11-06-96 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 6, 1996
1. Chair Carl Swenson will call meeting 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, Carol A. Olson, Secretary
2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of Oct. 16,1996:
Chair Swenson called for any corrections or additions to the Planning Commission
minutes of October 16, 1996.
Arleen Nagel - on Pg. 3, Mr. Kienitz comments came before Mr. Kirmis'.
Chair Swenson - change closed public hearing to returned public hearing. This is in
two places. (pg 3 & pg 4)
Ing Roskaft motioned to accept the October 16, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes
with corrections. Arleen Nagel seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
3. Discussion Items:
A. Proposed Amendment of Ordinance Re: Antennas
B. Administrative Permit -vs-CUP for several items
Mr. Kirmis went over the draft amendment to the Zoning Ordinance addressing antennas
and regulation of various types of antennas. Note regarding regulations of cellular towers
or antennas, it allows antennas to be located by or on public structures (water towers etc.)
Cities lease that space and no CUP is needed because the water tower has already been
established. Intent is to make that process smooth for the cellular companies and allows
the cities to generate some income from leasing space on the public structure. When no
such public structure is available a CUP would be required Mr. Kirmis read Sec. 33
Antennas -Sec.20-33-1: Purpose. and Sec. 20-33-2. General Standards. A through L. The
public hearing will be grouped with another amendment with the date to be established by
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator.
Chair Swenson asked the commissioners if they had any questions regarding the Draft
Amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 6, 1996 cont'd Page 2
Richard Nichols Had many questions regarding the Draft Amendment. Pg 4
Sec.20-33-2.Item C.- suggested striking " as determined by the
Zoning Administrator." The wording should be professional
structural engineer. There are other places in the ordinance also
where the wording needs to be changed.
Sec.20-33-2.Item D.- what is meant by when applicable, this is
not a clear statement. Basically a good requirement. Recommended
that Item D be written to say "Written authorization for antenna
erection shall be provided by the property owner unless such
owner is the company erecting the tower."
Ing Roskaft Requested that authorization also be notarized.
Richard Nichols - Sec. 20-33-2.Item J. Suggested striking "under two hundred
(200) feet in height." Asked if the FAA had regulations.
Mr. Kirmis - Sec.20-33-2.Item J. would read Antenna support structures shall be
painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact unless otherwise
required by the FAA."
Richard Nichols - Sec.20-33-3. regarding TVRO's, it is the only place were the
metric measuring system is used. Suggested feet be used.
Mr. Kirmis explained that that was from input by satellite companies, but will check on
that.
Ing Roskaft regarding County and City regulations on these towers. Heard
there was a moratorium, would the City be in conflict with a
County Ordinance.
Mr. Kirmis - in terms of regulations, the County can regulate and so can the City, but the
1996 Telecommunication Act basically says that cities have to accommodate these and
that they are a necessary service. The counties approach is for cities to study the matter.
Mr. Kirmis Felt the city needed to get something on the books addressing this.
Chair Swenson directed Mr. Kirmis to check on any areas that may be a problem.
Larry Fournier How long have the cities of St. Paul & Plymouth had their
ordinances.
Mr. Kirmis - The Telecommunications Act was just signed last winter and most of the
ordinances are in response to that. This is basically Plymouth's Ordinance. The only
change being the size of 3 1/2 meter allowance, which is a little larger than Plymouth.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 6, 1996 cont'd Page 3
Richard Nichols Sec.20-33-4.A.l.a. add "professional structural engineer."
Pg. 8, Sec. 20-33-4.B. questioned overall length and repetition.
Would prefer that it be written once with exceptions listed.
Sec.20-33-5.Item 2.e. Where it states "at the discretion of the
city," if for safety it should be a requirement and not at the
discretion of the city.
Chair Swenson stated that Elaine Beatty requested tying this into another amendment.
The motion could say schedule hearing at a time when the other amendment is available.
Eugene Goenner motioned to set hearing date at the city's discretion on the
Antenna Amendment. Ing Roskaft seconded.
Larry Fournier - would the Planning Commission want to review the final draft
before it is sent to public hearing.
Mr. Kirmis recommended making the changes then bring it back to the Planning
Commission than set the hearing date.
Eugene Goenner moved to amend the motion to state that hearing date be set at the
city's discretion after preliminary review by the Planning Commission. Ing Roskaft
seconded. All in favor. Motion carried.
Regarding Item B. Administrative Permit -vs- CUP, Chair Swenson directed Mr. Kirmis
to go over NAC's memorandum dated October 15, 1996.
