Loading...
03-05-97 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 5, 1997 - 8 PM 1 Chair Swenson will call P.C. Meeting to order: Chair Swenson called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 8:00 PM. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair; Carl Swenson, Commissioners; Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner, Jim Kolles, Bruce Rask, Richard Nichols, Ing Roskaft. Council Representative; Vern Heidner Staff; Bob Kirmis, City Planner; Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney; Jerry Olson, Building Official; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator; Carol Olson, Secretary. Mayor; Larry Fournier 2. Consideration of the P.C. Minutes of February 19,1997* Ing Roskaft motioned to approve Planning Commission Minutes of February 19, 1997. Eugene Goenner seconded. All in favor. Motion carried with Arleen Nagel abstaining. 3 Continue HEARING initiated hy the Otsego City Council regarding John and Cheryl Adams 10377 95th Street NE,(City of Otsego) Monticello, MN 55362, PIDMllg 8(h'! 143401&PID#118-800-142400 The Conditional Use Permit for a dog kennel is being re -heard at the re4ue t of the City Council of Otsego. A Conditional Use Permit was approved by Otsego City Co unc*1 on July _12, 1993 for a dog kennel. Chair Swenson explained that the hearing was continued due to questions of legality raised by the attorney representing the kennel owners. Mr. MacArthur, City attorney, addressed this. Mr. MacArthur spoke with Mr. Paulson, Adams' attorney, regarding the legality of the rehearing. Referring to a letter to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1997, Mr. MacArthur addressed some of the concerns from the last meeting. The City's ordinance is patterned after Minnesota Rules. The City Council did, at its discretion, and at his recommendation, order the rehearing. The term "violations" does not mean that it be proven to criminal standards. The City is not required to wait until criminal convictions are obtained. The purpose for this rehearing was to establish if there were violations of the conditions of the CUP. Such a rehearing appeared to be the best forum to resolve ongoing complaints regarding the facility. In answer to Planning Commission questions raised at the February 19, 1997 meeting Mr. MacArthur went over page 2 of the February 27, 1997 letter. (see attached) The primary objective was to clear up any problems. There still are some complaints regarding dogs barking, but in general conditions and problems have been largely improved or remedied. In conclusion, it appears that the facility is now operating in compliance with the conditional use permit and that there is insufficient justification to take adverse action against the dog kennel at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of March 5, 1997 cont'd Page 2 Chair Swenson asked planning commission members for any questions or comments. Eugene Goenner concerned with the summer heat asked the building inspector if shade was available for the animals. He answered only shade from the house. Chair Swenson opened the hearing to the public. Butch Rasmuson - The dogs are still all together in a group and barking. Sometimes they fight possibly looking for territory in the confinement. They are excessively barking but not as much lately. Adams seem to have a different schedule and they don't let them bark all day like before and they don't let them out in the cold when it is 30 below, like they did in the last three years. These last few months they finally decided to do what this council said. Chair Swenson closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Planning Commission. Ing Roskaft had questions regarding the condition of the kennels. Also he recalled that the original CUP had a limit of 30 dogs. Jerry Olson stated that since the first visit, larger, nicer kennels had been built inside the garage area. Overall conditions had much improved. There were 28 dogs in the kennel area on the last visit. Eugene Goenner stated that according to the county kennel inspection reports there have been up to 40 dogs. Concerned with a limit on the number of dogs, no cats, and no exchanging or sale of animals. Vern Heidner - The city council may never have intended to pull the permit, but some of these issues needed to be addressed and if they refuse to meet the conditions that could happen. Things appear to be better for now and in a couple of months we could revisit it and possibly put on more restrictions. Bruce Rask - Andy's letter dated February 19, 1997, (see attached) says the Planning Commission could recommend additional relevant conditions to address the problems. From testimony I have heard, I recommend to the board that the Adams erect a new fence and use barking collars. It was the consensus of the planning commission to send a letter from city staff reiterating that we will hold them to the conditions or we would reopen the hearing and either revoke the permit at that time or put on extra conditions as the council deems necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of March 5, 1997 cont'd Page 3 Richard Nichols motioned to recommend continuation of the Adams' kennel CUP with the recommendation that staff write a letter to the CUP holders reiterating the original conditions of the CUP. Ing Roskaft seconded. