02-21-96 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
8 P
OTSEGO CITY HALL
FEBRUARY 21, 1996
Roll Call: Carl Swenson, Ing Roskaft, Richard Nichols, Jim Kolles, Arleen Nagel,
Eugene Goenner, Councilmember Larry Fournier. (Bruce Rask for Item 4)
Staff: Bob Kirmis, Assistant City Planner; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning
Administrator; Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk.
2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 1996,
Richard Nichols noted a correction on Page 10 under PC Comments: 100 foot width at
the setback.
Richard Nichols motioned to approve the February 7, 1996 Planning Commission
Minutes with the noted correction. Seconded by Arleen Nagel. All in favor.
Motion carried.
Chair Swenson noted for the record that Planning Commission Member Bruce Rask is not
in the room for the reason of Conflict of Interest for Item 3. He will join the Commission
Meeting after the Hearing for Item 3.
Chair Swenson opened the Public Hearing and explained the process.
Elaine Beatty stated all the proper publishing, noticing and mailings were completed.
Bob Kirmis explained the PUD (Planned Unit Development).
PUD grants to the applicant, deviation from the Ordinance. It differs from a variance
it may not be a physical hardship for use.
There are two (2) types of PUDs
1. PUD Conditional Use Permit - deals with perfonnance standards
2. PUD Zoning - applies when use is an issue
Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1996, cont'd. Page 2.
Mr. Kirmis reported that the developer, Mr. Kincannon, has requested a 16 lot subdivision
over 19.3 acres establishing 1 acre lots.
He has requested a PUD/CUP to accommodate the following:
1. Lot widths less than the 150 foot requirement imposed in the R-3
Zoning District.
2. A cul-de-sac which exceeds the maximum 500 foot length requirement
Part of the recommendation is for O'Brian Avenue be constructed as Urban Section Street
with curbing and sod all front yards.
The applicant requested the PUD/CUP for flexibility of lot width and cul-de-sac length
from the Ordinance.
Mr. Kirmis stated should the City find the use of PUD to be appropriate, NAC would
recommend approval of the Heritage Plains Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions
outlined in the NAC Report dated February 13, 1996. (attached)
Chair Swenson opened for Public Comment.
Rick Wynn Spoke against the project.
9175 Ochoa Ave Concern with concentration of
sewage and water in this size of
area. Concern how long water
supply is suitable for this many units.
A lot of houses located down the hill
from this site and concern with water
runoff. Doesn't want to see that
many homes located in that size of an
area.
Curt Ottemess Asked about the entrances for the
13909 95th Street service road and if it will be black -
topped.
Todd McLouth, P.E. for Project responded the number of entrances on service road will
remain the same. Service road will be black -topped down to the end of the project.
Planning Commission Minutes of February 21, 1996, cont'd. Page 3.
Don Tholkes Spoke against the project.
9313 Ochoa Avenue Concern with the drainage.
Mr. McLouth responded that the grading plan shows the swale plan and how the water
will be collected in the back yards. The outflow will be in the Southeast corner and
overflow will be provided to that corner.
Laura Wynn
9175 Ochoa Ave
Spoke against the project.
What if drainage plan fails. Not
in favor of any more houses.
Todd McLouth pointed that if this plat was to be subdivided when water and sewer comes
through (this plat won't) there would be twice as many lots. The swale will be designed to
capture all the runoff. This is a ditch type swale and will drain dry. He realizes there are
drainage issues by Ochoa Avenue and the City Engineer will address those issues. The
drainage calculations showed that row crops there now create more runoff than
sod and grass.
Laura Wynn brought up the flooding problems that Hall's District experienced. She also
asked if there would be other meetings.
Chair Swenson explained that when that development was approved, there was no
requirement for drainage plans and engineering. He explained the process and that the
Planning Commission does a recommendation to the City Council. The Council has final
approval.
Chair Swenson closed the Public Hearing
Arleen Nagel asked what Watershed District this property is located in.
Elaine Beatty replied the North Mississippi.
CM Fournier asked if the Engineer has commented on the cul-de-sac.
Bob Kirmis replied the City Engineer did attend the initial staff meeting, and since this
property is landlocked, the cul-de-sac is the only alternative.
Eugene Goenner noted the street is Urban designed and at which point does the City
require this design?
Mr. Kirmis stated the developer has the option of design according to the ordinance.
Richard Nichols asked what is the design margin on the retention pond.
Todd McLouth, Developer's Engineer, said the retention basin is designed for the 100 year
flood.
Ing Roskaft asked for the measurement of the pond and what type of protection for
children.
Planning Commission Meeting of February 21, 1996, cont'd. Page 4.
Mr. McLouth said it is about 40 to 50 feet wide, over 300 feet long, 5 to 6 feet deep with
4 to 1 side slopes, which meet City Standards.
Richard Nichols questioned the range of lot widths used in this plat, ranging from 95 to
151 feet with an average lot width being 131 feet. Are all lots under the required 150
feet? He also asked about subdividing the lots in the future.
Mr. Kirmis replied the width of 131 feet being the average and lots can't be divided.
