03-11-96 CCCITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: DEPARTMENT:
MEETING DATE
4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS BUILDING OFFICIAL
3/11/96 - 6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
4.1. Review of Peavey House Rental - By Merry
Olson, Building Official
Is ound:
Jerry Elson has inspected the Peavey House, after receiving a bill for work done from the renters for
$79.52: Attached is a Memo from Jerry regarding the inspection: A number of questions have
been posed due to the inspection.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Council needs to decide how much money they want to put into this house. ft will take another
$1,000.00 according to Jerry to sheetrock the porch area to meet code. The foam is glued on,
which poses a problem for removal.. It sounds nice a safety hazard as it now stands. Another option is
to remove the porch. That may also be expensive. Jerry Olson will be available to comment on the
options.
Thank you,
CITY OF OTSEGO
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ate: March 5, 1996
To:
From:
Subject:
Mayor and City Council
Jerry Olson, Bldg. Official
Peavey House
Recent work has been done on the rental house without the City's knowledge.
This work consisted of lining the interior walls and ceiling of the north porch with a foam
type of insulation and covered with a plastic membrane.
This work, although neatly done, is a violation of the building code and creates a
hazardous condition due to the fact that the foam board has been left exposed.
The code requires that this type of foam board must be covered with a minimum of
one-half inch sheetrock to protect it from fire as very toxic fumes are given off if a fire
should occur.
This room is now being used as a bedroom and it has neither smoke detector nor
adequate egress.
The options now would seem to be to remove the foam board or cover it.
cc: Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Adm.
Q�O,C r-
CITY OF
TSEGO
3899 Nashua Avenue N.E. ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD (612) 441-4414
Elk River, MN 55330 Fax: (612) 441-8823
March 12, 1996
Ross J & Kimberly E Hagen
13474 NE 95tth Street
Elk River, MN 55330
Dear Ross & Kimberly,
The bill for work done on the City's rental house was presented to the City Council at the
March 11, Council meeting and was not approved. The City Council inquired of me what
work was done and I informed them that foam board and plastic had been installed in the
north porch and that the porch was now being used as a bedroom. I also informed the
Council that the work was in violation of the building code due to the fact that this type of
foam must be covered with 1/2" sheetrock for fire protection and smoke detectors must be
installed in any sleeping room.
The council is quite concerned with this unauthorized work being done and has instructed
me to inform you that this job must be completed to meet code or all the foam board and
plastic must be removed and any damage caused by the glue adhesive must be repaired.
This must be done at no expense to the City and must be completed by April 1, 1996.
This matter needs to be resolved, please contact me at Otsego City Hall. City office hours
are 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM or call me at 441-4414.
Thank you,
-9 . ���
Jerry Olson
City of Otsego
Building Official
JO:co
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
DEPARTMENT:
MEETING DATE
6. CONSENT AGENDA
(Non -Controversial)
3/11/96 - 6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER.
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
6.1. Consider Resolution 96-8A, A Resolution
the City of Otsego to work with the Township
Joint Sewer District
Stating the Intent of
of Frankfort Regarding a
6.2. Consider Continuation of VanTatenhove Estates Plat for one year
6.3. Consider Summary
of Ordinance No. 96-1
for publishing
Background:
" This Resolution was drafted by .terry VonKorff, Atty- at our request and upon finding out that the
City of St Michael has agreed to annex all of Frankfort Twp. Mayor Freske was on vacation, but the
consensus of the rest of the Council Members was to have this Resolution drafted and present it to
Frankfort Town Board at their meeting of 3/4/96 at 7:45PM. Larry Fournier, Mice Mayor, Vern
Heidner, Suzanne Ackerman and Elaine Beatty attended Frankfort's meeting. They said it is very early
in the process and they felt the Annual Town Meeting on March 12, would be a very interesting one
when they bring this issue to their residents. They also said they need more information. Attached is
the information received at that meeting. The thought was to alert Frankfort to the fact that we are
interested in the area of Frankfort from I-94 to #10 1 and E of that if the annexation or consolidation is
being done anyway, as we have been planning on sewer for that area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Resolution is being brought to get into the record of the City Council Meeting and a formal motion
needs to be had to approve the Resolution No. 96-8, A Resolution Stating the Intent of the City of
Otsego to Work with the Township of Frankfort Regarding a Joint Sewer District.
fi.j. Attached is a letter from George VanTatenhove asking that VanTatenhove Estates be continued for
one year from the date of this meeting (3/11/96).
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the request to continue the VanTatenhove Estates Plat for one year from 3/11/96.
fI The City Clerk has drafted a Summary of Ordinance No. 96-1 for Publishing to allow us
a Iess costly option. This is the Ordinance Amendment to the Sign Ordinance approved at the February
26, 1996 Council Meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the Summary of Ordinance No. 96-1 for Publishing.
Thank you,
RESOLUTION NO. 96-8
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION STATING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF
OTSEGO TO WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP OF FRANKFORT
REGARDING A JOINT SEWER DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Frankfort Township and the City of Otsego have been working
cooperatively to consider a joint sewer district to provide municipal sewer services to
portions of Frankfort Township and Otsego; and
WHEREAS, Frankfort Township and the City of St Michael are considering
a possible orderly annexation agreement or consolidation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Otsego wants to continue to maintain a positive and
constructive relationship with Frankfort Township and other adjoining political
subdivisions;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED:
1. In the event Frankfort Township decides that it wishes to consolidate with a
municipality or municipalities, Otsego expresses it's interest in entering into a voluntary
agreement with Frankfort to acquire or consolidate with that portion of Frankfort which
could best be served by Otsego.
2. Otseg6s representatives are hereby authorized to commence discussions with
Frankfort regarding possible voluntary orderly annexation agreements or consolidation
agreements.
Dated this 4TH day of March, 1996.
CITY OF OTSEGO
c
Akar-ria -F>�, l�yc3�
ATTEST: Larry Fournier, vice Mayoi
Laine Beatty, City Clerk/ZorOg Administrator
ADVANCE MASONRY, INC.
4300 Williston Rd.
Minnetonka, MN 55343
PH. 933-4844
NIEMEN 10
710vv R
LA
0
-D40 ms '71
Ta �►� ci� �rrcl c'/�,
9.33 �`�
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 96-1
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
Summary of Section 37, Sign Regulations of the City of Otsego
Zoning Ordinance, an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Addressing Public, Construction and Real Estate Signage
Requirements. The Amendment is as follows:
1. Amend the definition of "Principal Arterial Street" to
reference a maximum 65 mph speed limit rather than the 55 mph
threshold currently identified.
2. Make an allowance for Construction Signs in all zoning districts
as exempt signs (signs allowed without a permit). In recognition of
typical sign setbacks, the amendment would allow larger signs
along principal arterial streets (the Highway 101 and Interstate 94
corridors).
3. Amend the Real Estate Development Project Sign requirements
in residential districts to allow larger signs along principal arterial
streets.
4. Amend the Commercial/Industrial District sign requirements to:
a. Establish a maximum sign height for real estate signs.
b. Make an allowance for Real Estate Development signs
(Currently allowed only in residential zoning districts).
Page 2
Ordinance No 96-1
A Summary of an Amendment to Section 37, Sign Regulations of
the City of Otsego Zoning Ordinance
The above Amendment was approved by the City Council at the
Council Meeting of February 26, 1996. For further information or
a copy of the proposed Amendment, Ordinance No. 96-1, see the
City Clerk at the City of Otsego, 8899 Nashua Avenue NE, Otsego,
Mn., 55334, phone no. 441-4414.
This Summary of Ordinance No 96-1 approved for publishing at
the City Council Meeting of March 11, 1996.
ATTEST:
Elaine Beatty,
City Clerk/Zoning Adm.
Published: March 20, 1996
(Elk River Star News)
Posted: March 4, 1996
(Otsego City Halt)
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F Freske, Mayor
(City Seat)
CITY OF OTSEGO
Background:
_7.L
This has been continued from the Feb. 26, 1996 Council Meeting at the request of the City Attorney
MacArthur to allow him to work out some issues Re: adverse possession claims by Walter Berning and
Sons. Attached is a Ietter from Andy MacArthur to Wayne German and John Gries along with a draft of
a Developers Agreement and a draft agreement related to the dispute between Walter Bermng and Sons,
Inc. and Island View Estates, Inc. concerning claims for adverse possession. Andy is asking both
parties to come to an agreement so the Council can consider approving the Final Plat of Island View
Estates 2ND Addition. We are hoping to have an agreement by both parties by the 3/11/96 Council
Meeting. The P.C. Unanimously has approved the Final Plat for Island View Estates 2ND Addition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Final Plat of Island View Estates 2ND Addition with the condition that they
reach an agreement acceptable to the City Attorney.
ATTACHMENT
7.2.
The Heritage Plains preliminary plat, came before the P.C_ on Feb_ 21, 1996 for Hearing. The residents
from the surrounding area had some concerns about stormwater drainage and were assured that the
sotrmwater would be ponded on site and grading would flow the water to that site.
Motion by Ing Roskaft to approve PUD/CUP subject to the conditions listed in the Feb 13, 1996 NAC
Report, and subject to the City Engineer's review and comments to drainage plans to ensure that proper
drainage will be met for this plat. Seconded by Jim Kolles. All in favor. Motion Carried. Bruce Rask
was out of the room for this item on the P.C. Agenda with a stated conflict of interest.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the PUD/CUP subject to the conditions listed in the Feb 13, 1996 NAC Report, and subject to
City Engineer's review and comments to draigUe plans to ensure that proper drainage will be met for
this plat. (Read P.C. Minutes of Feb. 21, 1996 for all of the information)
- 2 -
PAGE 2 - (REC CC MEETING OF 3/11196)
1.3 -
Neal Perlich wrote a tetter to Mayor Freske dated February 15, 1996 asking some questions about the
Golf Course Development. Attached is some information he has asked for:
1. Memorandum from Bob Kinnis dated February 29, 1996
2. Information on Antelope Park and Country Ridge subdivisions Re: expenses:
gathered by the City Clerk.
3. Letter dated March 6, 1996 from Andy MacArthur Re: Perlich Letter
4. Information from Merland Otto to Otsego Parks Commission of January 4, 1996
Re: Parr Dedication with Golf Course Development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
the following answers and Staff Rec. Regarding Neal's Letter of 2/15/96:
1. The City of Otsego is not interested in a Franchise and have agreed the plant should be built and
turned over to the City of Otsego to run. If capacity for Island View is included that could possibly
be negotiated.
2. a. Park and Trail Fees are extablished at the time of the final plat approval: Phased approval of the
plat could be different amounts.
2. b. Park and Trail fees for the golf course component could likely be justified. Full Park and Trail fees
should be applied to all individual lots (dwelling units) and golf course.
3. a. Recommend no help with real estate taxes. Viewed as a precedent.
b. Park dedication fees as per City Ordinance
c. Road Improvements are the developers responsibility.
d. Staff does not feel that any justification exists to warrant a waiver of reduction
of various development fees because of residential.
e. General support of the City and no other assistance.
The City of Otsego will need plans and specifics before anything can be decided_
Thank you,
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
March 6, 1996
RADZWILL & CO URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Wayne German
7240 Brooklyn -Boulevard VIA FACSIMILE
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429-1238 AND U.S. MAIL
John Gries
Attorney at Law
Gries & Lenhardt, P.L.L.P.
100 East Central Avenue
PO Box 35
St. Michael, MN 55376
RE: Island View Estates Second Addition
Dear Gentlemen:
Enclosed.herein please find a Draft. Developer's Agreement and a
Draft Agreement related to the dispute. between Walter.Berning &
,.7 Sons Inc.-- ind..tjsland. View,:Estates = -Inc... concerning the..claim for -
`.� y.1i.+c!PRi'�'f+Nq'ianF,if'r#� •w�'�tj�yx,±�r. ��, /1�.'�illttiu�: ��., l.+l+ir'y'.'.iN.F,M4IA:J id-1'r"`'r 4: +_�'� ..: ..:::
adverse possession.`It would °be mypreference-that prior to plat
approval that the applicant either supply me with a policy of title
insurance on the contested property or an a fully executed
agreement substantially in the form contained herein.
Could you both discuss this matter and -let me know if you come to
any agreement 'so that ,I can further advise the City. This matter is
once again tentatively scheduled for Council consideration at
Monday night's meeting.
Please get back to me as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
A rew /-Maatc___thur
RADZWILL & COURI
Encls.
cc: City of Otsego
Bob Kirmis, NAC
DRAFT March 6, 1996
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
ISLAND VIEW ESTATES SECOND ADDITION
AGREEMENT made this day of March, 1996 between the City of
Otsego, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota (City) and Island View Estates, Inc., Fred Bame, and
Wayne German (Developers) regarding that plat known as Island View
Estates Second Addition, the parties agree as follows:
1. Developers have submitted for approval that plat of Island View
Estates Second Addition, said land is legally described as:
See Exhibit A.
2. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the plans
attached to this Contract and the conditions stated in the attached
Exhibit B, the final plat 'of Island View Estates, Second Addition
prepared by , dated
3. That said plat is approved solely for purposes of facilitating
transfer of certain lands to those already within the plat of
Island View Estates and to' create a single buildable lot abutting
the road. It is understood that the following lots; , shall not be
conveyed without being simultaneously conveyed with the adjoining
lot within Island View Estates, to wit:, and that deed restrictions
to that effect and acceptable to the City shall be placed upon all
lots herein approved, as per attached Exhibit C.
3. That it is agreed that no separate lot herein approved within
the plat of Island View Estates Second Addition except for shall
constitute a separate buildable lot.
4. The City has been notified of a claim of adverse possession
regarding Lot 1, Block 1 Island View Estates Second Addition by
Walter Berning & Sons, Inc., the alleged owner of Lot 1, Block 1 of
Island View Estates by correspondence from their attorney dated
February 13, 1996 in which it is claimed that said Walter Berning
& Sons, Inc. lays claim to the west 150 feet of Lot 1, Block 1,
Island View Estates Second Addition through adverse possession.
