Loading...
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