11-19-97 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19,1997 - S PM
OTSEGO CITY HALL
1 Chair CarlSwenson will call meeting to order:
Chair Swenson called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 8:00 PM.
Roll Call:
Present: Chair; Carl Swenson, Commission Members; Bruce Rask, Ing Roskaft,
Eugene Goenner, Jim Kolles, Arleen Nagel, and Richard Nichols.
Staff: Bob Kirmis, City Planner; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Adm.;
Carol Olson, Secretary
Council Representative: Vern Heidner
Mayor; Larry Fournier, Council Members; Mark Berning and Suzanne Ackerman.
2. Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of November S, 1997
ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 5, 1997. SECONDED BY BRUCE RASK. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.
Chair Swenson went over the applicant's request.
Elaine Beatty noted that the proper publishing, posting and mailings have been done.
Chair Swenson noted the proper hearing procedures.
Bob Kirmis - Mr. Michael Emberton, Allied Mortgage of Brooklyn Center Inc. has
requested rezoning of approximately 283 acres located north and south of Co. Rd.#39
between Kahler and Kadler Avenue. The applicant wishes to rezone the property from
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 19, 1997 cont'dPage 2
A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-4, Residential -Urban Single Family. The application
of the R-4 District designation is necessary to accommodate sewered lots of f 16,000
square feet. The present application differs from a previous development proposal in that
prior submissions involved on-site private sewage systems on one acre lots. This proposal
involves a private package sewage treatment plant which would allow urban densities. To
accommodate this request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary to change from
A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to a low density residential R-4, Urban Family District.
The applicant is seeking the City's position regarding the acceptability of the proposed
land use. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved a formal subdivision request
should follow. Based on the City's current Comprehensive Plan policies and plans, the
development is untimely and would set an undesirable precedent. Staff has recommended
that the applicant demonstrate the feasibility of providing a private "package" sewage
treatment plant in this area of the City prior to formal City consideration of the rezoning
request. Should the City find that the proposed low density residential use of the property
is appropriate, NAC would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and rezoning request contingent upon MPCA approval of the proposed package treatment
system. This property has been previously exempted from the moratorium by the City
Council. Regarding the ramifications of the package treatment plant, the previous
proposal was for approximately 210 lots. This proposal would be for approximately 580
lots. NAC does not feel justification exists to approve the amendment request. The
development is believed to be premature. We are also concerned with the competition
that would be created with urban sewered lots within the proposed sanitary sewer service
district. Should the Planning Commission approve this request we recommend it be
subject to MPCA approval. A letter to Mr. Emberton dated October 31, 1997 refers to
preliminary staff meetings with the applicant. The applicant was to provide the city with
an indication of MPCA acceptability of the project.
The applicants engineer responded with a letter dated November 19, 1997, indicating that
the MPCA would review an application for a package sewage treatment plant on site.
Mike Emberton, Developer - We intend to provide a package system. We have had
Allied Mortgage discussions with the MPCA and they have indicated that
they would approve the project. We would contribute our
system to the city at that point we capture the cost of
construction. I know where your concentration is for
your plant and do not believe this will affect that.
We intend to work with the City and are anxious to
bring in the revenues this project will create.
Chair Swenson opened the Hearing to the public.
John Simola Lives a few hundred feet west of the proposed project.
9843 92nd St. NE Concerned with the density of this proposal and cautioned
the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 19,1997 cont'd Page 3
Planning Commission on moving forward with this proposal
without knowing exactly what the project will look like. He
has worked with the MPCA to obtain a wastewater
discharge permit for the city of Monticello, and single point
discharge, if the city gives it up, they may not be able to get
one in the future. Cautioned again the Planning
Commission not to inherit something that becomes a
nightmare.
Chair Swenson brought the discussion back to the Planning Commission.
Bruce Rask asked if discharge would be into the Mississippi River.
Mike Emberton - The discharge location, size, capacity etc. will be determined by MPGA.
We would meet their requests.
Bruce Rask - The State said no more discharging to the Mississippi River. Would the city
consider turning down this request and go for this discharge permit and more centrally
locate it's proposed plant?