The City takes no position in this dispute and will not approve the
proposed plat without proper assurance that they will not become a
party to this action. Said assurance shall be in the following
form:
A. A binding agreement signed by all parties to that dispute
that the City will be fully defended, indemnified and held harmless
in the event of any litigation involving this claim. Said Agreement
to read as the attached Exhibit B; or
B. Developer submits to the City a valid and binding document
evidencing that a Policy of Title Insurance as been issued on the
disputed property has been paid for and that will remain in force
and effect.
5. Subject to any further conditions of approval as set forth by
the Otsego City Council.
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat
on the condition that Developers enter into this Contract and any
attendant agreements, furnish any required security, and record the
plat with the Wright County Recorder's Office within one hundred
(100) days after the City Council approves the final plat.
Restrictive Covenants as attached to this Agreement shall be
recorded at the time of plat recording.
3. Developers shall pay all costs incurred by them or the City in
conjunction with development of the plat, including, but not
limited to legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses
incurred in connection with development of said plat, the
preparation of this contract, and all costs and expenses incurred
by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat.
4. Developers shall hold the City and its officers and employees
harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages
sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat development. The
Developers shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees
for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur
in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees.
5 Developers shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the
enforcement of this Contract, including engineering fees,
attorney's fees, and costs and disbursements.
6. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Contract
7. Breach of any terms of this Contract by Developers shall be
grounds for the denial or revocation of building permits.
8. This Contract shall run with the land, shall be recorded s
against the title to the property , and shall be binding on all
patties having any right, title or interests in the plat or any
part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns.
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
By:
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
DEVELOPERS
By:
Fred H. Bame, as President of
Island View Estates, Inc. and
Personally
By:
Wayne German
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day
of , 1996, by Norman F. Freske, Mayor and by Elaine
Beatty, City Clerk, of the City of Otsego, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the City and pursuant to the authority of
the City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day
of , 1996, by Fred H. Bame, both personally and as
President of Island View Estates, Inc. on behalf of the corporation
and Wayne German.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
RADZWILL & COURI
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
DRAFT March 6, 1996
EXHIBIT B
AGREEMENT TO DEFEND, HOLD HARMLESS, AND INDEMNIFY THE CITY OF
OTSEGO FROM DISPUTE RELATED TO LANDS WITHIN THE PLAT OF ISLAND
VIEWESTATES SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS, Island View Estates, Inc. is the owner of a certain parcel
of land legally described as (See Exhibit A) which parcel has been
platted as Island View Estates Second Addition and has been
approved by the City subject to execution of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, said plat contains a certain lot designated as Lot 1,
Block 1 Island View Estates Second Addition which is directly south
of and abbutting Lot 1, Block 4 Island View Estates; and
WHEREAS, Walter Berning & Sons, Inc. appears to be the owner of
said Lot 1, Block 4 Island View Estates; and
WHEREAS, there is no recotd claim by Walter Berning & Sons, Inc.
against Lot 1, Block 1 Island View Estates Second Addition; and
WHEREAS, the City of Otsego was notified by letter from the Atorney
representing Walter Berning & Sons, Inc. dated February 13, 1996
that Walter Berning & Sons, Inc. was asserting a claim in the
nature of adverse possession over the westerly 150 feet of Lot 1,
Block 1 Island View Estates Second Addition, prior to final
approval of said plat; and
WHEREAS, the City of Otsego takes no position as to the validity or
invalidity of said claim, but does not desire to become involved in
possible litigation involving the matter; and
WHEREAS, the City will require assurances that it will not become
involved in litigation surrounding the matter.
THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by Island View Estates, Inc. and Walter
Berning & Sons, Inc. their heirs,devisees, successors, assigns and
predeccessors in title that neither party will name the City of
Otsego as a defendant in any action commenced relative to the above
mentioned dispute, and in the event that, for whatever reason, the
City does become involved in litigation arising from said dispute
that Island View Estates, Inc., their heirs, devisees, sucessors,
assigns, and predeccessors in title shall defend, indemnfy and hold
harmless the City of Otsego from any and all costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City relative to any
such litigation.
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
ISLAND VIEW ESTATES, INC.
Fred H. Bame, Its President
WALTER S. BERNING & SONS, INC.
By:
Its
A
C
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Bob Kirmis
22 February 1996
Otsego - Heritage Plains
176.02 - 96.04
Attached are "findings of fact" applicable to the Heritage Plains PUD/CUP request to be
considered by the City Council on 11 March.
Please note that the findings are reflective of the Planning Commission's recommendation
on this matter.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Richard Kincannon
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/
CUP APPROVAL
CITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE: FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Application of Richard Kincannon for a planned unit development/conditional use permit
to allow:
1. Lot widths less than 150 feet in an R-3, Residential Immediate Urban Service
District.
2. A cul-de-sac which exceeds 500 feet in length.
On 11 March 1996, the Otsego City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the application of Richard Kincannon for a planned unit development/conditional
use permit to allow the aforementioned.
Based upon the application, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the
evidence received, the City Council now makes the following findings of fact and decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is requesting a planned unit development conditional use permit to
allow: a) Lot widths less than 150 feet in an R-3, Residential Immediate Urban
service District; and b) a cul-de-sac which exceeds 500 feet in length.
2. The subject property is zoned R-3, Residential Immediate Urban Service District.
3. The legal description of the property is:
That part of the N'/z of the SW 1/4, Sec. 16, Township 121, Range 23
lying West of the East 118 Rods & 2 links and lying South of CSAH
39, City of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota.
4. The proposed use (single family dwellings) is a permitted use in the R-3 District.
5. The purpose of planned unit development has been satisfied as the imposition of
performance standards (beyond that of "conventional" subdivisions) will result in a
high standard of site design.
6. Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and
City Council to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional
use. The seven effects and findings regarding them are:
a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and
provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use and design flexibilities afforded through the use of PUD
are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
Housing styles and development techniques which conserve land and
increase efficiency are to be encouraged.
Density shall be given equal consideration to lot size in planning for
the community and in the review of development requests.
The proposed development also constitutes "infill" development which is
further encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of
the area.
The proposed use and development density are compatible with present and
future land uses of the area.
C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained
herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
As a condition of final plat approval, the proposed use will be required to
comply with all performance standards established by the PUD and other
applicable ordinances.
d. The proposed use's effect on the area in which it is proposed.
The proposed use will not tend to or have an adverse effect upon the area
in which it is proposed.
e. The proposed use's impact upon the property values of the area in
which it is proposed.
The proposed use will not tend to depreciate area property values.
2
f. Traffic generated by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of
streets serving the property.
The subject property is to be accessed via a County Road 39 service road.
Traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
g. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities
including parks, schools, streets and utilities, and its potential to
overburden the City's service capacity.
The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public service facilities.
The proposed use will not overburden the City's service capacity.
7. The planning report dated 13 February 1996, prepared by Northwest Associated
Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
8. On 21 February 1996, the Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
to consider the proposed planning unit development/conditional use permit
application preceded by published and mailed notice. Upon review of the
application and evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission closed the
public hearing and recommended that the City Council approve the planned unit
development/conditional use permit request based on the aforementioned findings.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinances, the applicant's request
for a planned unit development/conditional use permit to allow: 1) lot widths less than 150
feet in an R-3, Residential Immediate Urban Service District; and 2) a cul-de-sac which
exceeds 500 feet in length is approved and subject to the following conditions:
1. Lots 8, 9 and 10 are reconfigured to provide greater consistency in lot width.
2. The service road which abuts the subject property to the north is surfaced with
bituminous material. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City
Engineer and Wright County Highway Department.
3. O'Brian Avenue is reconfigured to intersect the County Road 39 service road at a
right angle.
4. Driveways upon Lots 1 and 16 are located proximate to the lots' southern
boundaries.
3
5. The subdivision's street (O'Brian Avenue) is constructed as an urban section. This
issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer.
6. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to drainage and
utility easement establishment.
7. The submitted grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.
8. The Park and Recreation Committee provide recommendation in regard to park and
trail dedication requirements.
9. All front yards of lots be sodded. Side yards which abut public streets are to be
treated as "front yards" and shall also be sodded.
10. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to street
lighting.
11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to water supply
and sewage disposal issues.
12. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all
necessary securities required by it.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of March 1996.
CITY OF OTSEGO
AO -
ATTEST:
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, Deputy Clerk/Zoning Administrator
M
FAC
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING DESIGN MARKET R E S E A R C H
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE:. 22 February 1996
RE: Otsego - Heritage Plains
FILE NO: 176.02 -96.04
Enclosed please find a draft development agreement applicable to the Heritage Plains
subdivision.
Please review the draft agreement and advise our office of any suggested modifications.
Once your comments are received, a draft version of the agreement will be provided to the
developer for review.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
22 February 1996
HERITAGE PLAINS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
AND SUBDIVISION
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT dated , 1996, by and between the CITY OF
OTSEGO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and RICHARD KINCANNON
("Developer").
1. Request for Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit and Plat
Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development
Conditional Use Permit and plat for Heritage Plains (referred to in this Contract as the
"plat"), the subject land being legally described as:
That part of the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4, Sec. 16 Township 121, Range 23 lying
West of the East 118 Rods & 2 links and lying South of CSAH 39, City of
Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota.
2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the planned unit
development conditional use permit and plat on condition that the Developer enter into this
Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the Wright County
Recorder or Registrar of titles within one hundred (100) days after the City Council
approves the final plat. Any restrictive covenants for the subject subdivision shall be
submitted to the City Attorney for approval and shall be recorded prior to plat approval and
shall be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A.
3. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may
not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines,
streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following
conditions have been satisfied: 1) this Agreement has been fully executed by both parties
and filed with the Zoning Administrator, and all conditions contained in the Agreement
have been met, 2) the necessary security has been received by the City, 3) the plat has
been recorded with the Wright County Recorder's Office, and 4) the Zoning Administrator
has issued a letter that all conditions have been satisfied and that the Developer may
proceed.
4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this
Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply
to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved
plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the
Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full
extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to
the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements
enacted after the date of this Contract.
5. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the
plans attached to this Contract and the conditions stated below. The soil erosion plan
must be approved by the City Engineer. If the plans vary from the written terms of this
Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are:
Plan A Final plat for Heritage Plains, prepared by John Oliver and
Associates, dated 11996.
Plan B Grading and drainage plan, development plan/erosion and
sedimentation control plan, prepared by John Oliver and Associates,
dated , 1996.
Plan C Street plan, profile and cross section prepared by John Oliver and
Associates, dated , 1996.
6. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
A. Streets
B. Street lights
C. Site grading and ponding
D. Underground utilities
E. Setting of lot and block monuments
F. Construction surveying and staking
G. Traffic control signs
Improvements shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and
the plans furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall
obtain all necessary permits before proceeding with construction. The Developer shall
provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure acceptable quality control which will
allow certification of the construction work. The City may, at its discretion and the
Developer's expense, have one or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the
work. Within thirty (30) days after the completion of the improvements and before any
security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of
reproducible "as built" plans and two complete sets of blue line "as built" plans prepared
2
in accordance with City standards. Before the security for the completion of utilities is
released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes
505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that
the monuments are installed.
7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all listed improvements
by 31 December 1996. The Developer may request an extension of time from the City.
The City may impose conditions on the extension necessary to ensure performance.
8. Right of Entry. The Developer hereby grants to the City, its agents,
employees, officers and contractors a rigl•tt of entry to enter the plat to perform any and all
work and inspections necessary or deemed appropriate by the City during the installation
of improvements by Developer or the City, or to make any necessary corrective actions
necessary by the City. Said right of entry continues until the City finally accepts the
improvements.
9. Erosion Control. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility
construction is commenced or further building permits are issued, the erosion control plan,
Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City.
If the City Engineer determines that it would be unreasonable to require full implementation
of the erosion control plan prior to utility construction or issuance of certain building
permits, he shall state in writing what construction can take place and what particular
building permits can be issued prior to full implementation. The City may impose
additional erosion control requirements if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, they would
be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be
reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. If the Developer does not
comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or any supplementary instructions, the
City may, without notice, take action as it deems appropriate.
10. Grading Plan. Plat grading shall be in accordance with the grading plan.
Ponds, swales, and ditches shall be constructed on public easements or land owned by
the City. Within thirty (300) days after completion of grading and before any security
release, the Developers shall provide the City with an "as built" grading plan including
certification by a registered land surveyor or engineer that all ponds, swales, and ditches
have been constructed on public easements or land owned by the City. "As built" plans
shall include field verified elevations of the following:
A. Cross sections of ponds
B. Location and elevations of swales and ditches
C. Lot corners and house pads
Occupancy permits shall not be issued until the grading and drainage plan is
certified as set out above.
3
11. Clean Up. The Developer shall promptly clean any and all dirt and debris
from streets resulting from construction work by the Developer, his agents or assigns.
12. Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion of the work and
construction required by this Contract, improvements lying within public easements shall
become City property without further notice or action.
13. Streets. Developers agree to maintain the street(s) in the plat until the
bituminous surfacing has been accepted by the City. Should the City be required to grade
the streets prior to paving, the cost of such grading shall be paid by the Developer and
drawn'from the Developer's letter of credit. Should snow plowing be necessary prior to
street paving, the Developer shall be responsible for such plowing. If, upon Developer's
request, the City agrees to plow the streets prior to acceptance, such work will be done
upon agreement that the Developer will hold harmless and indemnify the City from any and
all liability claims related to such work and pay all costs associated with that work. Any
plowing undertaken by the City will constitute no acceptance or evidence of acceptance
of the street(s) in question. Upon final completion of street(s) and acceptance by the City,
the Developer shall guarantee to the City for a period of one (1) year that street(s) have
been constructed to City standards. The warranty period shall not commence until such
time as street construction is completed and the street(s) are accepted by the City.
O'Brian Avenue shall be constructed as an urban section street and comply with
City construction standards for such street type and in accordance with attached Plan C.
