12-18-96 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
of December 18, 1996
1. Chair Swenson will call meeting to order:
Chair Swenson call the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 8:00 PM.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair, Carl Swenson, Commissioners, Ing Roskaft, Arleen Nagel,
Bruce Rask, Richard Nichols, Eugene Goenner, Jim Kolles
Staff: Bob Kirmis, City Planner, Jerry Olson, Building Official, Elaine Beatty, City
Clerk/Zoning Administrator, Carol A. Olson, Secretary
Council Representative, Larry Fournier
Councilmembers; Vern Heidner, Suzanne Ackerman
Councilmembers Elect; Virginia Wendel, Mark Berning
2. Consideration of the Minutes of December 4,_1996 P.C. Meeting:
Chair Swenson - The minutes of December 4, 1996 will be ready for review and approval
at the January 2, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting.
3. Continued Hearing for Barthel Brothers Dairy for site inspection on 12/4/96:
James, Paul, and Joseph Barthel, Owners- 11364 80th Street NE, Otsego, MN. in
conjunction with Chris Bulow from Bulow, Inc. Developer for PID# 118-800-244200,
11,244200,261200,134201,241200,241300,242 106 for a CUP
transfer of property building rights of one per forty acre subdivisions (Parcels to be
deed restricted from any further development until allowed to be rezoned) to -a
clustered 7 -lot development of PID#118-800-134201, LOCATED IN Sec, 13, Twp
121, R 24. Property is S of Co. Rd. #39 and E of Co. Rd. #19.
Request is as follows• A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the following:
1. CLIP to allow transfer of property rights of one per fomL
subdivision to allow a 7 -lot clustered subdivision.
2. Preliminary Plat Approval
Chair Swenson - The Planning Commission continued the hearing to allow for a site
inspection on Saturday December 14, 1996. All the commissioners and Council
Representative Larry Fournier attended the inspection.
Chair Swenson - any comments resulting from the site inspection:
Bruce Rask Concerns: Appearance of spot development
Setting a precedent
No limit on number of transfers
Prefers 80th St. to Co.Rd.39 site
Richard Nichols Concerns: Prefers 80th St. to Co.Rd.39 site
less impact.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 1996 cont'd Page 2
Arlene Nagel Concerns: Prefers 80th St. to Co.Rd.39 site
Ing Roskaft Concerns: Safety regarding proposed cul-de-sac length
Had no problem with Co.Rd.39 site
Felt land chosen to be least productive
Jim Kolles Concerns: Safety pulling out of development on Co.Rd.39
Prefers 80th St. to Co.Rd.39 site
Chair Swenson opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Stewart Turnquist Heard a lot of reasons why there should not be spot
11020 NE 95th St. development and this looks like spot development. I did
develop Riverwood, but when I bought that land it was set
for 15 homes. I saw it as a good thing making greater sense
to the area and bring money into the city. When I look at
this and keeping with preserving agriculture I see future
complaints. After Chris Bulow is gone with the money, I'm
left with neighbors complaining about a farming operation.
Dick Paffel - We were told there would be a holding pond to catch run
11722 95th St. off.. I don't see any pond, except drainage that goes directly
to the creek. That will raise cain with driveway. It has
overflowed about four times, not every year but this will
add to the driveway problem. Also concerned with the
safety pulling out on Co. Rd. 39. Felt Bruce Rask, Richard
Nichols and Jim Kolles covered his concerns.
Chris Bulow - The Barthel Bro's farmed for a number of years and lived in the area their
whole life. Site was picked because of the least impact and least productive property.
Additional length of the cul-de-sac is 90 feet to the end or 60 feet to the center.
Land now farmed will go back to wetlands. Safety concerns have been addressed by Wr.
Co. An easement for future road will be kept. We met with staff, asked what can we do
and came up with this plan. It meets every Ordinance, except for cul-de-sac length,
which was a staff recommendation. We drafted a set of plans originally with the 500 ft
cul-de-sac. Staff looked at it and didn't like lay out. We lengthened the cul-de-sac and
resubmitted the plans. We are trying to work within the guidelines and staff
recommendations. We feel that Co. Rd. 39 is the right place for this development.
