04-16-97 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 16, 1997 8:00 PM
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, Richard Nichols,
Eugene Goenner, Jim Kolles. Bruce Rask and Bill Jones excused absence
Council Representative; Vern Heidner
Staff: Bob Kirmis, City Planner; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator;
Carol Olson, Secretary
1 Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of April 2, 1997:
Arleen Nagel under item 2, the motion should be seconded by Ing Roskaft.
Ing Roskaft motioned to approve Planning Commission minutes of April 2, 1997
with correction. Seconded by Eugene Goenner. All in favor. Motion carried.
3. Review draft amendment of one per forty transfer of property rights clustered
(Decide if Hearing to be held If so, set date A Hearing) .ont'd:
Mr. Kirmis - At the last Planning Commission meeting NAC was directed to provide some
alternative means of regulating 1 per 40 density transfers. The objective is to allow the city
a greater ability to deny a conditional use permit request where an obvious compatibility
concern exists. In NAC's report dated April 9, 1997 there are four options. Option A:
Application of Reverse Feedlot Setbacks. Where compatibility is an issue between two
uses, various feedlot setbacks could be imposed. Option B: Contiguous Forties. With this
option the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to stipulate that residential lots within a
cluster must be transferred from a contiguous parcel. Option C: Productive Agricultural
Land Demonstration. The City could have additional yield information requirements.
Option D: Minimum Separation Requirement. The Ordinance could be expanded to
establish a minimum separation requirement. All the options have advantages and
disadvantages. Of the four options NAC feels Option A. The Application of Reverse
Feedlot Setbacks, best addresses the issue of compatibility between residential single
family dwelling units and animal agriculture.
Chair Swenson asked the Planning Commission for comments or questions.
Eugene Goenner - Asked if, under option D, a road running through a parcel would be
contiguous or not. Mr. Kirmis answered not contiguous.
Richard Nichols - Under option D. Minimum Separation Requirements, this wouldn't
prohibit a cluster every 1000 feet on the same side of the road.
Mr. Kirmis - The original intent was the intersection situation, but it could address the
same side of the road.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of April 16, 1997 cont'd Page 2
Richard Nichols - Referring to the letter from Radzwill & Couri dated April 8, 1997, it
appears they favor going back to a cap on clusters or setbacks. I would be more in favor
of a cap or not allowing transfers where there are no public road frontages.
Arleen Nagel - I agree with Richard, and these options don't cover what I was thinking
either.
Chair Swenson - Seems that this Commission had a hard time with the Barthel transfer
request. Consensus being that it was not in the best interest of the city, therefore
recommended denial. In my view the problem was caused by the lack of a cap. We need
to fix the problem now by putting a cap back on.
Eugene Goenner - I don't feel it will be a problem any more. Asked Elaine Beatty for
information regarding the numbers of 1 per 40's left.
Elaine Beatty - There were approximately 47, but a lot of them have been used.
Greningers have 8, Goenners 8, Bernings possibly the same. Most others have 3 left.
Eugene Goenner - A cap wouldn't be effective because property could be moved into a
4 per 40 zone which would eliminate the need for the cap.
Mr. Kirmis - The A-2, 4 per 40 doesn't allow you to transfer developments rights to
another tract, as in the A-1 where you can take a development right from different tracts.
Eugene Goenner - I am inclined to leave it as it is and deal with it when we get to the
Comp. Plan update. We've had hours of discussion and can't come up with the ideal
option. I'm not in favor of spending the City's resources to conduct a public hearing
because there aren't many left that would be affected.
Richard Nichols - Agreed with Eugene Goenner that to stop one or two clusters that may
or may not be a problem, is a waste of time.
Chair Swenson- The original recommendation put a cap on clustering. I think we should
put it back on.
Ing Roskaft - Agreed should leave it as is now.
Eugene Goenner motioned to send to City Council recommending no change at this
time upon their further review or comment. Ing Roskaft seconded. All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Swenson welcomed all the students attending the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of April 16, 1997 cont'd Page 3
4. Any other Planning Commission Business:
Vern Heidner gave an update on the wastewater treatment plant. Bonestroo has
completed their report and are sending it over. We are still awaiting information from the
City Attorney on the actual trunk study. We haven't heard anything from Elk River as to
their potential ability to provide service. It will be difficult to meet the April 28th
deadline, but it should be shortly thereafter.
Ing Roskaft asked about the well at the school.
Vern Heidner -There will be a meeting with the City Council and representatives from the
School board before the April 28, City Council meeting at 5:30 PM at Otsego City Hall.
The City Engineer still maintains that we built it per the specifications. There have been
issues. There are pressure tanks in there and in order to pump correctly the proper
pressure must be maintained. We have been monitoring the well on a monthly basis and
our records indicate that the school may not be monitoring the pressure in the tanks per
specifications. This causes the pump to run more than it should, which can cause sand to
be brought up. Our tests, all verified by independent people, show that we meet all the
State and Federal requirements. Another issue is that they may have done improper
flushing. They maintain that they have spent a significant amount of money, but we have
too.
5. Adjourn•
Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Arleen Nagel seconded. All in favor. Motion
carried. Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM.
Kolles, Secretary
Recorded by: Carol A. Olson