Access to the plat shall be achieved solely via the County Road 39 service road. The
county road service road shall be constructed in accordance with attached Plan C.
14. Sewage Treatment. No building permit for any lot in the plat will be issued
by the City unless the City Building Official has reviewed and approved the design for each
lot's individual on-site sewage disposal system and all the terms and conditions required
by said City Official are met by the owner of that lot.
Provision shall be made in front of all houses for future hookup to a municipal
sanitary sewage collection system. Once available, hookup to a municipal sanitary
sewage collection system shall be required of all lots within the subject subdivision. All lot
owners shall waive the right to appeal all assessment charges made in conjunction with
municipal sewage system hookup.
15. City Engineering Administration and Construction Observation. The
Developer shall pay a fee for consulting engineering administration. City engineering
administration will include monitoring of construction, observation, consultation with
Developers and their engineer on status or problems regarding the project, monitoring
during the warranty period and processing of requests for reduction in security. Fees for
this service shall be three percent (3%) of the estimated construction cost, assuming
normal construction and project scheduling. The Developer shall pay for construction
observation performed by the City's consulting engineer. Construction observation shall
include part or full time inspection of proposed street construction and will be billed on
hourly rates estimated to be five percent (5%) of the estimated construction cost. In the
event of prolonged construction or unusual problems, the City will notify the Developer of
anticipated cost overruns for administration and observation services.
16. Restrictions. The following restrictions apply to the property and all lots
thereon shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following conditions and
restrictions which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of the plat and
insuring that all conditions imposed by the City in this Agreement are properly recorded
against the property. Said conditions shall run with the real property and be binding on
all parties having any right, title or interest in the plat or any part thereof, their heirs,
successors and assigns:
A. Driveways upon Lots 1 and 16 of the plat are located proximate to the lots'
southern boundary.
B. All front yards or side yards abutting public rights-of-way shall be sodded.
The above conditions shall not be released until the Developer provides the City with proof
that proper deed restrictions have been recorded to enforce those conditions.
17. Security. To ensure compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of
real estate taxes including interest and penalties, payment of the costs of all public
improvements, and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the
City with an irrevocable letter of credit ("security") for $ , said amount
calculated as follows:
Site, grading, drainage, erosion $
control, and turf establishment
Engineering, surveying, and inspection
One year's real estate taxes $.
Construction of street and drainage $
improvements
TOTAL
5
The issuer and form of the letter of credit shall be subject to City approval. The
letter of credit shall be for a term ending 31 December 1996. The City may draw down the
letter of credit, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Contract or upon
receiving notice that the letter of credit will be allowed to lapse prior to the end of the
required terms. If the required improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days
prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may also draw down the letter of credit.
If the letter or credit is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon
receipt of proof satisfactory to the City that work has been completed and financial
obligations to the City have been satisfied, with City approval, the security may be reduced
from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the financial obligations that have been
satisfied. Ten percent (10%) of the security shall be retained until all improvements have
been completed, all financial obligations to the City satisfied, and the required "as built'
plans have been received by the City.
18. Escrow. The Developer shall pay to the City, in cash or by certified check,
for deposit in an escrow fund, amounts for estimated future administrative and legal fees
as well as City engineering and construction observation. These amounts are calculated
as follows:
Future Administrative and Legal $
Engineering Services $
TOTAL
This escrow amount must be submitted to the City prior to approval of remaining
building permits. All administrative and legal fees related to plan review, drafting of the
Developer's agreement and any other necessary items shall be paid to the City prior to any
building permit approval. Any amounts not utilized from this escrow fund shall be returned
to the Developer, without interest, when all improvements have been completed, all
financial obligations to the City satisfied, and the required "as built" plans have been
received by the City.
19. Landscaping. The Developers shall plant two trees on every lot in the plat
not already containing two trees. Trees shall be selected from among the following
species, or other species of tree which meet the approval of the City Building Official:
Maples Basswood
Linden Birch
Ash Ginko (male only)
Honey Locus Kentucky Coffee Tree
Hackberry
The minimum tree size shall be two (2) inches caliper, either bare root in season
or balled and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in a boulevard. Any trees which
can cause a public nuisance or public hazard, such as bug infestation or weak bark are
specifically prohibited.
The Developer shall sod all front yards. All other yards may be seeded or sodded.
The Developer shall provide not less than six (6) inches of topsoil in required front yards
or side yards abutting public rights-of-way. Where slopes lie in excess of ten (10) percent,
sodding (staked) shall be required. Weather permitting, the trees, grass seed and sod
shall be planted before Certificates of Occupancy are issued. All grass seed shall be
maintained so that turf is established within one (1) year of planting. At the time of
application for a building permit on each individual lot, the Developer shall post a six
hundred dollar ($600.00) cash escrow with the City to guarantee compliance with the
landscaping requirements on that individual lot. If the landscaping is not timely completed,
the City may enter the lot, perform the work, and apply the cash escrow toward the cost.
Upon satisfactory completion of the landscaping, the escrow funds, without interest and
less any draw made by the City, shall be returned to the person who deposited the funds
with the City.
20. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it
against poor material and faulty workmanship for a period of one (1) year after its
completion and acceptance by the City. All trees, grass, seed, and sod shall be
maintained and warranted to be alive, of good quality and disease free for twelve (12)
months after planting. Any replacement shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from
the time of planting. The Developer shall post security acceptable to the City to secure
these warranties.
21. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen,
or others that perform work required by this Contract, and the sums due them have not
been paid, and the laborers, materialmen or others are seeking payment from the City, the
Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an interpleader action pursuant to
Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the
letters of credit in an amount up to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the claim(s)
and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer
shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains
to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain
jurisdiction to determine attorney fees pursuant to this Contract. In the event that the
Developer desires to make a cash deposit instead of drawing down the letter of credit if
a claim is made as stated above, they shall immediately notify the City of this intent at the
time the claim is made and shall delivery one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the
claim to the City within ten (10) days of such notice in the form of cash or certified check.
7
22. Responsibility for Costs.
A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs
incurred by them or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat,
including but not limited to legal, planning, engineering, and inspection
expenses incurred in connection with development of said plat, the
preparation of this Contract, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City
in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat.
B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless
from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs
incurred resulting from plat development. The Developers shall indemnify
the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses
which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including
attorney's fees.
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement
of this Contract, including engineering fees, attorney's fees, and costs and
disbursements.
D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for
obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt.
If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work
and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of building permits
for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are
paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the
rate of eighteen percent (18%) per year.
E. The Developer shall pay for the operation and maintenance of any and all
street lights within the plat for a period of one (10) year or until the plat is
ninety percent (90%) built cut, whichever occurs first. This period shall
commence upon completion of the first residence in the plat.
23. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of
the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and
the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City,
provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than seven (7)
days in advance. This notice provision does not apply if the work performed by the City
or its contractors is of an emergency nature, as determined at the sole discretion of the
city. Should such emergency work be required the City will make all reasonable efforts to
notify the Developer as soon as possible. When the City does any such work, the City
may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part pursuant to any
applicable statutes or ordinances.
24. Miscellaneous.
A. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City,
County, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but
not limited to, Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, and
environmental regulations except where specifically excluded by this
agreement. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City
may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the
plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the
Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract.
C. Breach of any of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be
grounds for denial or revocation of building permits.
D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase
of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract.
E. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of
public improvements, the Developer shall assume all liability for the costs
resulting in any delay in completion of public improvements and damage to
any public improvements caused by the City, the Developer, is/her
contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents, or third
parties. No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued
on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access
have been paved with a bituminous surface, unless a specific exception is
approved by the City.
F. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment
to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers
shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution
of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce
this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
G. This Contract shall run with the land, shall be recorded against the title to the
property, and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interests
in the plat or any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns. After the
Developer has completed the work required of them under this Contract, at
the Developer's request, the City will execute and deliver to the Developer
a release or partial release (s) of this Agreement.
9
H. The Developer shall take out and maintain until one (1) year after the City
has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage
insurance covering personal injury, including death, and any claims for
property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work
of their subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of
them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall not be less than $500,000.00
for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property
damage shall be not less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City
shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, and the
Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to
the City issuing further building permits.
Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative
and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied,
now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any
other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set
forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often
and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be
a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power
or remedy.
J. The Developer shall pay for all local costs related to drainage improvements
required to complete the construction according to the plans and conditions
that are a part of this Agreement.
K. Should development of the plat proceed at a pace slower than anticipated,
and for that reason, specific terms of this agreement become onerous or
unduly burdensome to the Developer, upon his/her application, the City will
enter into negotiations regarding those specific terms and shall not
unreasonably withhold consent to appropriate changes in the terms of this
Agreement.
L. The field access which currently accesses the subject property shall be
obliterated prior to building permit issuance.
M. A soil report for on-site sewage disposal systems shall be provided.
N. Developer shall demonstrate compliance with the 1991 Wetland
Conservation Act.
25. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be
either hand delivered to the Developer, his/her employees or agents, or mailed to the
Developer by registered mail at the following address: Richard Kincannon, 13333 179th
10
Circle, Elk River, MN 55330. Notice to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand
delivered to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk, or mailed to the City by registered mail in
care of the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk at the following address: City of Otsego, City
Hall, 8899 Nashua Avenue NE, Otsego, MN 55330, Attn: City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk.
CITY OF OTSEGO
L'�
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
DEVELOPER
M.
Richard Kincannon
11
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1996, by Norman F. Fresks, Mayor and by Elaine Beatty, City
Clerk, of the City Otsego, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City and
pursuant to the authority of the City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1996, by Richard Kincannon, the Developer of Heritage Plains on his
own behalf.
12
Notary Public
CONSENT
Richard Kincannon, fee owner of all or part of the subject property, the development of
which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirms and consents to the
provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that
portion of the subject property owned by them.
DATED this day of
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
1996
Richard Kincannon
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1996 by
a
Drafted by:
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Edited by:
Radzwill and Couri Law Office
P.O. Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
Notary Public
13
day of
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Elaine Beatty
DATE: 29 February 1996
RE: Otsego - Perlich
FILE NO: 176.02 - 96.01
At the City Council's request, staff has attempted to respond and provide recommendation
on various questions raised by Mr. Neal Perlich in his 15 February 1996 letter to the Mayor
and Council.
Mr. Perlich's questions relate directly to his proposal to establish a ± 200 unit low density
residential unit development (in conjunction with an 18 hole golf course) upon a + 335 acre
tract of land located south of the Island View Estates subdivision between Kadler and
Kahler Avenues.
In reference to the said 15 February letter, the following comments/recommendations are
offered by staff:
Park and Trail Fees
While 200 new residential lots and their associated population would undoubtably
have an impact upon the City's park and trail system, we question if the same would
hold true for the 190 acre golf course. In this regard, we believe a waiver of park
and trail dedication fees for the golf course component of the project could likely be
justified. It is recommended, however, that full park/trail dedication fees be applied
to all individual lots (dwelling units) as a waiver would set what is viewed as a highly
questionable precedent.
2. City Assistance
a. Property Taxes. In terms of benefit to the City, the primary basis for support
of the project would seem to be an ability to, at some point, address possible
environmental concerns associated with the Riverwood Conference Center
and Island View Estates Subdivision. Beyond this reason, justification for
the use in its proposed location may be considered "questionable".
Typically, single family residential uses are not a "money maker" in terms of
property tax revenue. While considered a matter of City policy, it is believed
any City assistance in regard to real estate taxes would set poor precedent
and is not recommended. City assistance should be reserved for economic
development projects. Housing is not viewed by staff as development which
justifies subsidy.
b. Park and Trail Fees. As noted previously, a waiver of park/trail dedication
fees for the golf course component of the Perlich project could be justified.
C. Roadway Improvements. It is staffs opinion that no City assistance should
be given in regard to roadway improvements associated with the project (i.e.,
Kadler Avenue). Considering that there is little or no justification for such
assistance, and the undesirable precedent which would be set by City
assistance in roadway improvements for a housing project is not
recommended.
d. Processing Fees. Staff does not feel that any justification exists to warrant
a waiver or reduction of various development fees associated with the
proposed project given its residential emphasis.
e. Other Assistance. Arguably, the City's greatest assistance to the developer
is general support of the project. As you are aware, the proposed low
density residential land use is not consistent with the City's Land Use Plan.
In this regard, the acceptability of the proposed use could be questioned.
Considering, however, that a package type sewage treatment system has
been proposed which could address future environmental concerns in the
area, the use has generally been determined to be acceptable (through land
use plan amendment). Other than City support of the project and possible
waiver of park dedication on the golf course portion of the project, no further
City assistance is recommended.
FA
3. Processing Fees
Given the unknowns associated with the project, it is difficult to provide an estimate
of associated processing fees. For informational purposes, the following is a
listing of fees charged other "large scale" residential subdivisions within the City:
Subdivision Date Lots Processing Fees
Antelope Park June 1992 42 $52,194.43
Country Ridge June 1992 77 $1061,213-00
While staff feels that fees associated with the subject request will exceed that of the
preceding subdivisions (due to a number of unique aspects of the proposed
development), we do not feel comfortable offering a specific fee estimate.
4. Preliminary Plat Processing
Typically, approval of a preliminary plat occurs within two months (from date of
application to City Council approval). While the necessary rezoning application
could be processed simultaneously with the final plat. possible PUD processing
would extend the duration of the City review process. It should be noted that the
City processing estimate is exclusive of necessary state permits.
