09-04-96 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
8:00 PM
1. Chair Swenson will call meting to order,
Chair Swenson called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 8:00 PM.
ROLL CALL:
Chair; Carl Swenson, Commissioners; Ing Roskaft, Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner,
Bruce Rask, Richard Nichols, Jim Kolles.
Council Representative: Larry Fournier
Staff: Bob Kirmis, City Planner, Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator,
Jerry Olson, Building Official, Carol A. Olson, Secretary.
2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 1996
Ing Roskaft noted typo on page 7, change don to don't. Also Richard Nichols noted on
page 3 swells should be swales.
Chair Swenson - it should be added that Arleen Nagel and Eugene Goenner returned to
the meeting.
Ing Roskaft motioned to approve Planning Commission minutes with corrections.
Richard Nichols seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion
carried.
3. HEARING - Douglas & Debra jackson,14036 67th Circle NE, Otsego,MN
for owner Thomas W Gilge, Jr. PID#118-029-001010, Legally described as Lot 1,
Block 1, Praught's Addition in See, 33, Twp 121, R23, - Otsego
Request•• .
ow the relocation of a residence
Elaine Beatty noted that the proper posting and publishing had been made.
Mr. Kirmis went over the applicant's request. Building relocation requests are generally
considered a positive approach. A 100 ft setback is required from Mud Lake. There is
concern regarding the condition of the porch the applicant wishes to attach to the move -in
house. Based on fulfillment of the ten (10) conditions listed in NAC report dated August
21,1996, approval is recommended. The two (2) primary issues are the setbacks and
condition of the structure. The Building Official can address the State Building Codes.
Chair Swenson asked Mr. Olson for comments regarding Jackson CUP request.
Mr. Olson read a memo sent to the Planning Commission on August 29, 1996.
The applicant wishes to attach an existing porch to the move -in home. The structure is
partially finished with a wood burning stove and has a post and beam foundation. This
does not meet current state building code. I don't know of a good way to attach it and
make it a part of the other building. I would like to see a permanent perimeter foundation
required on the porch as a condition of the CUP as is required on the move -in home.
Mr. Nichols asked Jerry Olson what would have to be done to bring the porch up to code.
PLANNING COMMISSION ME9TING of September 4,19% cont'd Page 2
Mr. Olson stated that it would be a tough project to have a perimeter foundation, there are
ways to add piers, posts, footings, but our code says perimeter foundation.
Mr. Douglas Jackson stated that the porch has never moved. It is on large green treated
posts with cement footings.
Chair Swenson asked Mr. Kirmis if there was justification for a variance to the setbacks.
Mr. Kirmis stated that it has to be a demonstrated hardship.
Mr. Jackson - Regarding the 90 ft setback, everything will work out better. It will look
better.
Eugene Goenner asked for the major difference between this and a deck.
Mr. Olson - On this type of structure our code does call for a permanent perimeter
foundation. One way to address this is for me to meet with the contractor and he could
show me that it is sufficient, maybe add to, or reinforce the footings. The setback issue
still needs to be addressed.
Ing Roskaft stated that it is a state law for that 100 ft setback.
Chair Swenson explained that those existing uses can stay, but you can't increase a non-
conforming use.
Mr. Kirmis stated that if you remove a structure from a property it can only be
reestablished in conformance with the ordinance. The existing setback is calculated from
the drawing that was submitted and we assume that it accurately illustrates the ordinary
high water mark of Mud Lake. The applicant could request the DNR to verify the
location of that ordinary high water mark.
Chair Swenson opened the hearing up to the public for comments. There were none.
Hearing was closed and brought back to the Commission.
Richard Nichols - there seems to be a potential solution for item one. Mr. Olson can work
that out with the contractor. The main concern is Item two of the request addressing the
one hundred (100) ft setback. I propose we approve the request with the ten (10)
conditions. Let the contractor, applicant and the Building Official work out item One.
Item two, have applicant contact DNR regarding the setback.
Richard Nichols motioned approval of request subject to all ten (10) conditions
listed in NAC report. Ing Roskaft seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chair Swenson - approval is contingent on resolving both conditions. One the Building
Inspector is satisfied with the foundation. Two the current high water mark is located by
the DNR.
Mr. Kirmis - We would like to have the applicant provide documentation to the city of the
location of the ordinary high water mark from the DNR.
Mr. Jackson agreed to that. Elaine Beatty - This will be on the City Council Meeting of
September 23, 1996.
4. HEARING - Scott J Moehlm nn and Gary A Moehlmann of 9060 95th Street
NE, Otsego (Monticello) MN 55362 for PID#118-800-152201. Legally described as
the NW 1/4 of Sec. 15, Twn 121, R24 W, Wright Co,, MN.
Request is as follows: 1. A CUP to allow the relocation of a residence
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 4, 1996 cont'd Page 3
Chair Swenson asked Elaine Beatty if the proper publications and posting had been made.
Elaine Beatty stated that they have been made.
Mr. Kirmis went over CUP request to allow a relocated residence. Mr. Kirmis read the
thirteen (13) conditions highlighting some of the primary issues in NAC's report dated
August 22, 1996. The primary issue being that the structure is fully converted into a
single family dwelling. In no case shall the structure occupy more than one family. A
duplex is not allowed, therefore approval needs to be conditioned upon converting the two
family dwelling into a single family dwelling. The structure is shifted to comply with
applicable setback requirements from Jalger Avenue. Also item three (3)Wright County
Highway Department and the City Engineer recommends Co. Rd. 39 access be obliterated
and a new access be provided from Jalger Avenue. Home must meet height requirements.
