Loading...
08-02-95 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 1995 - 8 PM ROLL CALL: Carl Swenson, Chair, Bruce Rask, Ing Roskaft, Mark Wallace, Arleen Nagel, Planning Commission Members, Richard Nichols, Alternate. C-EYC Gu hh0— Excused Absence: Jim Kolles Present: Suzanne Ackerman, Council Liaison, Larry Fournier, Vern Heidner, and Ron Black, City Council, Norman F Freske, Mayor, Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning Administrator. Chair Swenson added Agenda items # 7, other P.C. business and # 8, Adjourn, to the Agenda. I Consideration of P.C_ Minutes of 7/19/95 Bruce Rask Motioned to accept the minutes of July 19, 1995. Seconded by Mark Wallace. All in favor. Motion carried. 3. Hearing to consider an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance concerning Park and Trail Dedication Fees (continued from 7/19/95) Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning Administrator, read a letter from Andy MacArthur, City Attorney, recommended changes to the Ordinance. (see attached). Chair Swenson opened the Hearing to the public. Tom Baillargeon, Park and Rec. Commission Chair, stated that they recommended a $700.00 fee and asked why it was deleted. Darlene Solberg from the Park and Recreation Commission, explained that the wording ($700.00 fee) should have been in the last minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission minutes. Carl Swenson asked Tom Baillargeon to present information to help clarify how the park and trail fees were reached. Tom Baillargeon explained how the commission arrived at the recommended fees. The Park Commission looked at the City's Comp Plan and also compaired park and trails dedication fees with the surrounding communities. Tom also explained how the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation was right in line with other communities and hoped that the Planning Commission would take the recommendations, approve them and pass it on to the Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1995 con'd Page 2 No one else wished to be heard. Chair Swenson closed the Hearing. Elaine Beatty, Clerk, stated that our current ordinance has different park and trail dedication fees for the Rural and Urban Service Areas. In the Rural area the fees are half of what the other areas are. ($175.00 parks, $25.00 trials in Rural area) ($350.00 parks, and $50.00 trails in Urban area) Ing Roskaft motioned to reopen Hearing and continue to August 16, 1995 P.C. Meeting. Mark Wallace seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. After much discussion regarding the Park and Trail Dedication Fees, the Planning Commission recommended the hearing to consider an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance concerning these fees be continued to the August 16, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. 1. Preliminary and final plat of above described property of MRD Commercial Park (10.33 Acres) 2. Rezone the 6.4+ acres property from B-2, Highway Commercial District\R-1 Residential Long Range Urban Service Area to INS, Institutional District Ing Roskaft motioned to continue to Planning Commission Meeting of 8-16-95 at 8PM. Bruce Rask seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mark Wallace motioned to strike "a personal interest" # 17 of the By -Laws work rules. Seconded by Richard Nichols, motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1995 cont'dPage 3 6 Any nrther discussion/Brainstormigg necessary - wlRiichard Richard Nichols recommended this be carried over to the next Planning Commission Meeting of September 6, 1995. 7. Any other Planning Commission Business. There was discussion on Wild and Scenic R-1 Zoned area. Chair, Carl Swenson, asked that anyone owning land in that district to please leave the meeting. Ing Roskaft, Bruce Rask, and Carl Swenson left the room. (See Attatched R-1 Zoned Areas in the Wild and Scenic Overlay District) Mark Wallace motioned to recommend the change in R-1 Zoning to the City Council based on the Sub-Committe report and wants to confirm the 150 feet recommendation of set back before being presented to Council. Richard Nichols seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Elaine Beatty was asked to check on the old Wild and Scenic Ordinance regarding front footage. Carl Swenson returned as Chair. Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Bruce Rask seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Arleen Nagel, Secretary Carol Olson, Recording Secretary City of otsego R-1 Zoned Areas In The Wild and Scenic Overlay Committee Goal - Review the feasibility of expanding lots by decreasing size. For our review the committee looked at the northern corridor of Otsego east to the bridge on Parrish Avenue. We reviewed R-1 zoned areas lying within the Wild and Scenic Overlay. In looking at the pros and cons, we found: Pros - 1. Increased tax base due to more homes to tax. 2. Smaller lots would be easier for homeowner to take care of. 3. Smaller lot size should not effect development. 4. Smaller lot size should not effect an increased cost to the city. Cons - 1. Need to consider the impact on ground water and our envirn- ment. 2. Less wildlife habitat. We found smaller lot size would mean an increase of fifty (50) more taxable lots within the Wild and Scenic Overlay area. For Example: A conservative estimate if all lots developed averaged a tax of $3,000.00 per lot, of which the city's share would be approximately $1,000.00, it's feasible for the city to get $50,000.00 more per year in taxes. Changing all of the R-1 zoned areas would at least double the above projections. Based on the above facts and findings, we recommend a change from the two and one-half (22) acre lots to two (2) acre lots 1 of two hundred (200) feet t> in all the R-1 zoned areas including those lying within the Wild and Scenic Overlay. City of otsego R-1 Zoned Areas In The Wild and Scenic Overlay Committee Goal - Review the feasibility of expanding lots by decreasing size. For our review the committee looked at the northern corridor of Otsego east to the bridge on Parrish Avenue. We reviewed R-1 zoned areas lying within the Wild and Scenic Overlay. In looking at the pros and cons, we found: Pros - 1. Increased tax base due to more homes to tax. 2. Smaller lots would be easier for homeowner to take care of. 3. Smaller lot size should not effect development. 4. Smaller lot size should not effect an increased cost to the city. Cons - 1. Need to consider the impact on ground water and our envirn- ment. 2. Less wildlife habitat. We found smaller lot size would mean an increase of fifty (50) more taxable lots within the Wild and Scenic Overlay area. For Example: A conservative estimate if all lots developed averaged a tax of $3,000.00 per lot, of which the city's share would be approximately $1,000.00, it's feasible for the city to get $50,000.00 more per year in taxes. Changing all of the R-1 zoned areas would at least double the above projections. Based on the above facts and findings, we recommend a change from the two and one-half (2-2) acre lots to two ( 2 ) acre lots acrd- i of two hundred (200) feetC t> in all the R-1 zoned areas including those lying within the Wild and Scenic Overlay.