Staff will be available at the forthcoming 11 March City Council to discuss this matter in
greater detail.
pc: Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Robert Kirmis
Neal Perlich
K
March 1, 1996
The following expenses were incurred for Antelope Park
Subdivision of 41- lots:
$327,200.00 - Letter of Credit (Posted with the City)
$33,394.43 - Professional Fees Paid
$2,000.00 - Street Signs
$145,700.00 - Park Fees
$ 2,100.00 - Trail Fees
Total------------------------------------
The following Expenses were incurred for Country Ridge Plat of
77- Lots:
$300,000.00 - Letter of Credit (Posted with the City)
$20,100.00 - Original Escrow paid
Note: Developer installed and paid for the fallowing:
A. Streets
B. Street Signs
C. Street Lights
D. Site Grading and Ponding
E. Underground Utilities
F. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
G. Surveying and staking
Estimate of above is - $324,381.94 Total
Special Assessments as follows:
$301938.00 - 85TH ST RD PROD. ($15,469.00 Ea 40A)
$24,375.00 - Storm Sewer Project
Total $55,313.00
Park Fees of $350.00 per lot = $26,950.00
Trail Fees of $ 3.850.00
Total $106,213.00
-VU am S. Radmill
ndrew J. M"Aithur
Michael C. Couri
March 6, 1996
Elaine Beatty
City Clerk
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN
RADZWILL & COURI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Bax 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
RE: Response To Perlich Letter
Dear Elaine:
At the Council's request, I have reviewed the letter from Neil
Perlich relative to his proposed development adjacent to Riverwood
dated February 15, 1996. I have also reviewed Bob Kirmis' draft
memo to you dated February 29, 1996. My comments are as follows:
1. I agree with Bob Kirmis' remarks relative to the proposed 190
acre golf course.
In regards to Mr. Perlich's inquiry regarding the establishment of
Park and Trail dedication fees, those fees are, by ordinance,
established at the time of final plat approval. I would not
recommend that the City agree to any set amount that could end up
being below the established amount at the date of final plat
approval. However, if the development is to proceed in phases with
preliminary plat approval and then final plat approval of different
phases at later dates, I would not be opposed to an agreement
establishing the fee amount at the date of first plat approval as
long as it had a reasonable deadline for further final plat
approvals.
2. Regarding property taxes, I agree with Bob Kirmis' comments.
3. Regarding roadway improvements, I agree that no direct
assistance from the City of Otsego is appropriate.
The Developer is free to petition for street improvements to be
Letter to Elaine Beatty
March 6, 1996
Page 2
done as a public improvement. Developer would still have to secure
the project but their could be the possibility that some savings
could be had by following this alternative procedure. This issue
should be addressed by the City Engineer.
4. For purposes of estimating engineering and other fees I believe
the best basis for an estimate of these fees is evaluation of costs
related to previous developments, especially Country Ridge which
required an EAW. The engineering and inspection fees are generally
set forth as an estimated percentage in the standard form City
Developer's Agreement, a copy of which can be provided to the
Developer. I see no reason to provide any cap on these fees.
Regarding legal and planning fees, the Developer should be able to
estimate those roughly based upon previous developments. It should
be noted that Country Ridge is probably the best estimate, since it
contained additional legal fees due to the EAW.
Regarding our fees to date, please find a copy of our billing
summary up to February 23 which is in the amount of$270.00. My
review of the general billing reveals an additional .5 hours
research on February 15, an additional 1.5 hours to research and
draft a letter on February 21. I am estimating that it will be one
hour to draft this letter for a total of $570.00 incurred as of
this date.
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.
Very t my yours,
A rew J acArur
RADZWILL h COURI
Encl.
cc: Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
Bob Kirmis, NAC
William S. Radzwill
:drew J. MacArthur
Ldichael C. Court
March 6, 1996
RADZWILL & C4 URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Professional Services Rendered -- RIVERWOOD GOLF DEVELOPMENT
02/09/96 --- Attend staff meeting regarding 1.00
Perlich at Otsego City Hall.
RIVERWOOD GOLF DEVELOPMENT
02/13/96 --- Telephone conference to Elaine 0.50
Beatty and Larry Koshak regarding
Perlich meeting etc.
RIVERWOOD GOLF DEVELOPMENT
02/20/96 ---
Telephone conference to Larry
1.00
Koshak; review wastewater treatment
issues file and statutes regarding
franchise; begin draft letter to
City regarding same.
RIVERWOOD GOLF DEVELOPMENT
02/22/96 ---
Telephone conference to Larry
0.20
Koshak regarding wastewater
treatment plant.
RIVERWOOD GOLF DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL BILLABLE TIME: 2.70 HOURS
2.70 HOURS @ $100/HR =
$ 270.00
TOTAL DUE AND OWING:
$ 270.00
A4d
r - I e- c.
l
�tf•
J# 3 00 .OD
fs1, oa
MAR 06 '96 09:20 HAKANSON ANDERSON P.2
hHAnkerson
Anderson
Assoc,fric.
M'EM'ORANDUM
TO: Otsego Parks Commission
FROM: Meriand Otto
DATE: January 4, 1998
RE: Park Dedication. with Golf Course Development
222 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
Mr. Perlich has requested that the City waive park dedication fees for a development
proposal consisting of a golf course open to the public and a housing development of
approximately 190 to 200 homes.
While the development proposal outlined in his December 18, 1995 letter is brief, the
total area being developed would be approximately 330 acres of which 190 acres
would be golf course. The developer indicates that the value of the golf course
property is approximately $600,000 which would roughly be $3,160 per acre.
The Parks Comprehensive Plan indicates a need for a neighborhood park (10 - 25
acres) in District 1 and a 10 acre park in District 2 in the general vicinity of where the
development is proposed.
Under the ordinance, park dedication requirements would be 10% of the gross area
being subdivided resulting in 33 acres of park land dedication or a cash in lieu of land
dedication fee of approximately $161,000 (190 units x $850/unit).
In addition, trail development fees of $125/unit would be required ($23,750).
Mr. Perlich has requested that the City consider waiving the park dedication
requirements and will present his case at your January 9 meeting.
We have contacted a number of communities to ascertain how they have responded
to similar development proposals. The following briefly summarizes other
communities' responses to golf course development and park dedication requirements.
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
MAR 06 '96 09:21 HAKANSON ANDERSON P.3
Otsego Parks Commission
Page 2
January 4, 1998
Fox Hollow
FRANKFORT TOWNSHIP
Developer paid park dedication based on the estimated market value of
the PUD inclusive of golf course acreage.
Northfork
RAMSEY
Developer paid park dedication in land and cash in addition to PUD open
space requirements.
The Wilda
PRIOR LAKE
Normal dedication is 10% of land or $850/du. City did waive a portion
of park fees as a development incentive. Current Parks Director says that
he would argue ardently against this, but he wasn't there at the time.
Pheasant Run
CORCORAN
City waived fees on portion that was used for golf course. Fees were
applied for residential development.
Rush Creek
MAPLE GROVE
Not collected on golf course parcel because this was not platted, rather
it was an Administrative Division. When the surrounding homestead
parcel is developed, they will then collect park dedication fees.
wroath & Olym
EDEN PRAIRIE
City received full park dedication fees in land and cash wd required
developer to dedicate all course holes as permanent open space. This
was done to protect the value of housing development which was paying
a premium for open space adjoining their lots. In the event that the
Mayor Norman F. Freske
Otsego City Hall
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
February 15, 1996
Dear Mayor Freske and Otsego City Council Members:
Due to my schedule, I will be unable to attend the Workshop meeting scheduled
for February
22, 1996. I totally understand the importance of this meeting concerning the
future of our proposed development. However, I will be out of town on February 22 and
February 23.
the strategic importance of this meeting, I would like to submit a list of
Knowingrecognize this is a short
issues that I feel must be resolved within the next two w for
weeks. or
time span, but I believe most of these issues have been app of cs. acres
We
need to continue on a time schedule, that mandates we close on the F to certain
of land by December of 1996. To do so, we must request immediate resp
onse matters. They are as follows:
1. We must have a written agreement from the City that we will be granted a
franchise to own, design,
construct, maintain and operate a package treatment sewage
plant. The plant should include sewer and water to providefiffi utilities
a be entirely proposed
development. It is my understanding and agreement that this package
subsidized by ourselves. We, or others, would be responsible for the operation and
maintenance of this facility. The system would be subject to MPCA app
It is my understanding that the package plant and utilities will be designed to
accommodate our project. If Riverwood Conference
Centerwould pay us a proportionate would then be constructed to accommodate them they
share of the cost. The system could be designed so that Island View hhoomties ey oudld o a
up" later if need be. This would entail increasing the plant capacity
andproportionate share to the owners, or us.
hopeful that the City, at
I know this will have to be massaged by attorneys. I am ho P
this time, can grant us, in writing, the franchise to build and operate the plant. We will
find it improbable to continue the pursuit of this project, without getting this resolved in
the next 10-20 days. We are presently running 45 days behind our projected schedule.
Neal A. Perlich Realty Incorporated
__ - MI -4 cititp 2n7 Minnetonka, MN 55305
Mayor Norman Freske
Page 2 of 4
February 15, 1996
Please do not take this as a "threat", but rather as fact. This issue is the most important
element of our progress. We must have this agreement secured in the next 10-20 days. It
is relatively simple, if we pay to build and own the plant — we want a franchise to operate
it.
We would not intend to simply turn the system over to the City. After having
designed, financed, constructed and managed the plant, there would have to be some
compensation. This option would exist for the City.
Again, we recognize that the granting of the facility as a franchise, does not assure
us of anything until we receive final or preliminary plat approval- To repeat in plain,
simple English — unless granted the franchise, the project is dead. Since we are paying the
full cost, I do not feel this is unfair. Since we are solving a problem for Riverwood and
future problems for Island View, I would consider it a no lose situation for the City.
2. We must have a commitment from the City as to the fees for Park and Trail
assessments.
a. Will we be granted the present assessment of $875.00 (including
Park and Trail) per residential lot?
b. What would the assessment fee or allocation be for the 190 acre
golf course? Need specifics. (How much per acre or what?)
Please spell out the specifics.
3. It has been mentioned several times in meetings that the City will "help"
but "not in a monetary way". What specifically does this mean?
a. Does it mean in real estate taxes?
b. Does it mean in Park Dedication Fees?
C. Road Improvement Charges (Kadler, etc.)?
d. Waiving any legal, engineering or development fees? Please be
specific, if there is any participation from the City -- what is it going
to be?
e. Or other answers?
Mayor Norman Freske
Page 3 of 4
February 15, 1996
4. I would request a safe figure, or percentage of actual construction fees,
that would be charged by the City for engineering/supervision fees. This is not
unreasonable. We worked this out in our most recent development in Wyoming,
Minnesota with a fuIiy sewered and watered residential development. We have to get a
"ball park" figure on what the City charges may be for this project. Because this involves
a sewer and water plant along with a lot development, we must be able to relate to
percentage cost. EXAMPLE 1: If our "plant costs" are $500,000, what could their
charges be — knowing the MPCA will control this. More and more cities are providing
this up -front. EXAMPLE 2: If there are 200 lots, with three miles of roads and total
development costs are 513,000 per lot, what are their fees? I recognize that this is
nebulous, but we have to know what the City Engineer charges may be on this project.
We need a figure given a 15% margin of error, recognizing the development of lots over
three to four years. I know they hesitate to do this, however I do know that based on the
givens:
a. 200 residential lots;
b. Golf course; and
C. Privately owned sewer and water approved by MPCA (they would
be the governing factor).
A "not to exceed" figure could be given to us. Perhaps this is an area where the CI
could "help" We are looking for a firm figure — "not to exceed". On a development of
this magnitude, it can be done — "as a guarantee" or "subject to", etc. We need this for
projections.
6. I need to know the City's timing. If we provide you a preliminary plat on a
given date, knowing it will carry restrictions from an EAW survey or MPCA approvals,
how long will the process take to get approval from the City? Subject to EAW, MPCA or
other necessary approvals, how long would it take to get the project through the usual
process?
a. Three months?
b. Four months?
C. Five months?
This means preliminary plat approval. We must know this to be accommodating our
Purchase Agreements on the land.
Mayor Norman Freske
Page 4 of 4
February 15, 1996
I am sure this leaves out many details that must be answered in the future.
However, we must have answers to these questions — NOW I do feel that these matters
can be addressed and resolved by the Council. We are requesting a reply by March 5,
1996. Please understand, we want very much to do this project. We presently have
approximately $30,000 invested, which is infinitesimal in relation to the future. We are
prepared to go forward. I am anxiously awaiting the City's answers and direction.
Thank you Mr. Mayor and all members of the City Council. Please give this
matter your most serious and immediate attention.
Sincerely,
Neal Perlich
NP/epw
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION. DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
8.ANDY MAC ARTHUR, CITY ATTORNEY 3/11/96 - 6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER: ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
8.1. Update of LefCo/Otsego Appeal (Feedlot)
Background:
&i.
As you know, LefCo has appealed the City of Otsego's decision on their CUP for a Feedlots
to District Court. Attached is three letters from Andy MacArthur and one from Gries and Lenhardt
regarding same. Andy will update you on where we are with this issue.
Thank you,
J01
William S. Radzwill
Wrew J. MacklhAO
,tichael C. CouH
March 6, 1996
RADMILL & COUPJ
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Bas 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Ci}y r'�::ncil 2iembcrc
City of Otsego .
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Lef-Co V. City of Otsego
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed herein please find correspondence recently received from
Lef-Cols attorney relative to filing this case. I have met with Mr.
Lenhardt on a couple of occasions to review the City's file in this
matter and we have agreed upon a listing of all documents within
that file.
I have been informed by Mr. Lenhardt that he will attempt to
augment the record in this matter through depositions. I have
already informed him that I will oppose any such efforts. I would
expect that this will be the subject of a motion shortly.
I will be filing the City's Answer today.
Very t my yours,
A rew J acArt ur
RADZWILL i COURI
Encls.
Lohn F. Grecs
Lcnhardt
J. Van Heest
DRIES &. LENHARDT, P.L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AND COL;NSCLOR, 41 Lw,
March 1, 1996
Wright County District Court Administrator
Wright County Courthouse
Ten Second Street NW
Buffalo, MN 55313-1193
Re: Lef-Co Farms, Inc. v. City of Otsego
Dear Court Administrator:
i0o Easr central Ave. - P.O. Bos 35
St. Michael, Minnesnra 55376
(612)4;•3099
Fax (612) 497.3639
Enclosed please find the Summons and Complaint, Acknowledgement of Service
and Certificate of Representationand re Ong the above -referenced matter. Also
enclosed is our firm's check int amount of $132.00 . your filing fee.