No height of the structure has been given. Condition number 13 is regarding the historical
significance of the home. The Heritage Preservation Commission must determine that the
home to be demolished is of no historical significance. The Building Official is present to
provide comment regarding the CUP request.
Chair Swenson stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission representatives have
viewed the house and have verbally indicated that the modifications structurally and
otherwise are too extensive and that destruction of the house would be of no historical
loss.
A written report will be provided by the September 23, 1996 City Council Meeting.
Mr. Olson commented on memo dated August 29, 1996 regarding the Moehlmann CUP
request. As a condition, all electrical and plumbing serving the second kitchen should be
removed. All electrical and heating equipment be reworked to specifications for a single
family home Le. only one gas meter only one electric meter, one furnace. All work is to
be performed by fully licensed and qualified people. Another concern being the two
entrances, basement stairways and dividing walls. From a code stand point this is
permitted, but this could be part of the conditions for your consideration.
Chair Swenson asked Mr. Scott Moehlmann if he wished to add anything.
Scott Moehlmann - agreed to remove one of the kitchens. Disagreed with moving the
driveway at this time. Reason being the added expense at this time and where relocated
driveway would be is the second site for a septic system.
Chair Swenson opened hearing to the public.
Brad Rosnow Neighbor - Concern is how existing home will be removed.
9847 Jalger Ave NE Will it be burned or totally removed.
Scott Moehlmann Answered that it would be totally removed.
Chair Swenson brought hearing back to the Commission.
Mr. Kirmis has spoken with Wayne Fingalson from Wright Co., who indicated that
possibly the County would assist in the relocation of that Co. Rd. access.
Chair Swenson asked Mr. Moehlmann if eliminating access off Co. Rd. 39 would be a
problem.
PLANNING COMMISSION ME9TING of September 4,1996 cont'd Page 4
Scott Moehlmann - There are trees and shrubs there that I would hate to lose. Also the
second site for the septic system has been selected for that spot.
Connie Moehlmann stated that she had talked to Wr. Co. and they are not going to make
us do it. It is strictly for safety. They said nothing about assisting us in moving the
driveway.
Chair Swenson opened the hearing once again to the public for comment. There was
none. Chair Swenson closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission.
Ing Roskaft motioned to grant CUP request subject to the 14 conditions in NAC
report. Chair Swenson asked if that included a report from Heritage Preservation
Commission. Bruce Rask seconded the motion.
Richard Nichols asked if Item three (3) (regarding relocation of driveway) was included in
the motion. Testimony by the applicant was that they put the house where they did
based on having only two areas suitable for a standard septic system. What if there isn't
another site for the house and driveway. If we approve it as written we are saying they
have to pull out the old driveway and put in a new driveway. Are we firmly saying we
want that.
Mr. Kirmis stated that he would like an opinion from the Building Inspector. If you
establish one of the design parameters as a driveway off Jalger, could you locate the home
and provide two drainfield sites.
Chair Swenson questioned if a pump is used maybe going -across the driveway isn't so bad.
Jerry Olson - that isn't the problem. What you are probably wondering is if there are other
septic sites. There are sites that Mr. Moehlmann says would take a mound. I haven't seen
reports. That may be true. Mr. Olson pointed out two or three possible septic sites on
the site plan.
Richard Nichols - As I understand, one of the conditions is that the driveway has to be
moved to Jalger. That entails an extra cost to the applicant. Plus if we do that they may be
forced to have a mound system as a second site which is much more expensive then a
standard system. I am asking the Commission whether or not our intent is to impose
those two conditions, as opposed to leaving it the way it is and go against the wishes of
the Wr. Co. Hwy Dept.
Ing Roskaft - The entrance is grandfathered in. If changing it interferes with the septic
system I don't agree with it.
Bruce Rask - The only reason the county has the right to ask for the change is because
CUP is requested. I agree with Richard. No is the vote unless the county wants to pay for
relocation. I consider it a taking for county safety. I make a motion to amend.
Richard Nichols recommended amending Item three (3) to handle concern.
Mr. Kirmis - The existing driveway access to Co. Rd. 39 is obliterated and a new access
be provided the following conditions are met.
1. County agrees to pay for relocation of the driveway.
2. The second drainfield can be located without need for a mound system.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 4, 1996 cont'd Page 5
Mr. Kirmis will contact Wayne Fingalson so this can be addressed before it comes to the
City Council.
Eugene Goenner motioned to amend as Mr. Kirmis reiterated.
The existing driveway access to Co. Rd. 39 is obliterated and a new access be
provided the following conditions are met:
1. County agrees to pay for relocation of the driveway.
2. The second drainfield can be located without need for a mound system.
Richard Nichols seconded the motion to amend. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chair Swenson - we have a motion to grant CUP request as amended.
Ing Roskaft motioned to approve the CUP request as amended. Bruce Rask
seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
Elaine Beatty - This will be on the September 23, 1996 City Council Meeting.
5. Any other Planning Commission Business.
Larry Fournier stated that City Council is still working on Feedlot Ordinance. Also
reminded everyone that applicants for the diferent commissions are still needed.
Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Bruce Rask seconded. All in favor. Motion
carried.
6. Adjourn
Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
Bruce Rask, Secretary
Recorded by: Carol A. Olson