Loading...
01-05-94 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 1994 AT SPM - PAGE 1 - The Meeting was called to order by Chair Carl Swenson at 8PM. The following Planning Commission Members were present: MARK WALLACE CARL SWENSON DENNIS MC ALPINE ING ROSKAFT GENE GOENNER JIM KOLLES RON BLACK/CR BRUCE RASK The following Staff Members were present: BOB KIRMIS, NAC ANDY MAC ARTHUR, RADZWILL'S OFFICE ELAINE BEATTY, DEPUTY CLERK/ZONING ADM. The following Council Members were present: Norman F Freske, Mayor Larry Fournier, Council Minutes of 12/15/93 were motioned by Ing Roskaft to approve as printed. Mark Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Agenda Item #5: Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Public Recreational Facilities for the New City Hall property at 8899 Nashua to improve and develope the two properties (68.7 acres and 5 acres where the New City Hall is located) 73.7 acres total. This property is in Section 20, Twp 121, Range 23. Bob Kirmis explained the CUP has been required by the City of Otsego. The site plan provided for review differs from the Park and Recs plan. In discussing same with Carl Swenson yesterday, he learned that the wrong map was provided. This is treated as any other CUP. We feel we need to look at the right plan before deciding either for or against. Beatty stated that proper publications have been made and posting done. Swenson asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. No one did. At this point the Hearing was closed and brought back to the P.C. Swenson stated that we do have a plan that was adopted by the Parks and Recs Department. In responding to Mr Kirmis's comment, the intent is to show approximate location on the site plan (sketch plan). Another item has come up. A letter from Andy MacArthur requesting that since the request covers two parcels of land, we should consider it on two CUP's. The rational is to avoid any problems with the mortgage companies. Swenson asked if there is any questions or comments by the Commission? Gene Goenner - Would that have to be two separate applications? Answer was no, it was noticed as two separate pieces of land. Ing Roskaft - In granting the CUP it should be shown on the survey. Two separate parcels should be shown. Carl Swenson - The Parks Commission did not realize that needed to get a separate permit for the ice skating temporary rink. We were told we need to go thru the motions, that's why the information isn't as detailed as it should be. Gene Goenner - Where is the parking? Carl Swenson said right in the center. Ron Black - I'm wondering if there is some difference between the site plans. I don't know if that would have an impact on the recommendation. Assuming that one or the other site plan is approved. Between the two different plans, there are two different CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 1994 AT Bpm - PAGE 2 - site plan is approved. Between the two different plans, there are two different locations and two different sizes. If the plan is approved, does that mean that is where the shelter goes? Carl Swenson - The fact that there are two plans is very unfortunate. The first plan wasn't adopted. The second plan was approved by the Parks and Recs. and brought to the Council. They think it was approved. Ron Black - There was no discussions on layout of the park, to my recollection. Assuming this is adopted, does this mean where the shelter is shown, that's where it would be, or, do we have to go thru another Hearing process to move the shelter? Carl Swenson - We have identified this as a sketch plan. What we had hoped was showing what types of things would be there. It would enable us to fill in the details as the park developes Ron Black - If this or any other sketch is approved, does that mean we are locked into this, or do we have to come back for a hearing? Carl Swenson - I would hope we wouldn't . The fact that we are making it part of the CUP is a problem. Bob Kirmis - In reaction to whether an amendment is necessary, any substantial change in the structure of the project would mean an amendment. He felt a shelter wouldn't be substantial. If the uses are established and approved, I don't think an amendment process would be necessary, unless there was a proposed change. We are talking about a CUP with a plan attached to it. One issue is does it make a difference and if it does, how locked in are we? Carl Swenson - Said he felt we would not be absolutely locked in. When we started out, we thought we could show the types of development and if then if it was a gross change, we could do something, but if it were a gross change, we could get an amendment. I think it is in general what the Parks Commission has in mind. Ron Black - That is the basic question. Ing Roskaft - I think if there is a good deal of variation of what is proposed, later on it would require an amendment to the CUP. The CUP is tied with definite conditions. I'm thinking buildings, if you want to move it, etc. We may not have the same Council or the same board. Without having something to show responsibility, we need to know that future personnel needs to be responsible and amend the CUP if this varies a great deal. Where does this skating rink go? Carl Swenson - East of the steel building out there. Ing Roskaft - Is that skating rink on the City Hall property? Carl Swenson - Yes it is. That is the reason we need to have both parcels. Kirmis - I would like to address how much detail is necessary. Outdoor recreation, it's a permitted use if these conditions are met. Specific impacts and details need to be examined. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 1994 AT 8PM - PAGE 3 - It is the same as with Tom thumb. There is an issue of is there enough parking, are the ballfields properly dimensioned and is it to the City's advantage and everybody's advantage. Ing Roskaft - If we made a condition that if any variation of 10% or more were present, an amendment to the CUP would have to be gotten, would that work? Bob Kirmis - Felt it was hard to define. Ing Roskaft - I approve of the CUP. I'm not worried about today, but tomorrow. The same people will not be here forever. Ron Black - How is the feasibility to address a staging process where the Parks Commission is not requesting to build either one of these plans tomorrow? What they are looking for is a conceptual approval and at the next stage of development, say the picnic shelter and woods, for discussion, can that be staged as the entire park is developed? Bob Kirmis - I would foresee the City preparing a rather detailed plan. If it is approved, at a Public Hearing, the neighbors would be aware of the plan. Only if the plan were substantially changed would it need an amendment to the CUP. It's good planning to have an ultimate development plan. Ron Black - It is your recommendation that this plan be scaled out? Kirmis said Yes, this NAC would review. Just the same as if these were activities for a school, etc. Carl Swenson - Asked if the plan were approved? Mark Wallace - Felt it was approved. It wasn't scaled, because that didn't have the information to work with yet. The thing that triggered this was, we were attempting to get skating set up for this year. I thought a CUP for the Recreation Use of this land would include all recreation use. Ron Black - If we are looking at adding a CUP to the park, I think the only thing missing is to be able to complete the review of this sketch plan. In order to make an adequate review, this is not enough plan. The Planning Commission needs the same detail as any other applicant would have to have. Carl Swenson - The Council approved a Park in this area I thought that was all it took. It's not quite like a gas station. At this stage of the game, it is all we need. Ron Black - Does the skating rink need to be shown if it is temporary? Ing Roskaft - What's to stop us in making a CUP on a skating rink and the other part would be the other CUP on the other property. Ron Black - One thought would be for the Commission to adopt a recreation for the 5 Acre parcel this building sets on and continue the Hearing on the remainder. Carl Swenson - Felt we have a consensus and we could get the other information together. Mark Wallace motioned to approve the CUP for the 5 Acres of land that includes the skating rink and other park and recreation uses, based on comments from the Attorney and including the site plan with the proper dimensions etc. Ing Roskaft seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING OCMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 1994 AT 8PM - PAGE 4 - Gene Goenner - Is this Hearing going to be continued on the second parcel.? Swenson said yes. Gene Goenner - Brought up the ballfields so close to the parking lot. Swenson said it has been looked at and they have all the information from professionals. Ron Black - Cars parked in parking lots of ball stadiums, have an assumption of risk. Dennis McAlpine - In going with the skating rink, how does the City stand if someone is seriously injured on City property? What if it turns into a hangout? Is the City protected for anything that might take place? Andy MacArthur - Normal occurrences could be handled by the City's liability. Ron Black - If what is being designed is done in a safe manner and you have the proper supervision, it shouldn't be a problem. Gene Goenner motioned to continue the CUP Hearing on the second parcel of land for the City for Park and Recs Commission until the additional information is available for the date of February 16, 1994 at 8PM. Roskaft seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mark Wallace - Does it have to have dimensions or topographical information? He was told it was on a topographical map. Agenda Item #3: Continuation of the Wild and Scenic Ordinance Hearing from 12/15/93. Andy MacArthur, City Attorney made the presentation. He said that unfortunately it is not in final form yet. I and Bob Kirmis have gone thru it. The comments from DNR (Sandy Fecht) are mostly technical. I have a letter where I have gone thru a bunch of her comments. I talked to Sandy Fecht the other day. In a general sense, the Ordinance complies with the Rule. The process is that one year ago we submitted an Ordinance for your approval. It had an 85% impervious surface. We entered into a compromise agreement with DNR, that the area West of 101, there will be no impervious surface requirements, but be handled by the best water management practices. The City Engineer will implement it. The problem of the set impervious surface area is 25% by DNR Rule. Under City or DNR, you wouldn't be able to get any variance on any of those parcels. What the Rule and Ordinance allows us to do in that area, as long as the City Engineer submits the Rules and best management practices have been complied with, it should be able to be built. The DNR can deny it and you have an option to go to challenge it. The City of Otsego will establish an Ordinance and it will comply with the standards, etc. West of Highway #101, 13% slope and best water management practices will apply. Some definitions that were given to us are different than Sandy Fecht's letter. All throughout this process, there has been one person at DNR that has not been in agreement with this. Andy MacArthur explained further. The rule will not be in effect until the end of January. Carl Swenson - Asked if anyone wished to be heard? Larry Fournier - Did Sandy Fecht say why she had to wait so long? Andy MacArthur - I submitted it prior to 30 days. Her position is it was prior to 30 days. CITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 1994 AT 8PM - PAGE 5 - Norman F Freske, Mayor - whatever happens, when we get done with this Ordinance, we should personally write a letter from the City to Sandy Fecht. She has personally cost the people of the City many dollars. Andy MacArthur - One of the problems is Mr Swenson from the DNR and other people moved to other positions. Swenson closed the Hearing as there were no other comments. Ing Roskaft - Have our drafts been changed? Andy MacArthur - We are going to make the changes, but we need to talk to her about the definition changes. A lot of the disagreement is what is being printed. Her position is that the Attorney General's office and the DNR office wants these items in the Ordinance. Carl Swenson - Asked if there were any other comments. Ing Roskaft Motioned to make a recommendation next Planning Commission Meeting. Bruce Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Larry Fournier - By Tabling the action, will we still meet all the deadlines? Andy MacArthur - There is no deadline, the Rule won't be in effect until the end of month. Agenda Item #4: Any other Planning Commission Business Carl Swenson said congratulations on the new appointments to the Planning Commission. Mark Wallace motioned to adjourn. Dennis McAlpine seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. MARK WALLACE, SECRETARY Minutes By: Elaine Beatty, Recording Secretary