Very truly yours,
David J. Lenhardt
DJ L/cgd
Enclosure
cc: Lef-Co Farms, Inc.
Andrew J. MacArthur
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacArthur
fichael C. Couri
March 5, 1996
RADZWILL & COURI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Mr. David J. Lenhardt
Attorney at Law
Gries & Lenhardt, P.L.L.P.
100 East Central Avenue
PO Box 35
St. Michael, MN 55376
Re: Lef-Co Inc. v. City of Otsego
Dear Mr. Lenhardt:
Per our agreement, please find enclosed copies of the documents
contained in the City's file regarding the Lef-Co., Inc. matter
along with a bill for the copies our made by our office. The
documents correspond to the enclosed list we previously agreed on
with the exception of a few date changes.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
rdrew. cArthur
RADZAILL AND COURI.
Enclosures
PC: City of Otsego
William S. Radzwill
ndrew J. MacArthur
_.Tichael C. Couri
March 5, 1996
RADZWILL & COURI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Midurel, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Court Administration
Wright County Government Center
10 NW 2nd Street
Buffalo, MN 55313
Re: Lef-Co, Inc. v. City of Otsego
Please find enclosed for filing the Answer and a check in the
amount of $132.00 for the filing fee. Thank you.
Please call me if you have any questions.
�onica Brown
Legal Assistant
RADZWILL AND COURI
/mrb
Enclosure
4
City of Otsego
Engineer's Agenda Items
City Council Meeting
March 11, 1996
9.1 ISLAND VIEW & MISSISSIPPI SHORES ADDITION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
• Consider acceptance of the plans and specifications and set the bid date
for the letting of the project.
Find accompanying this packet two resolutions, one for each project to
be considered independently.
• The projects will be bid under the same plans and specifications at the
same time.
9.2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REPORT
• On February 28, 1996, the TAC for "old 7W" planning region meet and
the projects applications submitted for 1999 ISTEA funds were ranked.
• Not withstanding the majority of the committee was City and County
Engineers with representative for the Railroad and Transit sub-
committees.
• Wright County was able to rank as possible funded candidates, projects
worth about $2 million. A City of Buffalo project originally ranked quite
low moved into third place with the strong support from Wright County
Engineer, City of Buffalo and Monticello engineers.
• City of Buffalo received a large ISTEA grant for the 1997-1998 years.
• The policy committee representing Wright County, as I understand,
includes the Mayors of Buffalo and Howard Lake along with one County
commissioner. We do have a 50-50 chance of getting funded depending
on the money available. City of Otsego needs to be active in these
review committees to insure ISTEA funding in the future.
WORMIR Me 3125910MAIUM1491; =03 • : •r-0 - .
1. Wright County (Nabor Ave in Frankfort Twnshp) 146
2. Sherburne County (CSAH2) 142.4
3. City of Buffalo IMSA 103) 132.0
4. Sherburne County (CSAH 1 1) 130.0
5. City of Otsego ( Odean Avenue) 126.0
The City of Monticello was ranked highest for an Enhancement Project
(trails) for the entire District 3.
9.3 ANY OTHER ENGINEERING BUSINESS
It
Item 9.1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
MISSISSIPPI SHORES ADDITIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on August 14, 1995, the City
Engineer (Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.) has prepared Plans and Specifications for the
improvement of:
1. The Mississippi Shores Additions Street Overlay Project for all streets located
within the Mississippi Shores 1 st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Additions.
and has presented such Plans and Specifications to the Council for approval;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA:
1. Such Plans and Specifications, a copy of which is attached, hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper -(and
in the Construction Bulletin) an advertisement for bids upon the making of such
improvement under such approved Plans and Specifications. The advertisement
shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state
that bids will be received by the Clerk until am (pm) on ,
19_, at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Hall by the City
Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the Council
at am (pm) on , 19_Any bidder whose
responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an
opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will
be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash
deposit, cashier's check, Bid Bond or certified check for five percent (5%) of the
amount of such bid.
Adopted by the Council this day of
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
OT329a.res
1996.
Item 9.1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
ISLAND VIEW ESTATES ADDITIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on August 14, 1995, the City
Engineer (Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.) has prepared Plans and Specifications for the
improvement of:
1. The Island View Estates and Arrowhead Estates Roadway Improvement Project for
the following streets:
A.
101st Street NE
B.
Kahler Avenue NE
C.
97th Street NE
D.
99th Street NE
E.
Kalenda Avenue NE
F.
Kaiser Avenue NE
and has presented such Plans and Specifications to the Council for approval;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA:
1 . Such Plans and Specifications, a copy of which is attached, hereto and made a
part hereof, are hereby approved.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper (and in
the Construction Bulletin) an advertisement for bids upon the making of such
improvement under such approved Plans and Specifications. The advertisement
shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state
that bids will be received by the Clerk until am (pm) on ,
19_, at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Hall by the City Clerk
and Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at
am (pm) on , 19_. Any bidder whose responsibility is
questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address
the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed
and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, Bid
Bond or certified check for five percent (5%) of the amount of such bid.
Adopted by the Council this day of , 1996.
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
OT331 ares
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
AQ
,MIINUTES
REGION 7W TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MEETING
Wednesday, February 28, 1996
Stearns County Public Works Department
St. Cloud, Minnesota
Members Present
David Schwarting — Sherburne County
Mitch Anderson Stearns County
Gerald Hovde------- Benton County
Curt Kreklau ------ City of Buffalo
Steve Voss ------- Mn/DOT
Members Absent
Joyce Lundstrom --- River Rider Heartland Exp
Call to Order and Introductions
Item 9.2
Linda El&=d Tri Cap Heartland Express
Larry Koshak ------ City of Otsego
Wayne Fingalson -- Wright County
Bret Weiss -------- City of Monticello
Terry Maurer ----- City of Elk River
Mr. Voss called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and introductions were made. He then proceeded to
review the agenda with the TAC.
Mr. Voss explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review the state and local projects requesting
federal transportation funding proposed in Region 7W for SFY 1999. Following this review he said the TAC
would be afforded the opportunity to comment on Mn/DOT District 3's proposed construction program and
would be responsible for developing an integrated list of local transportation priorities for the region. He
added that the TAC's recommendations would be presented to the Region 7W Transportation Programming
Policy Committee for review and approval.
Review ATP Investment Process Target Funding and Activities to Date
Mr. Voss provided the TAC with an overview of the ATP's project solicitation and selection process. He
noted that the ATP relied on the involvement of the area's three regional planning agencies in determining
the area's transportation priorities. He commented that the TAC and the newly created Transportation
Programming Policy Committee performed these functions in Region 7W.
Mr. Voss stated that the ATP began its project solicitation process after Mn/DOT's Central Office released
its STIP guidance. He said there were two important items contained in the guidance: 1) the statewide
investment goals, and 2) the ATP targets. He noted that the statewide investment goals were as follows:
Priority #1 - Preservation (30 - 40% of investments); Priority #2 - Management and Operations (5 - 15% of
investments); Priority #3 - Replacement (25-35% of investments); and Priority #4 - Expansion (15-25% of
investments).
Mr. Voss provided the TAC with an update of the activities relating to the development of the ATP's draft
Area Transportation Improvement Program (ATIP). He noted that the project solicitation activities have
been completed and that the regions were in the process of developing their prioritized list of local
transportation projects.
02/28/96 7W TAC Meeting Minutes
Page 3
► CSAH 9 - Replacement of Bridge 93781 with new Bridge 971518. Cost: $295,000.
► CSAH 20 -Replacement of Bridge #90711 with new bridge. Cost: $310,000.
Mr. Koshak (City of Otsego) -
P. Odean Avenue - Reconstruction from CSAH 37 to CSAH 39. Cost: $1,401,200.
Mr. Anderson (Stearns County,) -
CSAH 44 - Regrading and resurfacing from TH 55 to CSAH 7. Cost: $1,716,000.
Mr. Hovde Benton Countyl -
0. CR 55 - RepIacement of bridge. Cost: $1,716,000.
Mr. Kreklau (City of Buffalo) -
► MSA 103 - Construction of roadway connection from MSA 103 to MSA 105 including TH 55/CP
rail overpass. Submit as one big project. Cost: $2,300,000.
Consider Non -Road and Bridge Project Submittals
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Recommendations: Mr. Voss presented this topic to the TAC. He
said the TE application used for this year's solicitation process was revised from the one used last year. He
explained that there were changes to both the qualifying and priority criteria. He added that the maximum
possible points to award a project was also revised from 1,000 points used a year ago to 100 points used this
year.
Mr. Voss explained the process that the ATP's TE Subcommittee used in scoring and ranking the
applications. This was followed by a brief description of each project proposed in Region 7W. Mr. Weiss
provided the TAC with further details pertaining to the city of Monticello's proposed bicycle/pedestrian
overpass and bike path project. Mr. Weiszhaar provided input concerning phase II and III of Stearns
County's proposed bicycle/pedestrian path.
Public Transit Vehicle Capital Request: Ms. Elfstrand presented this topic to the TAC. She stated that
the ATP's Transit Subcommittee met to review and rank the transit vehicle capital requests for ISTEA
funding. She explained that the Subcommittee only considered requests where the applicant demonstrated
that the replaced vehicle would be at the end of its useful life at the time of programming. She noted that
there were three vehicle replacements recommended for Region 7W: two with River Rider Transit and one
with the city of Annandale.
Ms. Elfstrand commented that the Office of Transit encouraged transit providers to consider converting their
Class 9300 and #400 vehicles to Class 9500. She explained that the Class #500 vehicles would provide
additional service life over the smaller vehicles. However, she noted that initially the conversion would
represent a larger investment; but because of the longer service lives of the larger buses, could provide some
.ost savings to the ATP in the long term.
Mr. Voss asked Ms. Elfstrand to explain what happened to vehicles that were being replaced.
02/28/96 7W TAC Meeting Minutes
Page 5
of $900,000. In exchange, the TAC agreed to use the technical ranking of the roadway portion (94.2) 'of the
project instead of the technical ranking of the combined roadway/overpass project (88.6). Additionally, the
TAC agreed to provide 37.8 priority points toward the project so it could better compete in the ATP process.
The city of Buffalo would be responsible for the remaining 30 percent of the project costs that would be
financed with a combination of state and local funds. Actual funding split for this local matching requirement
would be determined prior to programming.
After distributing its priority points, the TAC categorized the roadway and bridge projects into three
groupings: Urgent, Important, or Desired. Following this, the TAC proceeded to do the same for the
projects in the other transportation modes, i.e., transit, enhancement, and railroad/highway grade crossing.
The TAC completed the process by merging the individual lists into one lista Shown in Attachment A are
the results of the TAC's efforts.
The TAC recommended that the integrated project list (Attachment A) be forwarded to the Region 7W
Transportation Programming Policy Committee for approval.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
'OMMENDED LIST PLREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES
DRTATION FUNDI )R SFY 1999
575,000
560,000
515,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
50th St.
$450,000
5360,000
590,000
146.0
0.0
146.0
untyLine
5255,000
$204,000
551,000
142.4
0.0
142.4
$100,000
.580,000
520,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
$100,000
580,000
520,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
A 105 incl. TH 55/CP rail overpass
52,300,000
5980,000
51,320,000
' 94.2
37.8
132.0
5100,000
580,000
$20,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
$75,000
560,000
515,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
5260,000
. $208,000
552,000
117.0
13.0
130.0
1 to CSAH 39
51,401,200
_ 51,120,960
5208,240
115.8
10.2
126.0
5450,191
5327,412
$122,779
N/A
N/A
N/A
575,000
560,000
515,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
cement of two timber bridges
53,200,000
52,560,000
5640,000
111.1
0.0
111.1
51,260,000
51,008,000
5252,000
106.5
0.0
106.5
5400,000
5400,000
-0-
N/A
N/A
N/A
$100,000
580,000
$20,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
& II])
5748,000
5598,400
5149,600
N/A
N/A
N/A
5268,000
5214,400
553,600
N/A
N/A
N/A
5214,000
5148,250
565,750
N/A
N/A
N/A
51,716,000
$1,373,000
5343,000
99.0
0.0
99.0
5295,000
$236,000
$59,000
99.0
0.0
99.0
H37
$5,700,000
54,560,000
51,140,000
85.3
0.0
85.3
$310,000
5248,000
562,000
48.0
0.0
48.0
ne to Richmond
5507,500
$329,875
$177,625
N/A
N/A
N/A
`
$261,000
$198,000
$63,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
eking of the combined roadway/overpass project (88.6) in scoring the project. In exchange, the city of Buffalo would agree to fund the
or $420,000) of the project costs that would be financed with a combination of state and local funds. Actual funding split of this local
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT.
MEETING DATE
COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE
March 11,1996
ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
10.1 REVIEW AND DISCUSS ORDINANCE #91-04
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SALARIES
FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
P.Cokle
This item was brought before the City Council at their February 26, 1996 meeting and due to the absence
of the Mayor, it was tabled until the March 11, 1996.
This review and discussion of the city's ordinance establishing salaries for the mayor and city council is
brought forward because of inconsistencies in the requested compensation for meeting attendance by the
members of the city council.
The attached ordinance specifies an annual salary for the mayor and council members. It also states that
the mayor and council members shall be compensated for special council meetings attended, meetings of
committees or commissions attended in which the council member is an ex -officio member, and meetings
which the council has directed or authorized the mayor or council member to attend.
This discussion is requested to clearly understand the intent of the ordinance and to clearly define the
compensation of additional meetings beyond the regular scheduled city council meetings. Should there be
a need to further define compensation in the ordinance the appropriate procedures can be followed for an
ordinance amendment.
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 91-04
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
The City Council of Otsego ordains the following:
Section 1. Compensation.