Vern Heidner - In the case of the City's plant, we've been told it would be very difficult
since the City can aquire land in the area to discharge into the Crow River. The applicant
would possibly have a better chance getting the Mississippi River discharge permit.
Mike Emberton - We want to build a nice project and are not interested in sewer and
water in and of itself. A central plant would be super.
Bruce Rask - If approved, and at the time the City takes over, all responsibilities and
standards must be met. Requested a performance and guarantee bond for ten years of
operation to cover all labor, maintenance, and all water treatment chemicals.
Mike Emberton - We anticipate that there will be a bond prior to the project.
I want to make it clear that we were not building this project to solve all or any of the
problems that may exist. We will generate a project, and hook up to city system, if the
city wants. We don't want to own a sewer system, but are willing to do so to make the
project right.
Chair Swenson went back to the public and asked if anyone wished to be heard.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of November 19, 1997 cont'd Page 4
Lori Hoffman I am Just shocked at the extent of what these people
9929 Kadler Ave NE are thinking with the 580 homes for this area where
there are so few homes. I would be very Concerned
with traffic and types of situations that would have
to occur. County road 39, is two lane highway,
Kadler Avenue on the south side is a dirt road and a
paved two lane road on the north side. I just can't
imagine how this type of a development would fit
into that area without causing major disruption to
the properties and the people that already live
in that area. I am very concerned about that. The
quality of life issues regarding noise, crime, there
would certainly be costs connected to this huge
project (services and schools).
Chair Swenson closed the hearing to the public.
Eugene Goenner would like more information from the MPCA regarding the single point
discharge, which could limit the City's discharge possibilities. The MPCA will look at
anything, but that does not indicate approval. Also concerned with the leap -frog effect
and setting a precedent. Using the current Comp. Plan it is not feasible.
Jim Kolles - I agree with most of the comments, but Mr. Greninger has an opportunity to
sell his property and get out of the agricultural business.
Carl Swenson- I also have mixed feelings, but this week we are looking at the
Comprehensive Plan, so I find it difficult to recommend a change to the current Comp.
Plan prior to upgrading the plan. Also agreed that the application is premature.
Bruce Rask - The MPCA criteria needs to be met before rezoning. I would like to see Mr.
Greninger sell, but the Planning Commission has to make its decision based on what is
best for the City. And would look more favorably on the project if the City wasn't
working on sewer and water now. He can develop under the current zoning for what is
allowed in that area.
Richard Nichols - Questioned the applicant if a package plant the recommended size
would be financially feasible for the project.
Mike Emberton - Yes; Your planner, your Engineer and my Engineer all agree and
recommend it. Make the Comp. Plan change, make all the changes contingent on the
MPCA or sewer service to the site, but don't deny the project based on the hypothetical
that we can't get approval. The question before the Planning Commission is is this
appropriate use of the land at this time. Mrs. Sinden, of MPCA expressed they would
provide approval on this project, just as on the Perlich project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 19, 1997 cont'd Page 5
We have to have a minimum number of housing units to do our own plant. If we can
connect to the City's, we will be glad to do that. We know it must get MPCA approval to
work.
Richard Nichols - Whether or not a MPCA permit is granted is not the real concern. The
real concern is the timeliness of the project. Are we going let the projects determine the
Comprehensive Plan or are we going to do the Comp. Plan first. This was premature
before and it is premature now.
Arleen Nagel - This is premature because of the density in that agricultural area and
agreed that the Comp. Plan needed to be done first.
Ing Roskaft - I would like to see an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). This
should have been submitted before.
RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO DENY THE AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL
TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SECONDED BY ARLEEN NAGEL. VOTING IN
SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, RICHARD NICHOLS, ARLEEN NAGEL, CARL SWENSON,
EUGENE GOENNER, BRUCE RASK, AND ING ROSKAFT. JIM KOLLES OPPOSED THE
MOTION TO DENY. MOTION CARRIED 6 TO 1.
This will be on City Council agenda December 8, 1997, at 6:30 PM.
Chair Swenson went over the applicants request.
Elaine Beatty -noted that the proper publishing, posting and mailings have been made.