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Elaine Beatty - This will be on the city council agenda for March 24, 1997at 6:30 PM. Chair Swenson - City council has requested discussion regarding the transfer of one per forty property rights. Mr. Kirmis - This is a result of the Barthel conditional use permit request. Question was raised as to the desirability of not having a cap on the number of dwelling units that may be transferred into a cluster. Originally the ordinance had a cap of two, that was removed by the city in 1993. City council is asking the planning commission to reconsider the clustering requirement. We are looking for direction from the planning commission. We could investigate how other rural communities handle it or a draft amendment could be done up. Chair Swenson - Members thought it would be poor planning to put a cluster that large in an Ag. area. Richard Nichols - Asked from the standpoint of providing services, which is better clusters or being spread out. Mr. Kirmis - It depends how far removed the cluster is from the urban area. Generally speaking the one per forty cluster is more expensive because they begin to demand services that typically are not expected in an unplatted area. Richard Nichols - With a small cluster (5 or 7 homes) I have difficulty with that. One advantage with clustering is having one access road. Is the real issue making otherwise land locked property available? Concerned with the extent of development in the western part of the city. Could possibly not allow one per forty transfers where there is not direct access. Mr. Kirmis - When you get small sub -divisions they are less likely to be accepting of the rural negative impact such as odors as would one per forty which is surrounded on all sides by ag land. It is a subjective issue, do you want a rural area to be 200 acres of nothing then a grouping of single family homes or scattered homes on 40 acre tracks. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of March 5, 1997 cont'd Page 4 Richard Nichols - Some communities require clustering with no further development of the land. Ing Roskaft - The county allowed as many transfers as wanted in certain areas to preserve the farmland. How many properties are there that haven't already used their transfer rights where clustering might be a problem? Bruce Rask - Read Sec.51, page 214, Purpose, The reason we released the limit was not to restrict the farmer from promoting their farm activities. It does not give them the right, the permitted use, interim use or conditional use to start a mini housing development. Kenny Davis, Randy Puliot, the Goenners, the Lindenfelsers and the Rodens all have quite a bit of property. The deed restrictions should only be used in the Ag. areas to enhance farming, not develop areas the city can not service. There are three critical areas we need to address; the river corridor, Ag. land and the sewer designated area. Eugene Goenner - reluctant to spend staff time and money without the comp plan update. Vern Heidner - A fair amount of discussion was that the Barthel project was too large. If someone came in with a cluster of five or six transfers, and you don't have a problem with that, then nothings needs to be changed. Bruce Rask - Mr. Kirmis says we have to operate under the ordinance as it is now, if someone comes in and applies for another deed restriction we will have the same comments and the same weaknesses as before. I believe it is absolutely pertinent that we do something. If they can deed restrict a better piece of land and prove to the commission (with some perc tests or soil tests etc.) that the land is poor, then we have the right to say no to preserve good farm land. Eugene Goenner - Asked why they weren't able to deny the Barthel's application under the grounds that it was not preserving prime Ag. land. Mr. Kirmis - Explained that the Barthels have seven property rights. They could administratively put them on the best land they have. What the ordinance does is provide a mechanism that says; we want to preserve good farmland, if you want to cluster these units in an area where preservation of this good land will result we will let you do that subject to a number of conditions. It is just an attempt to have a trade off to preserve good farm land. Richard Nichols - If we want to control development and make restrictions, we need to write an ordinance that does it up front and not argue that one piece is more productive. If this commission and the council thinks we need changes lets draft an ordinance doing that in a direct manner so we don't need to debate and can agree on what we really want. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of March 5, 1997 cont'd Page 5 Chair Swenson - This discussion has been real pertinent, because it shows that there is a lot of work to be done. Agreed with Gene that it appears a cap needs to be put back in the ordinance. The consensus of the committee was that this needs to be addressed and that Mr. Kirmis should come back with the change to put the cap back into the ordinance. Vern Heidner gave an update on the status of sewer and water. Dayton may be in fifty/fifty. Still pursuing information from Elk River as to whether capacity can be provided and they have met with some bonding agencies as to whether or not the city can afford it. Also a sub -committee has been set up to talk with Albertville to see if they are willing to provide service to the southwest area of the city. 5. Adjourn: Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Bruce Rask seconded. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. bn=�: :j CJ iL i olles, Secretary Recorded by: Carol A. Olson PC3-5-97.WPS