The salary of the Mayor shall be $4,200.00 per year ($350.00
per month) and the salary of each Council Member shall be
$3,600.00 per year ($300.00 per month). The Mayor and Council
Members shall be compensated in the amount of $25.00 for each
Special Council Meeting attended, each meeting of any established
committee or commission which the Mayor or any Council Member is
an ex -officio member, and each meeting which the Council has
directed or authorized the Mayor or any Council Member to attend.
The Mayor and Council Members shall also receive reimbursement
for expenses related to attendance at said additional meetings as
well as any other functions which they are authorized to attend
on behalf of the City, including mileage costs at the then
applicable IRS rate. The Mayor or Council Members shall submit
written claims to the City Clerk for compensation and for
reimbursement expenses.
Section 2. Additional Compensation.
In addition to that compensation listed above, the Mayor and
Council Members shall receive as compensation for attendance at
workshops, seminars or conventions $150.00 for each day of
•
attendance plus reimbursement for expenses related to attendance
including mileage costs at the then applicable IRS rate. Written
claims for all additional compensation and related expenses shall
be submitted to the City Clerk.
Section 3. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in force and effect ten (10) days
after its publication in the official newspaper pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 412.021, Subd. 5 subject to the further limitations
contained in said Minn-. Stat. 412.021, Subd. 5.
Adopted by the City Council of Otsego this - I�Z day of
199J .
Mayor of the City of Otsego'-
AT ST:
Z
C1 k
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
DEPARTMENT:
MEETING DATE
10. COUNCIL
ITEMS CITY COUNCIL
3/11/96 - 6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
10.2.Update and
7:45PM
discussion of the Otsego/Frankfort
meeting of 3/4/96 ,
Ba ound:
1.4.E
Attached is a packet of information, including minutes of the Frankfort Town Board Meeting as noted
above. The minutes are just the portion of the meeting that Larry Fournier, Vern Heidner, Suzanne
Ackerman, and myself attended.
As you will see by the minutes, it is quite early in the process for Frankfort and they feel they can gain a
lot more information from their residents at their Annual Town Meeting on March 12,1996. The City
Council will need to discuss this issue and crake a determination of what should be done next. My
personal feeling is that it is good planning to have that portion of Frankfort from the freeway to 101 and
beyond, if Frankfort is going to be annexed or consolidated.
Thank you,
m SPECIAL. MEETING xr
4{'w C `Y OFA5T9E4,V NOWE OF
M16' AT 7:45PM
f 41
RA 414WORT
----------------------
A4
4A,
v
,
uncil "iAw
N hd 0
ST
at 121
noteUL, .23 1.
J
Who -Ni 5.5376.-�,'i
0
d7o
0
--try-
RA'
Laine atty,,'City Cl iurig Adm.
S.-
14-
IL
ASEIGDA
FRANKFORT TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETIMS
March 4, 1996
7330 p.m.
1. CALL MEETINS TO ORDER
2. APPMUE AGENDA
aaaaa
AL M N TES
1. February 12, 1996
a. Board of Adjustment
b. Town Board Meeting
*+►■#e r+�ww�r** * �►* e* �** ***e a*w�rww *e♦r�►e�r �*wrr�a+N►+tea:t,r�►ww�r��►aaaa+c
3. FINANCIAL REPORT
4. ORDERS I SSLED
S. _OLD BUSINESS - 7-45 0. ■--
a r'it= _ of Qtsea ,�yt �+ : Frankfort Township Regional Sewer Plant
1 Resolution from Cites of Otsego
2.
b. Consolidation Issue - St.Michael
C. Fiscal Study - Appointment
1. Juran & Moody - $100.00 per hour
2. Evenson Dodge, Inc. - *5000.00 - !6800.00
d. Beebe Lake Floodgate - Supervisors
e. Purchase Agreement for Optech Voter System
f.
9-
6. NEW BWINESS - 8:35 P.M.
a. Appointment of a Rep for County Road #19 Improvement
b. Board of Review - Discussion of Start Time
c. *2708 Ochoa Avenue Assessment - Earl Zachman
d. Public Hearing Notice - Rockford Township
e. Resolution - Dual Track Airport Process
f. Munitech Services
g. Annual deed Meeting
h. Township Officers Short'Course
i.
i.
7. ROAD REPORT
S. STAFF I" REPORTSS - 9:15 p. m.
a. Peter Raatikka, Township Engineer
1. Inspections of Sewer of Lakes Area
2. Road Striping Quotes
3. MN DoT Co-op Agreement
b. William Goodrich, Township Attorney
2.
2.
9. ADJOURNMEMT - 9:38• p. m.
JOINT MEETING — ST MICHAEL CITY COUNCIL
FRANKFORT TOWN BOARD — FEBRUARY 29, 1996
St Michael City Hall
7:00 p. m.
Present: Mayor Roxanne Packa, Council members Michael Brunner, Kenneth Duerr, Wayne
Kessler, Kevin Zachman, City Attorney Dave Lenhardt, Engineer Jeffrey Roos, City
Clerk, Dawn Grossinger, Town Board members Robert Turnquist, Thomas Hagerty,
Gregory Vetsch, Mark Daleiden, Engineer Peter Raatikka, Clerk Sharry Berning.
Frankfort board member Andy Block was absent.
Mayor Packa called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was said, and
introductions were made. Mayor Packa stated the propose of the meeting was to have
serious discussion concerning an orderly annexation, with the benefits and
detriments of annexation to be discussed. She also stated the city council revised
the proposed sewer agreement, but that further action on that agreement was on
hold, because the consensus of the City Council was that the sewer agreement should
be tied to orderly annexation.
St Michael Engineer Jeff Roos began the discussion by talking about annexation
happening around the state and the importance of open discussion. Roos said both
communities are facing issues resulting from growth, which involve serious
financial decisions. He said the communities share a similar population, the same
churches, common school district, and similar tax structure. Individual items were
listed and discussed, including roads and road funding. Roos talked about MSA
funding available to communities over 5,000 population.
The city of St Michael contracts out most of its street maintenance ad snow
removal, while the township has a maintenance department in place with the
necessary equipment.
There was discussion on utilities, with Roos providing information on design and
capacity of the wastewater facility under construction. He said the system was
designed to meet the needs of the city. He said there is capacity to expand but
the current facility was not designed to handle the whole township although it
could provide the needs of a specific service area for a period of time. How to
service developing areas would be decided by the future governing body if
annexation took place. There was discussion and questions concerning the capacity
of the existing system. Pete Raatikka said he did some calculations that showed
if they were going to provide two million gallons per day, that could handle
25,000 people. How to pay for such a plant was discussed, and Bob Turnquist stated
it would be a plus for the city to have part of the township that would be
contributing toward the payment of the debt for the facility. St Michael suggested
that the connection charges were structured so that growth in St Michael alone
could generate revenue to pay the debt. Raatikka said it is a plus for both
communities where there are certain fixed costs in the operation of a plant and
when there are more users, more revenue is gained. Costs reflected back to
everyone.
There was discussion concerning the duplication of facilities and services with two
governing entities, and there was a little discussion on representation for a
combined entity, but how that would actually work was not known.
There was also discussion concerning fire protection and the fact that Frankfort
contracts for fire protection with Hanover, Rogers, Albertville and St Michael.
The southern border of Frankfort is just a mile or so from the Hanover Fire
Department. Matt Stahlmann from Hanover questioned how annexation would affect
that arrangement. Contracting for some service, or the possibility of a regional
fire department was discussed. There was also discussion concerning police
protection. Berning and others thought there was 24—hour police protection
coverage in the area now. However, Mitch Flemming of the Wright County 'Sheriff's
Department was not sure that was true.
There was some discussion concerning assessed valuations and tax rates. Berning
brought up the question in her mind that this list sounded like something similar
to what the communities did last spring during the intercommunity meetings, before
annexation was ever discussed. The communities looked at the pluses and everyone
was saying it was plus all the way across for everybody to share. This seemed like
the same list which at that time turned out to be a plus for every community
without annexation.
It was pointed out that some of the existing setups are not adequate to serve the
whole combined area but would be a base to start. There was discussion concerning
areas for expansion and having a proportionate balance of land for different uses.
With Frankfort being physically split and separated by the City of St Michael, some
felt combining would provide unity of the land area. Bob Turnquist asked how this
would work with what is happening with Albertville and Otsego and whether more than
these two communities could combine. Packa did not feel that would be feasible
since it would be difficult enough to resolve issues for these two communities.
Hagerty pointed out that all these issues are important, but they are not equal.
A very major thing for the city, but also important for the township, is sewer.
It was stated that right now neither the city nor the township have a decent
industrial park served with all the utilities. Kessler said if there was more room
for growth you could isolate an area where there were no houses now and then where
you could have an industrial park and put in the sewer and everything.
Daleiden asked how the city handles assessment of trunk charges when they are
extended to an agriculture area. Roos explained the policy used in assessing the
NW Sewer Project which extended a trunk line to an area where a large portion of
the land was still being farmed. The status of the sewer agreement was questioned
and Packa said the city had made revisions but they would not approve the agreement
unless it was part of an orderly annexation agreement.
Frankfort resident Leon Zachman said he would be in favor of annexation if the
annexation was in its entirety. Otherwise, it should not be at all. He also said
that about half of the St Michael Fire Department were residents of Frankfort
township. Matt Stahlmann also said that if the annexation were not complete, the
township could be nibbled away by the adjacent communities.
Duerr said he talked to Frankfort residents who were in favor of orderly
annexation, but he also talked to a St Michael resident who wondered why the city
would take on additional problems of growth from the township. There was some
discussion concerning those residents who might not see immediate benefits such as
sewer.
J
L
Alfred Zachman asked how the city handles street assessment. The engineer said
streets and curb and gutter are usually installed by the developers, but that
maintenance like sealcoating and overlaying are financed through the city's general
fund and the city has annual maintenance projects to cover repair work for a
designated area.
Mayor Packa suggested the township discuss the annexation proposal at the next
meeting, and also that attorneys for each community look at the procedures that
must be followed if it is decided to proceed with orderly annexation.
There was brief discussion concerning how this annexation discussion might impact
the city moving forward on a municipal building. It was stated work would go
forward first on the fire hall, which would allow some time for a decision. Bob
Turnquist said this subject would come up at the annual town meeting March 12, when
the township will have a chance to listen to comments from their residents.
Daleiden asked if the city would actively pursue annexation if there were no
agreement and the communities went their separate ways. The city council felt that
annexation requests would come from residents of the township who wanted services,
regardless of whether the city actively pursued annexation.
Berning said the question that would probably be heard at the annual meeting would
concern the moratorium that Frankfort has had for two years, for the purpose of
looking at the growth of the community and how it can be handled. During that
interim time Frankfort came to St Michael and talked about a joint building with
the question raised at that meeting and several other meetings -- 4lre you
interested in annexation?' And the answer was No." She said then back in July
Frankfort met with Mayor Packa, both engineers and the attorney, and talked about
the sanitary sewer agreement. At that time it was also indicated there was no
interest in annexation. Since then Frankfort has paid $5,00 of $6,000 authorized
by resolution for work on the agreement, and then all of a sudden there is talk
about annexation. She said she knows the people are going to ask why when all the
way through we have said no, so why now?
The St Michael attorney said that historically the city would not actively pursue
annexation of the township, but now because of discussion on possible .joint
ventures, the issue came up and as it was considered, it seemed like the
appropriate time to discuss such issues. He said it would be remiss not to look
at what could be done. He said he knows there are people out there looking at all
four communities, such as the Chamber of Commerce. It was stated that all of a
sudden the council started to look at the dollars being spent by both communities
and it .just seemed like a cooperative thing should be considered.
Kessler said that twenty—five years ago there was a joint meeting to discuss going
back to being one again and if twenty—five years ago anybody could have seen what
was coming, things might have been different.
Motion Brunner/Turnquist to adjourn at 9 p.m. Motion carried.
Sharry J. Berning, Clerk
3
An Equal Opportunity Employer
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MUNICIPAL BOARD
475 McColl Building
366 Jackson Street
(5th & Jackson)
St. Paul, Minnesota 551 01-1 925
Mr. Bob Tumquist February 26, 1996
Frankfort Town Board Chair
9831 - 35th Street, N.E.
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (612) 22&242
Fax: (612) 294.992
Twin Cities TDD: (612) 297.535
Greater MN TDD: 1 -Soo -627,2
Re: Statutory Township Review - Minnesota Statutes, Section 414.051
Dear Mr. Turnquist:
Pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Board's authority in Minnesota Statutes
Section 414.051 to review townships and make appropriate recommendations to the
town board, the Municipal Board is contacting towns with a population of 2,000 or more
according to the 1990 federal census.
The Town of Frankfort meets that criteria according to the information received
from Minnesota Planning.
The Minnesota Municipal Board recommends that the town board begin
discussions with elected officials of abutting townships and/or municipalities regarding
issues of land use planning and growth development, cooperation, merger or
combination with respect to long-term future planning.
If you have any questions regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact me. A
copy of Minnesota Statutes Section 414.051 is enclosed for your reference.
Sincerely,
MUNICIPAL BOARD
Christine M. Scotillo
Executive Director
CMS:sjh
Enclosure
cc: Minnesota Planning
Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation
Wright County Planning Commission
State Auditor
414.051 ROA_RD'S R=RW OF TOWNSHIPS ACCORDING TO POPULATION.
After each federal census the board may determine the townships
which have a population in excess of 2,000 exclusive of any
municipality or part of a municipality within the township and
make recommendations which it deems necessary and reasonable to
the board of any such township.
Information from the Frankfort Town Board Meeting of March 4,
1996 at 7:45PM:
ROLL CALL:
Bob Turnquist, Chair, Tom Hagerty, Mark Daleiden, Andy Block,
Supervisors, Sherry Berning, Clerk, Carol Beall, Deputy Clerk,
Peter Rattikka, Engr and Bill Goodrich, Attorney were present.
Larry Fournier, Vice Mayor, Vern Heidner and Suzanne
Ackerman, Council Members were present. Elaine Beatty, City
Clerk/Zoning Adm. and Star News Reporter Charmaine Borranco,
and George Yankoupe were also present from Otsego.