Mr. Kirmis - The City Council has asked City Staff to compile a list of various requests
which currently require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval, but may more
appropriately be allowed through administrative approval or permit by the Zoning
Administrator. Note Item 5, Building Relocations, is one Item some City Councilmembers
felt could be handled administratively. Keep in mind when considering these changes the
public hearing that goes along with the CUP process. That is notification to property
owners and the ability to have input from adjacent land owners.
Mr. Kirmis went through the Items (1-14) requesting input as to changes to current
regulations by allowing these CUP's to be permitted administratively, if not it would be
noted and have a summary memorandum provided to the City Council.
Item 1. Time extensions for CUP:
Eugene Goenner Concerned with how long extensions are granted for and
how many times are they granted extensions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 6, 1996 cont'd Page 4
Ing Roskaft Concerned with not allowing public input. Planning Commission
should be able to study the requests for CUP. Not have request go
to City Council. The Planning Commission would have final say
regarding CUP requests only not on variances.
Bruce Rask Concerned how permitting administratively may be deemed unfair
by those going through the CUP process spending big money. The
procedure we have now costs money. Need to try to save people
money and time. In favor of Planning Commission being
empowered to handle requests and save a meeting and money.
Larry Fournier At the County level to have the Planning and Zoning handle
similar requests. The public should be allowed to comment on
some issues.
Chair Swenson Uncomfortable with taking away input from public hearings.
Mr. Kirmis stated that he has never seen a city where the planning commission had the
final word on a CUP. The By -Laws of the planning commission are that it is an advisory
body that makes recommendations to the council.
Bruce Rask Asked Mr. Kirmis how many cities allow permitting
administratively. Concerned with the public not having the right to
have a voice.
Planning Commission recommendations are as follows:
Item 1. Change to handle administratively allowing one 60 day extension.
(to control partiality)
Item 2. Change to handle administratively allowing one 60 day extension.
Item 3. No change recommended CUP required.
Bruce Rask - Planning Commission could handle as a body, but not
administratively. If the City Council is willing to give this power to one
person I want the City Council to consider giving it to a committee. I want
it in the minutes so that the council and our facilitator can hear me.
Richard Nichols - we need a legal opinion as to whether that power can
be given. Being an illegal non -conforming use I want it CUP.
Arleen Nagel agreed that if non -conforming, the neighbors should have
some say. Jim Kolles agreed. Chair Swenson stated that the consensus is
not to recommend change.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 6,19% cont'd Page 5
Item 4. Change to handle administratively allowing one 60 day extension.
Item 5. No change recommended CUP required.
Mr. Kirmis explained that Item six, even if handled administratively conditions
would be imposed, but would save developer time. The question to ask
is what is gained from having the City Council approval and the public
hearing process.
Chair Swenson stated that a public hearing to approve the plat has already
been done and the public is already aware.
Richard Nichols stated that the ordinance requirements for parking and
lighting etc. wouldn't change. Doesn't recommend another hearing.
Item 6.Erection of model homes. Change to allow administratively as part
of plat approval.
Item 7. Number of curb cuts. Richard Nichols concerned that favoritism could
be shown here unless ordinance could specify. Bruce Rask would like to
find a way to handle administratively but concerned with protecting the
grid work on collector and arterial streets.
Mr. Kirmis stated that if it is decided to handle administratively conditions
could be added. Findings by the engineer not to impact drainage etc.
No change recommended.
Item 8. Change to handle administratively.
Item 9. Change to handle administratively.
Item 10.Change to handle administratively.
Item I I.Change to handle administratively.
Item 12. Mr. Kirmis summarizing 1 per 40 split is allowed administratively, but
if a transfer of rights is requested there is the CUP process. The idea being
that if conditions are met you wouldn't have to go through the hearing
process. Eugene Goenner concerned that someone would continue to come
in and get around the minor sub -division that way. Concerned with multiple
transfers. Mr. Kirmis read qualifications regarding a minor sub -division.
No change recommended CUP required
Item 13. No change recommended CUP required.
Item 14.Change to handle administratively.
Memorandum dated November 7, 1996 with the Planning Commission's recommendations
to the City Council is attached.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 6, 1996 Page 6
4.Any other Planning Commission Business
There was none
5. Adjourn
Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Richard Nichols seconded. All in favor. Motion
carried.
Bruce Rask, Secretary
Recorded by Carol A. Olson
PC 11696.wpa