Bob Kirmis - Darkenwald's Riverbend Company has requested approval of a conditional
use permit to allow the reconstruction of a pole building which housed the park's
treatment plant. The structure is located south of Co. Rd. 42 and east of Hwy 101. The
applicants wish to replace a 120 foot by 14 foot pole structure. According to the Zoning
Ordinance, pole buildings are not allowed within the City except in association with
farming operations or in highly unique special cases by CUP. Should the City officials
determine the request to be a unique or special case NAC recommends approval of the
requested CUP with the three conditions listed in the report dated Novemberl0, 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 19, 1997 cont'd Page 6
Findings which make this unique is the sewage treatment facility is a unique use and not
intended for occupancy. Also the plant may be considered interim in nature which may be
subject to expansion with further financial investment in a building making the use of
higher quality building materials impractical at this time. The plant manufacturer has
supplied documentation indicating that for the plant's aeration process a building without a
poured foundation (pole type construction) is better for the plant operation. In contrast,
this is a permanent structure with value. Allowing the building type flexibility would grant
a privilege not granted to other properties in the City and the purpose of the City's non-
conforming use provision is to achieve compliance with current development standards.
There are reasons both to approve or deny request, if approved NAC recommends
approval subject to two conditions listed in the report which he read.
George Yankoupe - The building was blown down in the July one storm and was a part of
the initial system approved by MPCA and intention is to conform with all
recommendations.
Chair Swenson opened Hearing to the public. No one wished to be heard. Brought
discussion back to the Planning Commission.
Eugene Goenner - Commented that this is not unique, would it be possible to use pole
foundation with lap siding. It was in the paper after the storm that pole buildings that went
down in the storm could not be reconstructed. Where do we draw the line on these type
of structures.
Richard Nichols- I have been in the old building and found it unique. Specific materials
designed for that type of structure have to be used. We need to look at these on a case by
case bases. This is unique because of what it covers.
ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF NAC'S REPORT. SECONDED BY RICHARD
NICHOLS. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
This will be on the City Council Agenda of November 24, 1997 at 6:30 PM.
5. Review the Planning C:ommiccion By -Laws and Ethics Ordinance and
recommend any changes
Eugene Goenner - Questioned number 2 of the work rules and whether that should read
February instead of January.
Carl Swenson explained that the change was made so new members could vote.
Richard Nichols recommended having all the commissions be the same.
Vern Heidner - The City Council said all terms run from February first to February first.
This was modified last year.
Eugene Goenner recommended leaving it as January.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of November 19, 1997 cont'dPage 7
Chair Swenson recommended items 17 and 18 be deleted.
Vern Heidner -I don't believe item number 18 deals with the Code of Ethics. As I recall
the Planning Commission implemented it, not because of an ethical problem, but because
people may try to give you information that wouldn't be part of the official record. They
should come to the meeting so everyone can hear concerns and respond to their concerns.
Eugene Goenner recommended that number 19 be replaced with Ordinance 97-13, Code
of Ethics.
RICHARD NICHOLS MOTIONED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A FINAL DRAFT OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS BY TAKING THE SUBMITTED DOCUMENT
DATED JULY 1995 AND DELETE ITEMS 17,18 AND 19. SECONDED BY ING ROSKAFT.
Richard Nichols suggested making number 17 an attachment to the ordinance and not a
number so the City Council can change the ordinance without our having to change the
By -Laws.
RICHARD NICHOLS WITHDREW THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
Eugene Goenner - Number 19 would be Ord.97-13, see attached. Number 20 is also
including 97-13, attached.
Bob Kirmis- If the idea is not to have to go back an amend it, it would be appropriate
reference 97-13 as amended. That way if a change is made it is automatically included.
RICHARD NICHOLS TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE THE JULY 1995 PLANNING
COMMISSION BY-LAWS BY DELETING THE CURRENT NUMBER 17, 18, AND 19,
RENUMBERING 20, AND 21, AS NEW 17, AND 18 AND ADD A NEW 19, TO STATE
ATTACHMENT ORDINANCE 97-13, CODE OF ETHICS, AS AMENDED. SECONDED BY
EUGENE GOENNER. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. (Ing Roskaft was not present).
77. Adjourn•
ING ROSKAFT MOTIONED TO ADJOURN. BRUCE RASK SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL
IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
J' Kolles, Secretary
Recorded by: Carol Olson
co:PC111997.WPS