Introductions were made and Resolution No. 96-8 was given to the Frankfort Town
Board Members and City Clerk,
Larry Fournier, Vice Mayor, spoke abut the Resolution and said that Frankfort
Township and Otsego have always worked very well together and explained the different
areas in which we have worked together. He said that we have heard that St Michael
intends to merge or annex Frankfort and if the Town Board of Frankfort is interested we
are letting them know our position. We will support your decision.
Supervisor Daleiden said St Michael can't handle that area. He feels it is stili
possible it can be a joint venture.
Supervisor Hagerty said he is glad Otsego is here and said they have met with St
Michael, Albertville and Hanover as well-
Chair
ellChair Tumquist said all avenues are still open.: We have not closed any doors. it
is still up in the air.
The information on the Sewer Sub -Committee was inadvertently not given to the
Frankfort Board, Sherry Berning apologized. They will look at it at their next meeting on
March 18, 1996. Elaine Beatty had her information with her, but there was not enough
time for the Board to look it over and make a decision. The Board indicated they saw no
reason to not continue on with the joint sewer with Otsego.
Supervisor Hagerty said St Michael is not accepting any sewer service area out of
their boundary. This was never brought up before. If they intended to hold with that
position and the fact that they can annex 60 acres at a time. They can do it all in one
night. They can adjourn and start a new meeting and just keep annexing until all the land
is annexed.
Supervisor Daleiden said the only thing that could stop them is a hardship and he
talked about that, Some of the other Boara Members felt that if they want Frankfort
Twp, they will get it.
Minutes of Frankfort/Otsego Meeting of 3/4/96 -Page 2 -
Supervisor Block said if they decided to they could take the whole Township.
Supervisor Hagerty said they can pick you apart.
Supervisor Block said we can stop them from picking a parcel, but not stop them
from taking it all.
Supervisor Daleiden said we may need to talk to the Municipal Board.
Supervisors Hagerty and Daieiden said they felt it was better to have them take all
of Frankfort.
Clerk Beming suggested they talk to LaGrange Twp., and what stopped that was a
regional sewer plant. She said two regional sewers they are looking at now in Frankfort.
She said they had visited Winona Twp and the Municipal Board cost was 1/2 million
dollars.
Chair Turnquist would have a hard time getting into a 1/2 million dollar battle. if
they did not have infrastructure, they have been annexed. Population is 3,400 in
Frankfort and 3,000 in St Michael, approximately. They talked about state aid. The
magic number is 5,000 and you get MSA. He questioned if St Michael is willing to get
into a legal battle with Frankfort. He asked what kind of agreement can we get into and
still remain viable?
Supervisor Daleiden provided a handout to people he had some information to
Bring to the Annual Town Meeting and talked about expanding on that.
Clerk Berning talked about the assessor having a concern as to start assessing or
not. They said it would be 3 to 6 months if an agreement is entered into, possibly a year.
Supervisor Hagerty said he is interested in the Annual Town Meeting and seeing
how people feel.
Clerk Berning asked if a survey would be a good idea?
Supervisor Hagerty was opposed to doing a survey on election day.
Attorney Goodrich said you could prepare a survey and send it out.
Town Board talked about putting together a lot of information for the Annual
Town Meeting.
Clerk Beming asked what if the people don't want to be annexed. The Board did
not know. They have the final authority as the Board.
By: Elaine Beatty
3/6/96
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION.
DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE
10.
COUNCIL ITEMS
CITY COUNCIL 3/11/96 - 6:30PM
ITEM
NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
10.3
Any other Council Business
P.C.
A. Consider Feedlot
Heari ng on same.
Committee Recommendations and April 3, 1996
Baekt=nd:
103,A
Attached is the proposed Ordinance for the Feed Lot regulations along with the minutes of the meetings
that were held by the Feed Lot Committee, for your consideration. The base ordinance was drafted by
Andy MacArthur and Bob Kirmis and the Feedlot Committee expanded on that ordinance with
information from reports that you will be receiving in your mailbox when Carol receives extra copies.
Other ordinances from other communities were also used as a tool.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
I am requesting you to consider setting a Hearing date at the Planning Commission for Wednesday,
April 3, 1996 at 8PM for the Feed Lot Ordinance Hearing.
Thank you,
March 5, 1996
The Honorable Norman Freske
Mayor, City of Otsego
Otsego City Hall
8899 Nashua Ave.
Otsego, MN 55330
Dear Mayor Freske;
Attached is a copy of our committees' proposed Feedlot Ordinance for the City of Otsego.
Clearly it is not in final form for inclusion in the zoning manual, but the content
represents the majority opinion of our committee members. This final draft represents a
great deal of excellent work by our committee members. Special thanks should be given
to all who participated, especially considering the emotionally charged issues we
discussed. We'd also like to thank Council members; Ackerman, Fournier and Heidner
and Planning Commission member Goenner for their participation and guidance.
Our process began with a brainstorming session to "Visualize what we need". This
provided an opportunity to ensure we had a common end point for our task. We then
spent a full session brainstorming "Why preserve agriculture in Otsego" and the "Impact
of feedlots on residential areas". This gave our committee members an opportunity to
present both sides of the issue. At the same time we gathered copies of feedlot
ordinances from as many counties and communities as we could as reference materials.
The starting point for our final draft ordinance was the draft provided by NAC. After
lengthy, sometimes loud discussion; by majority vote, we agreed on the attached
ordinance.
We've tried to craft an ordinance that protects our farmer's ability to maintain their family
business and lifestyle, while protecting our city's water supply and non-farm lifestyle as
well.
In order to complete this task before the six month moratorium on new feedlots expires,
I'm sending copies of this final draft to the City Council, Planning Commission, NAC,
City Attorney and City Engineer at the same time for comments. Planning Commission
members should begin their review process immediately with the goal of holding a
formal public hearing no later than April 3.
Please review our proposed ordinance and let us know how we can provide further help.
Sincerely, r
c�
For the Commitice
Richard V. Nichols, Chairman
Otsego Feedlot Ordinance Committee
PC: Otsego City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Andrew MacArthur
Bob Kirmis
Larry Koshak
cc: EDAAC
Park and Recreation Commission
Feedlot Ordinance Committee members:
Jim Barthel
Jim Becker
Ann Bentz
Paul Benning
John Holland
Greg LeFebvre
Doug Lindenfelser
Richard Nichols
Mary Ann Struss
Lee Raeth - Non-voting member
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
3/7/96
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF MIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 96 -
AN ORDINANCE ADDRESSING ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY
OF OTSEGO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-2-2.F of the Otsego City Code
(Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the following definition:
Feedlot, Commercial: The place of confined feeding of
livestock or other animals for food, fur, pleasure or
resale purposes in yards, lots, pens, building, or other
areas not normally used for pasture or crops and in which
substantial amounts of manure or related other wastes may
originate by reason of feeding such animals.
Section 2. Section 20-2-2.F of this Otsego City Code
(Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definitions:
Feedlot Related:
1. Animal Feedlot Permit: A permit issued by the MBCA when the
potential pollution hazard will not be corrected within ten
months of the date of permit issuance or when manure is not
used as a domestic fertilizer. This permit shall contain such
conditions and requirements as the agency deems necessary in
order to insure compliance with applicable state rules.
2. Animal Unit(=): A unit of measure used to compare
differences in the production of animal manures that employs
as a standard the amount of manure produced on a regular basis
by a slaughter steer or heifer. For purposes of this
Ordinance, the following equivalents shall apply:
AU
Animal Per Animal 300 AIL goials
One mature dairy cow 1.40 214 animals
One slaughter steer or heifer 1.00 300 animals
One horse 1..00 300 animals
One swine over 55 pounds .40 750 animals
For animals not listed above, the number of animal units shall
be defined as the average weight of the animal divided by one
thousand (1,000) pounds. The total number of animal units
subject to permit or registration shall be determined by
including operations located within one-half mile which
utilize a common area or system for manure disposal.
3. Certificate of Compliance: A letter from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) Director to the owner of an
animal feedlot stating that the feedlot meets agency
requirements and the livestock operation does not create or
maintain a potential pollution hazard or the potential
pollution hazard has been corrected to meet Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements.
4. Change in Operation: An increase beyond the permitted
maximum, number of animal units, an increase in the amount of
animal units which are confined at an unpermitted animal
feedlot requiring a construction investment, or a change in
the construction or operation of an animal feedlot that would
affect the storage, handling, utilization, or disposal of
animal manure.
5. Comsmisaioner: The Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) whose duties are defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 116.03, as amended.
6. Corrective or Protective Measures: A practice, structure,
condition, or combination thereof which prevents or reduces
the discharge of pollutants from an animal feedlot to a level
in conformity with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
rules.
7. Domestic Fertilizers
A. Animal manure that is put on or injected into the soil to
improve the quality or quantity of plant growth; or
V,
Animal
AU
Per Animal
300 AU
Bsq
One
duck
.20
1,500
animals
One
sheep
.10
3,000
animals
One
swine under 55 pounds
.05
6,000
animals
One
turkey
.01$
16,666
animals
One
chicken
.01
30,000
animals
For animals not listed above, the number of animal units shall
be defined as the average weight of the animal divided by one
thousand (1,000) pounds. The total number of animal units
subject to permit or registration shall be determined by
including operations located within one-half mile which
utilize a common area or system for manure disposal.
3. Certificate of Compliance: A letter from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) Director to the owner of an
animal feedlot stating that the feedlot meets agency
requirements and the livestock operation does not create or
maintain a potential pollution hazard or the potential
pollution hazard has been corrected to meet Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements.
4. Change in Operation: An increase beyond the permitted
maximum, number of animal units, an increase in the amount of
animal units which are confined at an unpermitted animal
feedlot requiring a construction investment, or a change in
the construction or operation of an animal feedlot that would
affect the storage, handling, utilization, or disposal of
animal manure.
5. Comsmisaioner: The Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) whose duties are defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 116.03, as amended.
6. Corrective or Protective Measures: A practice, structure,
condition, or combination thereof which prevents or reduces
the discharge of pollutants from an animal feedlot to a level
in conformity with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
rules.
7. Domestic Fertilizers
A. Animal manure that is put on or injected into the soil to
improve the quality or quantity of plant growth; or
V,
H. Animal manure that is used as compost, soil conditioners,
or specialized plant beds.
8. Harthen main: Dike or excavated structure, often lined with
clay or a synthetic liner, in which manure is stored. The
basin is emptied at least once each year. It is designed by
a professional engineer or MRCS/SWCD technician.
9. Feedlot, Animal: A lot or building or combination of lots
and buildings intended for the confined feeding, breeding,
raising, or holding of animals and specifically designed as a
confinement area in which manure may accumulate, or where the
concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover
cannot be maintained within the enclosure. Por purposes of
these parts, open lots used for feeding and rearing of poultry
(poultry ranges) and barns, dairy farms, swine facilities,
beef lots and barns, horse stalls, mink ranches and zoos,
shall be considered to be animal feedlots. Pastures shall not
be considered animal feedlots under these parts.
10. Feedlot, Now Animal: An animal feedlot constructed and
operated at a site where no animal feedlot existed previously
or where a pre-existing animal feedlot has been abandoned or
unused for a period of five years or more.
11. Feedlot Operator: An individual, a corporation, a group of
individuals, a partnership, joint venture, owner or any other
business entity having charge or control of one or more
livestock feedlots, poultry lots or other animal lots.
12. Interim permit: When required, a permit issued by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) which expires no
later than ten (10) months from the date of issuance,
identifying the necessary corrective measures to abate
potential pollution hazards.
13. Lagoon: A manure treatment structure, typically earthen.
Lagoons can be aerobic, anaerobic, or facultative depending on
their design. An anaerobic lagoon is different from an
earthen storage basin in that the lagoon is managed for manure
treatment. Anaerobic lagoons are only partially emptied each
year whereas earthen storage basins are emptied once or twice
a year.
14. Lot, Feedlot: An area or combination of areas, within whose
boundaries, physical or imaginary, are located the land,
buildings, manure and feed storage, necessary for the
operation of a feedlot.
15. Manure: The fecal and urinary excretions of livestock and
poultry. Manure can include bedding material and water used
3
for livestock. Types of manure have descriptive names such as
liquid, slurry, and solid. Manure that has a content of more
than 96 percent moisture is liquid. Manure with a moisture
content between 90 and 96 percent is referred to as a slurry.
A moisture content of less than 84 percent is considered
solid.
16. Manure Storage Area: An area associated with an animal
feedlot where animal manure or runoff containing animal manure
is stored until it can be utilized as domestic fertilizer or
removed to a permitted animal manure disposal site. Animal
manure packs or mounding within the animal feedlot shall not
be considered to be manure storage for these parts.
17. W&tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (XPDsS)
Permit: A permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) for the purpose of regulating the discharge of
pollutants from point sources including concentrated animal
feeding operations. Issued to large facilities (1,000 animal
units or more) that have the potential to discharge to waters
of the state.
18. Pastures: Areas where grass or other growing plants are used
for grazing and where the concentration of animals is such
that a vegetation cover is maintained during the growing
season except in the immediate vicinity of temporary
supplemental feeding or water devices.
19. Potential Pollution Hazard: A condition which indicates a
potential for pollution of the land or waters of the state
including:
A. An animal feedlot or manure storage area whose boundaries
are located within shoreland or floodplain, or are
located in an area draining directly to a sink hole or
draining to an area with shallow soils overlying a
fractured or cavernous rock, or are located within one
hundred (100) feet of a water well; or
B. An animal feedlot or manure storage area whose
construction or operation will allow a discharge of
pollutants to surface or ground waters of the state in
excess of applicable standards, including, but not
limited to, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050, during a
rainstorm event of less magnitude than the 25 -year, 24-
hour event or violate any applicable state rules.
20. Steep Slopes: Lands having average slopes over twelve (12)
percent and less than eighteen (18) percent as measured over
horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more.