Sewer would potentially be available sooner on Co.Rd.39 then on 80th St.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 1996 cont'd Page 3
Paul Kolles - Lives near Dick Paffel. He doesn't farm.
12124 NE 95th St. Are you saying if there were eight farmers in that area
would it be an issue, but because it only effects one to two
farms it's not. My brother lives north of site, what if his
children want to farm are you going to take that away from
them. You need to get things in priority.
Glen Kolles Mr. Bulow will be looking at the river. I will be looking at
NE 95th St. the development. Let them have it on 80th Street.
Chris Bulow - In regard to the farming expansion in this area, I don't think it should be up
to any neighbor to decide. It should be up to the City Ordinances they should be allowed
to expand within the city's guidelines, whether it be doubling a herd or splitting off land. If
they are doing something controversial let the city handle it.
Chair Swenson - If no one else wishes to be heard I will close the Public Hearing and
bring the discussion back to the Planning Commission. We have had discussion and it
would be nice to have a motion on the table, however if you want to discuss some more
that's fine.
Bruce Rask stated that some interesting points were brought up. Number one, by the
Barthels deed restricting all their property, they will not be allowed to expand anymore.
Then it should be on 80th St. Chris Bulow said on Co. Rd.39 this will only effect two
farmers. He made the statement that these seven houses are justifiable because sewer is
needed in this area. That is not a reason to justify this housing development in my
opinion. What we have in the ordinance now is to preserve and maintain septic systems
not keep polluting to justify a sewer system. Still feels it is a bad location.
Richard Nichols - Agreed with what Bruce Rask. There are two items listed in the
ordinance that have latitude for discussion. Having to do with the impact on agriculture
and the impact on adjacent properties. Development is coming, it is a fact of life.
I do think it is set up because the property is hilly and not as easy to farm, but I don't think
it is right for us to set up the potential of that kind of an impact.
The project on paper looks good and I don't have a problem with the cul-de-sac, but I
don't think the development is in the right place.
Eugene Goenner - They pretty much meet all the conditions of the ordinance and follow
the criteria to be able to develop, but then I hear about the impact on the neighbors and it
gives me some concerns. At the same time the city has declared that agricultural livestock
is now a legal non -conformity in the city. The City is giving us mixed messages on how to
handle situations like this. It is a difficult issue for me to decide what is best.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 1996 cont'd Page 4
Larry Fournier asked Larry Koshak if it is possible to do a drainage plan and not effect the
wetlands.
Larry Koshak - This was addressed in a letter dated December 16, 1996. The plan did not
have drainage or stormwater management plan. We do require ponding, there was none.
It is inadequate on that part. The impact on the downstream end has not been indicated to
us by the developers engineer. That is one issue that remains unagreed upon at this time.
I have not recommended approval at this time.
Larry Fournier - Do you think these drainage issues can be resolved.
Larry Koshak - They can be resolved with some major revisions to the plan.
Chair Swenson - The lots that exist near Co.Rd.39 on the north side are in the Long
Range Urban Service Area. The seven being proposed are in Agricultural zoning. I feel
this makes a significant difference.
Eugene Goenner - Regarding the letter from Larry Koshak, I have a question for the
developer. Under item number five regarding the drain tile, will there be any attempt to
maintain private easements over that tile.
Chris Bulow - As far as I am aware I'm not positive there is a draintile, there is a ditch
there that runs down to the wetlands. I haven't been informed if there is any drain tile
there. I don't believe there is any in that particular area. The average lots are closer to 2
acres, the majority are over two acre There are two one acre lots. We wanted to do five
acre lots. The zoning and the ordinance requires us not to make a lot bigger than two
acres.
Richard Nichols motioned to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Jim Kolles
seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Chair Swenson asked if Richard wished to add to the motion some rational
for making the motion to deny since it appears that the developer has met the specifics of
the ordinance.
Richard Nichols reiterated that the two conditions of the ordinance regarding the impact
on agriculture and neighbors is the rational.
Chair Swenson - I think it is well to keep in mind that several members felt that the
development would be looked upon more favorably in a different location, mainly the
other end.