Mr. McLouth noted that three (3) lots meet the 150 foot width. (Lots 9, 15, 16).
Arleen asked how will this plat be treated when water and sewer comes through.
Mr. Kirmis said it will be treated as one lot.
CM Fournier stated the issues of drainage are to be addressed by the City Engineer. It is
his job to assure that there is no additional run-off after the project is completed, than
what was previously there. A drainage plan will be submitted to achieve those goals.
Elaine Beatty explained that in a staff meeting, the City Engineer said that whole area has
to be done, culverts will have to be done this year. She also noted the developers pay
money into the Watershed District Fund.
Arleen Nagel asked when the retention pond and swale are put in, will they be left there?
Chair Swenson said drainage can not be changed.
Eugene Goenner asked if the PUD is the right route to go. He went on to state that if a
project doesn't fit perfectly, a PUD is used, instead of down -sizing or changing the project
to make it fit. Mr. Goenner feels the City is using PUDs too often. He has reservations
about this project.
Richard Nichols wanted to know which items are driving the PUD; is it the combination of
the cul-de-sac and lot widths.
Ing Roskaft briefly went over the history of development in the City, approved by former
Town Board Supervisors and the County. He stated this 19 acres is landlocked and views
the cul-de-sac the only route to go. He went on to say that through the PUD, it allows the
longer cul-de-sac and the narrower lot widths.
Chair Swenson said what is being done here is for in exchange for a longer cul-de-sac and
narrower lots, they are going to put in curb and gutter, pave the whole service road and
sod the front yards. The trade-off is upgrading the quality.
Eugene Goenner doesn't feel these two items should be the principal reasons for a PUD.
Richard Nichols was concerned if this PUD is approved, is a precedent being set. He
noted a sketch plat the Planning Commission reviewed informally had lot width issues.
Chair Swenson replied that each PUD is handled on its own merits and may be handled the
same or not the same.
Richard Nichols said that based on this discussion, he feels a PUD would be acceptable
but cautioned that PUD requests be kept down. He feels the major factor is drainage, but
will be designed for the 100 Year Flood.
Mr. Kirmis gave some background for this PUD application. At the initial staff meeting
with the developer, staff had initially recommended meeting the 150 foot lot requirement
and indicated the cul-de-sac length could be justified by variance. Staff informed the
developer that a PUD is a procedure anyone can apply for to allow flexibility from the
Planning Commission Meeting of February 21, 1996, cont'd. Page 5.
Ordinance. Staff is not saying whether the PUD is right or wrong, but have suggested
performance standards to justify its approval.
CM Fournier asked what is the City looking for in Condition #2 of his Report. Mr. Kirmis
said the idea is for more consistency in lot width.
Ing Roskaft motioned the PUD/CUP be approved subject to the conditions listed in
the February 13, 1996 NAC Report, and subject to the City Engineer's review and
comments to Drainage Plans to ensure that proper drainage will be met for this plat.
Seconded by Jim Kolles. All in favor. Motion carried.
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: Eugene Goenner asked if the Final Plat only goes before the City Council and
not the Planning Commission. Staff informed him that is correct.
Elaine Beatty noted this will be on the March 11, 1996, City Council Agenda, at 6:30 PM.
Bruce Rask joined the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission reviewed the video The Role and Responsibility of the Planning
Commissioner.
Eugene Goenner expressed concern with the Conflict of Interest in having the member
leave the room. He feels that leaving the room is going too far and that as a member of
the public, they have the right to stay and represent the applicant. He wanted to know if
anyone felt the same way. He was concerned with limiting their free speech ability.
Ing Roskaft agreed. He feels that if the Planning Commission Member is the applicant,
he/she should have the right to testify as a witness and then step out for the discussion
period and vote.
Chair Swenson said being a Planning Commission Member can be a handicap. The reason
the By -Laws were adopted was in response to a recommendation from a Seminar that was
attended by the members. He also noted By-laws can be changed.
Richard Nichols agreed with Mr. Goenner and Mr. Roskaft, but looks at this slightly
different and supports the higher standards. He asked where is the line drawn? He is
concerned with the spirit of the Law. The Planning Commission is different from the
Council. The Council are the ones held accountable. To be a Planning Commission
Planning Commission Meeting of February 21, 1996, cont'd. Page 6.
Member, they have to give up something. The way the rules are written, the Members are
not disallowed from making a case in writing.
Chair Swenson asked the Commission if the By-laws should be reviewed.
Bruce Rask said this is the second time this has happened to him, the other one was with
the Wild and Scenic Ordinance. Neither one affected him financially. He agrees with Mr.
Nichols and wants his integrity and reputation to stay intact. The only thing is he feels he
could be a expert witness at times.
CM Fournier said he supports the higher standards and to keep the current By-laws.
CM Heidner also stated he supports and higher standards. Both Councilmembers said
they would be willing to review new proposals.
Eugene Goenner offered to put together something for the next meeting. The Planning
Commission Members agreed with this.
Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Bruce Rask. All in favor. Motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM.
Bruce Rask, Secre
Recorded by: Judy Hudson