4
section 3. Section 20-27-4.5 of the Otsego City Code (Farm
Animal Regulations) is amended to read as follows:
H. All regulations imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPC&) relating to the keeping of farm animals shall be
adhered to and new farm animals pens or feedlots are
prohibited within the following areae:
1. Within one thousand (1,000) feet to the boundary of a
public park.
section 4. Section 38 of the Otsego City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
5
SECTION 38
FEEDLOT REGULATIONS
SECTION
20-38-1 Purpose
20-38-2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) Feedlot Permit
Requirements
20-38-3 Permitted Feedlots
20-38-4 Prohibited Feedlots
20-38-5 Pollution Control Requirements
20-38-6 Information Requirement
20-38-7 Feedlot Setbacks
20-38-8 Manure Stockpile/Application Setbacks
20-38-9 Conditional Use Permits
20-38-10 Standards for Earthen Storage Basins and Concrete Pits
20-38-11 Facility Closure
20-38-12 Abandonment
20-38-13 Commissioner Review
20-38-1: PURPOSE: The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to
regulate Feedlot operations within the City of Otsego in
a manner that is at least as restrictive as existing
State regulations, and in many instances exceeding those
State requirements, including those regulations related
to pollution. These additional controls are needed due
to the unique location of the municipality in relation to
the Metropolitan .Area, and in order to promote the
planning process and protect the health, safety and
welfare of the residents of the City, as well as to:
A. Establish a procedure for the permitting of feedlots.
B. Regulate the location, development, and expansion of
feedlots.
C. Promote best farm management practices.
D. Protect valuable groundwater and surface water resources.
B. Protect human and animal health.
F. Promote compatibility of uses.
G. Coordinate and assist state agencies in the
administration of state-wide statutes and regulations
governing livestock operations.
20-38-2s XXIOMOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (D[PCA) FSBaLOT PaRMIT
2B=BATS: The owner of a proposed or existing animal
feedlot of greater than fifty (50) animal units or
greater than ten (10) animal units in a shoreland
district shall make an application to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (NOXA) for a permit when any of
the following conditions exist:
A. A new feedlot is proposed where a feedlot did not
previously exist.
B. A change in operation of an existing animal feedlot is
proposed.
C. A change of ownership, family members included.
D. A pre-existing animal feedlot is to be restocked after
being abandoned or unused for five (5) years or more.
a. An inspection by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) staff reveals that the feedlot is creating a
potential pollution hazard.
20-38-3: PERKITI'ED FEEDLOTS: Those feedlots which do not
constitute a potential pollution hazard and meet the
minimum requirements of this Ordinance shall be allowed
within the City on the condition that they obtain a
certificate of compliance by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPGA), if required.
20-38-4: PROHIBITED FEEDLOTS: No feedlot in excess of one
thousand five hundred (1,500) animal units shall, be
established within the City nor shall any existing
feedlot be expanded so that the cumulative number of
animal units exceeds one thousand five hundred (1,500).
20-38-5: POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIRMCENTS:
A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide
restrictions on feedlot operations as restrictive as, or
more so, than existing State regulations regarding
pollution or potential pollution hazards.
B. General Requirement: No animal feedlot or manure storage
area shall be constructed, located, or operated so as to
create or maintain a potential pollution hazard unless a
certificate of compliance or an agency permit has been
issued.
7
C. Vehicles and spreaders: All vehicles used to transport
animal manure on City, County, State, and interstate
highways shall be leak -proof. Manure spreaders with end
gates shall be in compliance with this provision provided
the end gate works effectively to restrict leakage and
the manure spreader is leak -proof. This shall not apply
to animal manure being hauled to fields adjacent to
feedlot operations or fields divided by roadways provided
the animal manure is for use as domestic fertilizer.
D. Manure Storage: Animal manure, when utilized as
domestic fertilizer, shall not be stored for longer than
one (1) year and shall be applied at rates not exceeding
local agricultural crop nutrient requirements except
where allowed by permit. Local agricultural crop
nutrient requirements can be obtained at the Wright
County Soil Conservation Service office or local
Agricultural Extension Service office.
R. Animal Manure: Any animal manure not utilized as
domestic fertilizer shall be treated or disposed of in
accordance with applicable State rules.
F. ownerls Duties: The owner of any animal feedlot shall
be responsible for the storage, transportation, and
disposal of all animal manure generated in a manner
consistent with the provisions herein.
G. Odors: Feedlot operations shall take responsible
measures to minimize odors which have the effect of
creating an adverse impact on the environment and quality
of life for the residents of the City.
H. Variance: Any feedlot, other than those which are
prohibited, may request a variance in accordance with
Section 20-5 of this Chapter where rules may not apply or
create a unique hardship due to conditions not created by
the feedlot operator or owner.
20-38-6: INFORMATION R$QUIRHMFNT:
A. A map or aerial photograph indicating dimensions of
feedlot, showing all existing homes, buildings, lakes,
ponds, water courses, wetlands, dry runs, rock
outcroppings, roads, wells, contour and surface water
drainage encompassing the maximum setback distances of
Chapter 20-38-7.
H. A description of the geological condition, soil types and
seasonal high water table.
U
C. A plan indicating operational procedure, the location and
specifics of proposed animal waste facilities. The
quantity and type of effluent to be discharged from the
site.
D. Method/plan for disposal of dead animals shall be
consistent with the Minnesota Board of Animal Health
regulations.
B. Manure Utilization Plan which will include the location
of all manure application sites, crop types, application
rate in gallons/acre or tons/acre, and the resulting
application rate of N, P and K in pounds/acre. Manure
application shall not exceed agronomic rates or to build
N, P and K levels beyond the soil capability of holding
and utilizing them for crop use, for the prevention of
leaching and potential non -point pollution problems, as
determined by the Wright County Extension Educator and
the Minnesota Extension Service.
F. Land spreading agreements shall be provided if the
applicant does not own the minimum acreage to apply
animal waste and the land application agreement must be
signed by all owners of the property.
G. Methods used to control or mitigate odor impact upon
neighboring properties.
B. Any other additional information as contained in the
application and requested by the City or Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
I. A plan for proper closure of the facility including an
estimated cost of the same.
20-38-7s FEEDLOT SETBACKS:
A. Existing Feedlotas Existing feedlots are exempt from
the setback requirements of this subdivision.
B. NOW Feedlots: All new feedlots shall comply with each
and every one of the following setback requirements:
1. Shorelands. No new feedlot shall be located within
the Shoreland Districts of the City of Otsego as
defined by Section 20-71 of this Chapter.
E
2. Floodplains. No new feedlot shall be located
within the one hundred (100) year floodplain area
based on flood insurance rate maps and the flood
insurance study for the City of Otsego.
3. Wells. No new feedlot shall be located within one
thousand (1,000) feet of any private well, other
than the feedlot owner or operator, without written
permission of the private well's owner. No new
feedlot in excess of three hundred (300) animal
units shall be located within two thousand five
hundred (2,500) feet of any public well.
4. Steep Slopes. No new feedlot involving open lots
or partial confinement buildings shall be located
within three hundred (300) feet of a steep slope as
defined by this Chapter.
5. Public Parks. No new feedlot shall be located
within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of a
public park.
6. Drainage Ditches. No new feedlot shall be located
within three hundred (300) feet of a County, City
or private drainage ditch.
7. Private Residences. No new feedlot shall be
located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any
residence other than the feedlot landowner or
operator. No new feedlot in excess of three
hundred (300) Animal Units shall be located within
two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any
residence other than the feedlot landowner or
operator. 'These setbacks may be reduced with
written permission of the resident's owner.
8. Church, School or Similar Facilities. No new
feedlot shall be located within two thousand five
hundred (2,500) feet of any church, school or
similar public facility.
9. Urban Service Area. No new feedlot shall be
located within two thousand five hundred (2,500)
feet of the City's designated immediate urban
service area.
10. Increased Setbacks. Any or all of these setback
requirements may be increased at the discretion of
the City Council in particular instances upon a
factual determination that such an increase is
appropriate to further the public health, safety,
10
and welfare. Factors to be considered by the City
Council when making such a determination shall
include, but are not limited to:
a. The size of the proposed feedlot or expansion.
b. The nature of the manure handling or storage
facilities.
C. The type of animal to be housed at the
facility.
Implementation of these provisions require a public
hearing.
20-38-8: MANURE STOCKPILE/APPLICATION BETBACM The following
manure stockpile and application setbacks are required
for all new and existing feedlots:
Category
Surface or
Incorporated
Irrigation Applied
or Injected
Public lake,
300 feet
100 feet -lake
river, or stream
50 feet-river/stream
Public streets*
25 feet -surface
10 feet
300 feet -irrigation
Platted
300 feet -surface
300 feet
Subdivisions
1,000 feet -
irrigation
Municipal wells
300 feet
300 feet
Private wells
200 feet
200 feet
100 Year
Prohibited
Prohibited
Floodplain
Public or
300 feet
100 feet
private ditch
Residence other
300 feet -surface**
300 feet**
than landowner
1,000 feet -
or operator
irrigation
* As measured from the outer boundary of the right-of-way
** These separation distances only apply if the occupants
of the residence specifically request it in writing of
the operator.
11
20-38-9& CCMITIOKAL trS13 PEEK T5:
A. Requirement: A conditional use permit shall be obtained
in a manner described in Section 20-4 of this Chapter
whenever:
1. The proposed expansion, or modification of an
existing feedlot is located within a Shoreland,
Floodplain, or Wild and Scenic District.
2. A new feedlot exceeding three hundred (300) animal
units is proposed.
3. The expansion of an existing feedlot is proposed
where the cumulative total exceeds three hundred
(300) animal units.
4. A lagoon system, an earthen storage basin or any
other outdoor liquid storage structure is proposed
for the storage or treatment of animal waste.
S. The proposed expansion or modification of an
existing feedlot is within one-half (N) mile of the
City's designated immediate urban service area.
B. Standards for Conditional. Use Permits: To protect
public health, safety and welfare, the City shall impose
(but not be limited to the following conditions:
1. Trees and/or shrubs are planted, as determined
necessary by the City Council, for use as a wind
break.
2. Notification to City Hall is required no less than
one week prior to agitation, transfer, application,
injection or incorporation of all manure products
stored for more than four weeks. City Hall is
responsible to notify all residences within a M
mile radius of this feedlot.
3. The conditional use permit shall be in effect only
as long as the Manure Utilization Plan in Section
20-38-68 of this Chapter is being followed.
4. All pollution control measures outlined in section
20-38-5 of this Chapter are satisfactorily met.
5. As required by State regulations, the applicant
shall provide adequate security to ensure
compliance with any or all conditions of the
12
permit, proper handling and storage of manure, and
proper closure of the facility. The amount of said
security shall be contained in a written agreement
between the permittee and the City.
6. All applicable setback requirements of Sections 20-
38-7 and 20-38-8 of this Chapter are satisfactorily
met.
7. All feedlots shall be operated in a nuisance -free
manner consistent with the regulations of the city
and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MBCA).
8. The use is consistent with applicable provisions of
Section 26, 27 and 51 of this Chapter.
9. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.F of this Chapter
are considered and determined to be satisfied.
10. All conditions of approval of the conditional use
permit shall be recorded against the property.
20-38-10: 9TANDAnnS FOR EARTHEN STORAGE BASINS, LAGOONS AND OTHER
W NURZ STORAGE AREAS: Earthen storage basins, lagoons
and other manure storage areas shall be constructed in
compliance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
requirements.
20-38-11: FACILITY CLOSURE:
A. Responsible Parties: The landowner, owner and operator
of any animal feedlot shall be responsible for the
ongoing management of manure and the final closure of the
facility include the cleaning of buildings and the
emptying and proper disposal of manure from all manure
holding facilities.
H. Environmental Financial Assurance: Financial security
shall be posted with the City in the farm of escrow or
Letter of Credit in an amount to be determined by State
regulations in order to assure proper closure of the
facility.
C. Closure Plan: If a permitted feedlot operation using a
manure storage system ceases operation, the owner shall
submit to the City and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPGA) a closure plan.
13
1.. The plan shall be submitted at least sixty (60)
days prior to the final day of operation of the
manure storage system. The plan shall be prepared
by a professional engineer registered in the State
of Minnesota, or a person recognized as qualified
for such work by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) .
2. Closure of the operation may be postponed for a
period of twelve (12) months if the property is
posted for sale.
3. Manure storage system closure shall include the
removal of the sludge in the facilities and its
disposal by proper land application at agronomic
rates or by other legally permissible method.
4. Manure storage system closure shall also include
filling in a basin with material from the dikes or
other earthen material that may be available. Only
material allowed to be buried under federal, state
and local regulations may be used as fill. It is
necessary to fill in the basin to prevent it from
being a safety hazard when it fills in with rain
and snow -melt waters.
5. All wastes from the feedlot operation and its waste
control system shall be removed and disposed of on
land or in some other manner which is legally
permissible as soon as practical, but no more than
six (6)months, and in accordance with the approved
plan in order to promote and protect public health.
6. Each time ownership to the facility changes, the
new owner must notify the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) and the City in writing
within sixty (60) days of the transfer of ownership
that the approved plan has been read and is
understood and that all provisions of the plan will
be implemented. The new owner must also provide
the City with written assurance that they have
assumed all obligations undertaken by previous
operators or owners, including posting of any
necessary security.
7. If the new ownership is to continue to operate the
facility, closure shall not be necessary.
14
20-38-12s W woOwners and operators of feedlots shall
have joint and several liability for clean up, closure or
remediation of abandoned feedlot sites.
Section S. Section 20-51-5.D of the Otsego City Code (A-1
District Conditional Uses) is hereby amended to read as follows:
D. Animal feedlots as regulated by Section 38 of this
Chapter.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this day of
1996.
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Blaine Beatty, City Clerk Zoning Administrator
15
TOTAL P.16
FEEDLOT MINUTES WERE ATTACHED TO
MARCH 11, 1996 CITY COUNCIL PACKET
SEE FEEDLOT MINUTE BOOK