Loading...
09-17-97 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 8 P OTSEGO CITY HALL 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, Planning Commission Members; Ing Roskaft, Bruce Rask, Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner and Richard Nichols. Jim Kolles, excused absence. Council Representative; Suzanne Ackerman Staff: Bob Kirmis, City Planner, Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator 2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of: A. September 3, 1997 BRUCE RASK MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1997. ING ROSKAFT SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. K31[111MITITMjiil 1 ►I► . 118-500 -232301. 1 WhArs- A. :1 amendment t1 the existing Conditional Use Permit conditions. Chair Swenson - This hearing has been continued from the August 20, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. This was requested by the applicant to allow for a meeting with staff. Bob Kirmis - Staff met with representatives of Mississippi Riverwood on September 3, 1997. Attached is the memo dated September 10, which summarizes issues and changes suggested by the applicant and agreed upon by Staff. Mr. Kirmis read the summary. A revised set of conditions which incorporate the changes is also attached. (see attached) The City Attorney's memo dated September 17, 1997, relates to the storage plan proposed by the applicants. Wright County approved the original Conditional Use Permit with the condition that the camp ground is to be used for seasonal use only with all units vacated no later than November 1 st, and not re -occupied at any time when the river level exceeds the 855 ft. elevation. This was determined to mean (by the Wright County Zoning Administrator) that all units be removed from the camp ground. As a result of that original condition, that is an option the City may choose to implement. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 17,1997 cont'd Page 2 The City Attorney stated in that letter that Option B, the applicant's storage plan, would satisfactorily address the concerns of the City in regard to seasonal storage and the removal of the units. (see attached) Chair Swenson - We will resume the hearing with the Planning Commission discussion. Bruce Rask - Under Item 4, Floodplain Requirements, regarding those recreational vehicles that exceed a certain width. Wording should be added (except those that are already in the park) no more oversized unlicensed RV's will be allowed. Asked for an explanation as to how they can be considered recreational vehicles if you can't drive it down the highway. Mr. Pribble - Recreational vehicles, Park Models, is the terminology applied to any vehicle under 400 sq. ft., up to 12 ft. in width, and be considered recreational vehicles. This is a National rule. Richard Nichols - Is there a requirement in the revised conditions that states the non licensable trailers be required to be located in the non -floodplain areas, per the DNR recommendation. Mr. Kirmis - The language from the current planning report was retained. All recreational vehicles in the floodplain have to be licensed. Wider units must be at the higher elevations. Richard Nichols - Questioned the wording. If recreational vehicles are going to be allowed in the floodplain we need to follow the requirements of Section 20-73 of the Zoning Ordinance and all condition requirements. Mr. Kirmis - Read the recommended change - Recreational Vehicles, or units within the floodplain conform to all applicable provisions of Section 20-73 of the Zoning Ordinance including the following conditions: Eugene Goenner - Asked the intent of Item number 8. Option B. Item C, referring to the cables, if not allowed in the floodplain, why attach cables. Mr. Kirmis - The wording in number 8 is from the DNR regulations. Dick Larson - The cable is a safety feature, should there be a flash flood, those units would not go down the river and cause damage. Chair Swenson brought the hearing back to the public. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 17, 1997 cont'd Page 3 Mr. Pribble - We appreciated meeting with staff to discuss the application. We hoped to come to a consensus at that meeting and come to the commission with whole hearted endorsement of the report. Because of the imposed options, we can not completely endorse the staff report. Option A, does not reflect the current authority of the Conditional Use Permit granted by Wright county. If we rely upon Wright county as the model instead of the language proposed by Mr. Kirmis which states the recreational units and vehicles shall be removed. That is not what we have today. We have a CUP that requires us to vacate the property by November one. There has been reference to an opinion by a Wright County Planner, reference to an opinion by DNR representative. We like the opinion that says we can't be there personally after November one. To remove the units or vehicles is an economic disaster to the associates, if that were a requirement. We hope the commission's visit to the site would have demonstrated that these are responsible people within the city limits who contribute to the city. Option A, as proposed can not be accepted. We can not physically or economically remove the units. We strongly urge the commission to recommend only Option B. to the City Council for adoption. Questions proposed have been answered. We have satisfied the requirements of the City Engineer by providing site surveys showing where the sites are. Mr. MacArthur has expressed that Option B. meets the concerns expressed by the commission and by the city. By sending only Option B. to the council we can accept and support the Commissions recommendation. Chair Swenson closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the Planning Commission. RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE DELETION OF OPTION A, AND THE CORRECTION OF THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH 7, AS STATED BY MR. KIRMIS THIS EVENING. BRUCE RASK SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. This will be on the City Council Agenda of September 25, 1997 at 6:30 PM. 4. HEARING for Guy F. and Evelyn A. Rowe, owners. 