Chair Swenson presented the question. The motion is to deny. All those in favor
hold your hands up. Motion passed unanimously to deny the CUP.
Elaine Beatty - This will be on the City Council Meeting of January 13, 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 1996 cont'd Page 5
'I �� 1.; 11 II •1
Twp 121, R23.
Chair Swenson went over the request and turned the meeting over to Mr. Kirmis.
Mr. Kirmis stated that this is a discussion item. The potential applicants are just looking
for some feedback in terms of the land use right now. At this point I do not recommend
getting into the design specifics of the plan being submitted, but rather the acceptability of
the land use which is being proposed. This is somewhat of a unique property involving
120 acres of land. The northern 40 lie within the Urban Service Area and the Southern 80
lie within the Long Range Urban Service Area. Development is encouraged within the
Immediate Urban Service Area particularly when it constitutes infill. One issue relates to
sanitary sewer service. This area was included in the city's preliminary investigation for
the possibility of a sanitary sewer service district. Residential hook ups would be
promoted, these hook ups are needed to fund a sewer system.
Larry Koshak - The staff has put together a sewer service area with Treatment Plan.
Basically it would have to be financed by residential development. The availability of
these forty's are critical in paying for a treatment facility. These three forty's are critical in
this particular area. As development occurs that is when the impact of the cost of the
facility would occur on the property, not at the time under agricultural use.
Chair Swenson - Are you saying that developing this way now, the impact money will still
be required.
Larry Koshak - If it were developed with one acre lots at this time I would say eliminate
that particular forty or those properties from the potential that the city would have to
initiate a sewer plan in the community and serve that particular area.
Bob Kirmis - As I said no formal application has been prepared. There are questions
regarding sewer study, no official study has been adopted. One course of action could be
to defer recommendation until a position is established on sewer. That needs to be known
before you endorse a project or turn it down. They are just looking for general feedback
as to whether it is worth while to proceed at this point. To accommodate this request
we'd need to amend the Immediate Urban Service Area to include the southern fortys.
Richard Nichols - I don't know what the legal rights are on the forty that is in the
Immediate Urban Service Area, but I am not in favor of extending it into the other eighty
until we have some kind of a decision on a sewer and water project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 1996 cont'd Page 6
We don't have a plan, but we all think we need a plan. Wouldn't make sense to put
another eighty acres in a projected area for development at this time.
Chair Swenson - I feel the same way, it's the wrong time.
Ing Roskaft - I don't think we can move on this at all until the question of sewer is
finalized.
Bruce Rask - It would be a benefit for the developer to wait at this point because if sewer
came in they could get three homes per acre. I would encourage them to wait and on the
other forty's that are zoned A-1 I would not be in favor of rezoning at this time.
Eugene Goenner - How long are we going to put someone on hold and wait for sewer.
We can't keep saying someday it is coming, is that five years, ten years, we need input as
to how long to aid in my decision. We need to know YES or NO to sewer.
Larry Fournier - I can't give you any answers right now, but it is one of the first issues the
new City Council will be working on. I feel this discussion is good.
Ing Roskaft - Originally we thought we had a working agreement with Elk River
regarding sewer and water. We set up a good part of our Comprehensive Plan based on
that, then Elk River backed out of furnishing any sewer availability at all. They now have
increased their capacity, but we don't know what that means to us.
Chair Swenson - The minutes will reflect the discussion. Unless someone has something to
add.
Richard Nichols - Gene made a good point. We have had discussions about holding
projects back because of sewer and water and we are at the point where if we don't get
that decision I am not in favor of waiting forever to develop. If they came back in a year
from now and asked the same question and we have the same answer about sewer and
water, I'd be inclined to go forward with the project. One of the things we need to do
with this kind of discussion is send a message to the council is we are looking to them for
guidance in the next year. I am not faulting them, it is a difficult task and an important
issue.
Bruce Rask - The way this was presented, phase one, approximately one year to finish.
phase two, phase three, we're talking six years or so. We downsized lot sizes in
Mississippi Parkwood because we believed sewer and water would be coming from Elk
River. We have continued splitting and building for the last five or six years because we
thought we were getting sewer and water pretty soon.
