC's Report of October
27,1993. Roskaft seconded the motion.
Black said he felt it didn't make any difference if it were 4 sq ft. We have
controls built into the ordinance. We are talking about a situation where someone
has to come in and get a permit so this wouldn't go on indefinitely. I think Option
#1 is a better approach and somewhere down the road if there is a real problem, the
ordinance can be amended. Why make it a hardship at this time?
Swenson - Said we like to make rules and this is a situation where we need to
change the rules for an emergency. For some people, 220 sq ft is an impossibility.
What if the house was under- insured? It is not unusual in Otsego. It isn't always
the insurance co that will pick this up. What purpose does the sq ft requirement
serve?
Roskaft - Worried about this entire ordinance amendment because of
children being involved. Much more discussion was had.
CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
11/3/93 AT 8PM - PAGE 3 -
McAlpine - Said it is just an emergency. I would like to help them out the
best way we can.
Rask voted for the motion. Nagel. Roskaft, McAlpine and Swenson voted
against the motion. Motion failed.
Rask motioned to adopt Alternate #1. Nagel seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
This will be brought up at the Council Meeting of November 22, 1993.
AGENDA ITEM #5: Any other Planning Commission Business. Elaine Beatty will
add Bruce Rask to the list of member attending the 10/20/92 PC Meeting.
Rask - Stated he will be gone from the 18TH of November - the 6th of
December, 1993.
Floyd Roden - Sketch Plan for Walesch Estates (78TH and O'Dean). He had
exhibit B sketch plan. Outlot A, Lot 4 is where the existing buildings are. He asked
if the cul-de-sac would be accepted. Lot 7 on exhibit B is not 150' road frontage.
Kirmis questioned if exhibit C has the road frontage. Kirmis said it does.
Swenson asked what is the question?
Roden - Asked if he should proceed with the cul-de-sac?
Kirmis - Went over his report of September 29, 1993 and some of the problems.
Rask - Said he is in favor of the cul-de-sac.
Swenson - Said he felt there are places where cul-de-sac's are suitable and
unsuitable in some places. He asked if everyone felt that exhibit C is preferable to
exhibit B?
McAlpine said he is concerned with cul-de-sacs.
Swenson - Said it would appear that the consensus is for exhibit C. Any
other comments? Lots on C are all one acre plus. We are asking for just an
opinion.
Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Minutes by: Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary
th