14031 NE 87th Street. Otsego, MN. PID 14020, legal description of the property is the North 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 4, Vasseur's Oak Grove Estates, Section 21, Twp 121, R 23, County of Wright, City of Otsego. State of Minnesota. Request is as follows: A. Conditional Use Permit to allow: a. More than one detached accessory structure on a residential lot. b. Total accessory storage space to exceed 2,000 square feet. Chair Swenson went over the applicants request. Elaine Beatty - All the publishing, posting and mailing hearing notices have been made. Mr. Kirmis - Guy and Evelyn Rowe wish to construct a 768 sq. ft. detached accessory building upon their property south of 87th Street and west of O'Brian Avenue. Three accessory buildings are currently on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 17, 1997 cont'd Page 4 The applicant has proposed to remove two of the smaller structures. The applicant does propose to retain a 1,600 sq. ft. pole building. There are two unique items with this request. The location of the driveway within an un -improved right-of-way. A memo dated September 16, 1997, by the City Attorney recommends that the applicant sign a written document, in recordable form, releasing the City from liability for any accident or occurrence along the "driveway", and acknowledging that such use is allowed solely at the discretion of the City and that other access may have to be created if the City, for whatever reason, determines to make use of the dedicated right-of-way. The second item relates to condition 3. of the report where the proposed building and the existing pole building match the principal building in color. This is a requirement of new structures, but considering the visibility and compatibility with the neighborhood we did recommend that the pole building be painted. NAC recommends approval of the request contingent upon seven conditions in their report dated September 8, 1997, which he read. Guy Rowe - Questioned the requirement of matching color. Presently the pole building is maintenance free. Excessive to expect this. We couldn't get our house color to match so went with white. New building will be white vinyl siding. Requests later date possibly December 1, instead of November 1, 1997, deadline to remove the buildings. They have no objection to signing papers releasing the City from any liability. Eugene Goenner - Referred to painting of the existing pole building, excessive expense, would it then be maintenance free. Mr. Kirmis - If prepped correctly, with the right paint it will last. The comprehensive plan promotes neighborhood compatibility. This is viewed as an opportunity to visually improve the area. Bruce Rask - Agreed with neighborhood compatibility. The applicant will be taking down two smaller buildings. The painting of the existing pole building is a great expense and should not be a requirement. The building met the requirements when it was built. RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE ROWE ACCESSORY BUILDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS IN NAC'S REPORT DELETING ITEM 3. RICHARD NICHOLS AMENDED THE MOTION WITH ITEM 2, TO READ DECEMBER 1, 1997, RATHER THAN NOVEMBER 1, 1997. Eugene Goenner - Asked Richard Nichols if he meant to leave in "The proposed accessory building match the principal building in color." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of September 17, 1997 cont'd Page 5 RICHARD NICHOLS AMENDED THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE EIGHT CONDITIONS LISTED IN NAC'S REPORT WITH THE MODIFICATION TO ITEM TWO TO CHANGE THE DATE TO ONE DECEMBER 1997 AND ITEM THREE TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO THE EXISTING POLE BUILDING. ING ROSKAFT SECONDED. Eugene Goenner - Asked about item 7, regarding the attorney's recommendation for the applicant to sign a release form releasing the city of any liability. EUGENE GOENNER AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE COMMENTS OF ATTORNEY'S LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1997. SPECIFICALLY ITEM 7. RICHARD NICHOLS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH EUGENE GOENNER, RICHARD NICHOLS, CARL SWENSON, BRUCE RASK, AND ARLEEN NAGEL VOTING IN FAVOR. ING ROSKAFT WAS OPPOSED. AMENDMENT CARRIED FIVE TO ONE. Chair Swenson any other discussion on the motion as amended. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. This will be on the City Council Agenda of September 25, 1997, at 6:30 PM. 6. Any other Planning Commission Business: Suzanne Ackerman - Commented on the public Sewer and Water meeting. Elaine Beatty - At the Sewer and Water meeting September 15, 1997. There were 146 people in attendance. Thirteen people spoke. Bill Jones has written a letter of resignation. He will be moving to Colorado. 7. Adjourn: ING ROSKAFT MOTION TO ADJOURN. BRUCE RASK SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Kolles, Secretary Recorded by: Carol A. Olson