Fabian Sadowski - Owner of the land you are talking about. I am getting some mixed
reactions here. I have waited 20 to 30 years. I've had neighbors develop all around me.
Now I want to retire and sell and they're telling me I can't sell my land. I have met with
Elaine Beatty, Larry Koshak, Bob Kirmis, and the developer met with them.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 1996 cont'd Page 7
I talked with my two neighbors and they do not want sewer and water threw there. All I
am asking for is to get this 80 acres rezoned so they can get one acre lots. I'm right in the
middle of all that development. They have been building around me for over 25 years.
This developer says he will develop if he can get the other acreage to be one acre lots.
That is all we are asking for. When is that sewer and water coming, do I have to wait, I
think you a penalizing me. A developer will not come and buy unless he can develop. It
makes sense for me to sell the whole 120 acres all at one time. My developer is stuck in
Lakeville tonight and couldn't get here tonight, but he told me he wants to do the whole
thing at one time.
Chair Swenson - Went over the applicants request and asked Mr. Kirmis to report.
Mr. Kirmis - Richard Kincanon and Mr. Dennis Chuba, on behalf of Heritage Landing
Development, are requesting a rezoning of a 65 acre tract of land south of 85th St. and
west of Odean Avenue from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-3, Residential
Immediate Urban Service. The subject site lies within the Immediate Urban Service Area
and in bounded on all sides by platted residential subdivisions. At this time the applicants
have only requested rezoning of the property. No subdivision approval has formally been
requested nor submitted to the city. The City's Land Use Plan suggests low density use of
the property. We feel this fulfills the Comprehensive Plan policy of infill development.
Don't see any problems and approval of the request is justified.
Chair Swenson - went over the procedure for a public hearing and opened the hearing
to the public for comment.
Jeaneen Ryther Concerned with 85th St. bearing up under more traffic
14242 85th NE In bad shape as it is now. Concerned with traffic, safety, and
speeding. How many lots are being planned.
Chair Swenson - If no one else wishes to be heard at this time you will have an
opportunity later on in the hearing. We will have the discussion among the Planning
Commission members.
Larry Fournier asked for the number of lots. Developer answered 41 lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 1996 cont'd Page 8
Mr. Kirmis - The print of the plat has been provided for informational purposes. The
decision tonight is in regard to the land use approval of the rezoning. Tonight does not
constitute approval of the subdivision plan. I'd rather wait to get into the particulars of the
design at such time as the subdivision application is processed.
Chair Swenson - gave the public another opportunity to be heard.
Virginia Wendel I only have one question. This has two cul-de-sacs and no one has
9357 NE 65thSt. made any comments about that. That they are unsafe, not wide
enough, but the Barthel one was turned down immediately, what is
he difference?
Chair Swenson stated that tonight we are not considering the lay out only the rezoning.
When the plat is formally presented those questions will be addressed.
Richard Nichols - one comment, the other project was not turned down because of the
cul-de- sac.
Chair Swenson closed the public hearing.
Ing Roskaft motioned to change the zoning from A-1, Agricultural to R-3,
Residential Urban Service. Eugene Goenner seconded. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Elaine Beatty - This will be on the next City Council Meeting on December 23, 1996,
because it is only for rezoning.
Mr. Kirmis - These are all draft amendments to the ordinances that the Planning
Commission has looked at before and discussed. It was suggested that these amendments
be grouped into a single hearing.
Elaine Beatty - gave February 5, 1997 for a hearing date as to allow time for noticing.
Ing Roskaft motioned to set the date for February 5, 1997. Richard Nichols
seconded. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of December 18, 1996 cont'd Page 9
Elaine Beatty - The City Council at their last meeting, sent the CUP for John and Cheryle
Adams, back to the Planning Commission for re -hearing. I will notice that and have it on
the agenda.
Larry Fournier - at our last Planning Commission meeting it was asked how many
openings for candidates there were. I believe there are two openings. I have received
three applications. Also there are some terms that are up and the City Council submit a
memo if you wish to be re -appointed.
8. Adiourn:
Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Bruce Rask seconded. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.
Bruce Rask, Secretary
Recorded by: Carol A. Olson
pc121896.wps