Loading...
09-20-95 PCCITY OF OTSEGO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 8 P 1_ Chair will call meeting to order. Chair Swenson called meeting to order 8 PM. ROLL CALL: Carl Swenson, Ing Roskaft, Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner, Bruce Rask, Mark Wallace, Jim Kolles, Richard Nichols, Alternate, Suzanne Ackerman, Council Staff: Bob Kirmis, Assistant Planner; Andy MacArthur, City Attorney; Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning Administrator; Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk; Carol Olson, Secretary. Council Members Present: Norman F. Freske, Mayor; Ron Black, Larry Fournier. Consider PC Minutes of 9 -6 -95 - Arleen Nagel noted correction of spelling of names, Gabf. Davis and Card Holland. Ing Roskaft motioned to approve the Minutes of September 6, 1995 with the noted corrections. Seconded by Mark Wallace. All in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Kirmis went over his September 15, 1995 report, responding to questions and concerns raised at the September 6th Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. MacArthur addressed a memo from Attorney Casey, dated September 20, which was received by fax. Mr. Casey disputed Kirmis' interpretation of the ordinance regarding setbacks. It is Mr. Casey's position that the setbacks must be measured from any body of water adjacent to the site. Mr. MacArthur said on that technical point, Mr. Casey has a legal argument. The word Public is not in the ordinances but is included in the MPCA rules. Mr. MacArthur explained that his view is that the Planning Commission could take the position that the setbacks should be from all waters. However, Mr. MacArthur sees problems with the interpretation since you have ponds, streams, or flowages not on any map all over the City. Logically this interpretation would not be limited to specifically what is on the wetland inventory. Mr. MacArthur said the City is taking a common sense approach in the interpretation of the ordinance as referring to public waters but City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Page 2. acknowledges the Ordinance is not 100% clear and in a technical legal sense Mr. Casey does have a point.. Mr. MacArthur concurs with Mr. Kirmis' Memo. Mr. MacArthur explained that the Planning Commission makes a decision based on the information as presented to them. Mr. MacArthur has advised that this matter be as fully heard as possible. The Chair has the ability to control the meeting. He advises the Planning Commission to take all efforts to let the applicant and those opposing make their record. As long as there are reasonable presentations and reasonable requests to make part of the record, the Planning Commission should look favorably on this party's request. Mr. MacArthur asked Mr. David Nelson from the MCPA to attend this meeting and make a general presentation of the MPCA's role in this type of request. Mr. David Nelson explained he is a Supervisor of the Feedlot Program for the MPGA. He said he is here to explain what they do and what they do not do with this program. The MPCA's definition of a feedlot is: Any livestock or any animal confinement area where animals are confined and manure can accumulate and where there is no vegetative covering. Mr. Nelson noted that he hasn't met the applicants and has no knowledge or involvement in this facility. He said he did not review this application, his staff did and it was approved by his staff and he oversees the review. Mr. Nelson's role is the hiring and firing, policy decisions, levels of standard, requirements, program development, legislature, and working with the public and regional and national groups. Mr. Nelson explained what the MPCA does for their review. Their major review is for water quality. This is what their program is designed for. He stated a definition of a pollutant is: a pollutant is a resource that is out of place. Manure can be a very valuable as a fertilizer but those same nutrients in water can be dangerous. MPCA rules and program encourages manure to be used as a fertilizer, if used properly. Some things MPCA looks for in facility review are: Manure storage and handling. Site facilities away from water. More confinement of animals and manure. Earthen basins: require Engineering Plans and Specs., increasing the review of these plans and specs., MN is the most restrictive, take the 500 gallon per acre per day, basins currently designed today have a similar ground water impact as a corn field, and similar in water quality. In terms of nitrogen level, neither one would meet strict nitrogen standards. Alfalfa fields pull nitrates out of the water. MPCA feels reasonable on this and requires reasonable storage levels compared to other similar land uses. MPCA require inspection plans, design and building plans, soil testing, notification of key points in construction for spot checks. Today, he feels MPCA is confident in the earth basins. City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Page 3. Land application from start to finish. In many cases this is underestimated. Bigger potential source of pollution. If used properly, good source of fertilizer. Updating the Rules MN Statutes 115, 116, gives the Commission Board authority in terms of what is needed for review. Rules themselves, seepage of manure needs to be restrictive. MPCA is way beyond that. Work with municipal people as well as solid waste facilities. One reason to revise the rules is to recognize where we are currently at. Rules revision would be done for better clarification reasons on what they are doing verses more restrictive, which is open to debate. Mr. Nelson feels confident in the facilities they are approving and they are not a water quality hazard. What the MPCA does not do: Odor issue: limited amount of review, looking at getting into this more. Not as much of a concern with dairy, not as odorous as hog facilities. No scientific way of measuring odor. Good management and design will reduce odor. Land Use: Don't touch this at all. Previous rules on this were taken out. Local level must address those issues, local government is better at dealing with this. Complaints are not typical on dairy but on hog facilities. Mr. Nelson has heard throughout the State that the applicant is a good manager. Mr. Nelson stated he will be available to answer questions. Chair Swenson opened the Hearing for Public Comment. The Chair explained that input from the representatives from the Lefebvres and the neighbors will be allowed time, but asked that they volunteer to limit their comments to 3 minutes, and to address their comments to the Chair. Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane Setbacks, sent a memo to City Attorney Exhibit 6, Legal Memo on Setbacks. Mr. Casey said the Ordinance is clear on this, does not qualify setbacks to only public waters, says any ponds, all regulations imposed by PCA shall be adhered to and feedlots are prohibited in the following areas,1000 feet from the normal high water mark from any pond. Mr. Casey referred to Exhibit 5, submitted at the City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Page 4. previous Planning Commission Meeting, National Wetland Inventory. This shows other wetlands in addition to the DNR protected water. They are using a reasonable approach and applying the code. These wetlands are used in wetland conservation activities. They exist. This is their position and are asking the City to apply the law as it is written with no deviation.Rules of statutory construction say that if there is no ambiguity you don't go back to the intention of the City. Encouraged City to go out and look at site and delineate boundaries. Comprehensive Plan - stated in report that land use is compatible in Comprehensive Plan. Have cited numbers in a memo (Exhibit 7) that this land use may not be compatible. Procedure Issue: Hearing on Saturday, clients were prohibited from asking questions in a fair way. Referred to Swanson vs. City of Bloomington. Objection to this noted. Wanted a more full transcript on this trip. Mr. Casey is asking for a continuation. Reason for clients to pick another site for PC to review for a fair and balanced approach. Will advise by Monday for another site. Another reason is to rebut testimony as they choose from tonight's meeting. Diane Shonyo 6841 Packard Ave NE Stated she attended the Site Inspection on September 16th. 3 negative experiences that day. 1. Wasn't allowed to ask questions - found this to be disruptive in this day with Freedom of Speech, she pay her taxes. Method of asking and answering questions was unorganized. Couldn't always hear the answers. 2. After the first meeting, it was a decision to visit two different feedlots to get a broader picture of issue. This site was designed by same engineer as applicant's, only 11 months old. Applicant had talked to this farmer, obviously it was all set up. Questions: How much water is used on a daily basis? Do you have a test well or plan on having one to detect possible leaks? Pit was indicated City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20,1995, cont'd. Page 5. Diane Shonyo, cont'd. to be lined with a plastic material, what type of soil was their pit in? Has it ever been emptied? Where was their home located in terms of barn? Would they have constructed facility if built within 250 ft. of a residence, if they had a choice? What is the distance to closest neighbor residence? On the site inspection, was not able to confirm many of concerns, those were pollution and home value concerns. There were odors, they had 230 cattle, we are discussing 400, there were noises, flies even though there were chemicals, odors in feeding bunkers. Things we didn't see were the actual milking process, scraping and cleaning of barn. Movement of pit being cleaned out. Conclusion; my home value, didn't see one home within site of this facility. Not against family farms, this is moving to a large commercial farm. Other governments have same concerns. Moratoriums' have been placed (Southern Minnesota) while looking into these questions. Feels that within this City this will not be compatible. Greg Lefebvre 15033 70th Street Disappointed that no City Council Members were present on Tour. Would like to make a correction of misunderstanding. Carolyn Oakley, Liesch, did not design the facility that we submitted to MPCA. Was designed by a Mattson Firm from Willmar. Ms. Oakley will design the remainder of the project. Up to this point, they have had no involvement in the project. Mr. Lefebvre submitted pieces of information for the record: Report from Liesch Associates, dated September 18, 1995, which addresses many concerns from the original meeting; letter from Rogers Chamber of Commerce; request that all the overheads and technical information Carolyn Oakley presented at the last meeting; and the Letter from Pro Ag Crop Consultants, Inc. dated September 15, 1995. Definition of Al Zone,(Ag Rural Service District), established for the purpose of promoting, preserving and maintaining and enhancing the use of land for City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Page 6. Greg Lefebvre, cont'd. Commercial Ag purposes. The Dairy Farm Plan we have submitted is a clear use for this zone. States in Comprehensive Plan that unless there is a clear threat to public health, or safety, Ag activities shall not be limited or curtailed due to impact upon non -Ag uses which have or are proposing to encroach upon rural areas. They feel the concerns raised by neighbors are not concerns that need to be considered whether we are allowed this operation but on how we operate it. They will do the best job to reduce noise and odor problems. These concerns should not be used to consider whether this is allowed or not. In regarding to shoreline setback. Mr. Kirmis stated this ordinance is intended to mimic the MPCA definition of shoreline. Because MPCA has issued a permit, this should be a non -issue. MPCA is the ruling authority on water quality. There is also a feedlot in the City of Elk River and just recently issued a building permit to build a hog facility. We have furnished a detailed site plan with topography (blue print). Have not supplied a grading plan, and will after the CUP is approved. We request the CUP to be approved contingent upon City receiving a detailed grading plan. Which is a precedent set up in the past. This process has gone on long enough and enough facts have been given to base decision on facts and not emotions. Carol Holland 6419 Packard Ave A-1 Zoning. They put up Ag building and City required a complete set of blue prints. Lefebvres should have to do the same thing. Called Cargill they are located on 1,000 acres, been there since 1958 and no residential house around them. Mrs. Holland read her concerns from a memo dated September 20, 1995, which is attached, and should be referred to. City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Page 7. Ann Bentz 6699 Packard She called the farms listed in the Sept. 15 NAC report. She read the attached two page letter and should be referred to. States what she found out about each feedlot. Sabina Lefebvre Spoke in Support 15033 70th Street She lives close to the farm. She read a letter from the Rogers Area Chamber of Commerce, which is attached and should be referred to. John Holland 6419 Packard Ave Showed a overhead (attached). Mr. Holland pointed out where the water is, pond the DNR considers a wetland, pointed out the lines of the 1000 ft setbacks. Mr. Holland read his memo dated September 20, 1995, which is attached, and should be referred to. Exhibit 9 - Appraisal Letter regarding effects on residential property adjacent to feedlots. Exhibit 10 - Pictures of rambler and Letter from Earl Larson, retired Kandiyohi County Commissioner. Jan Lefebvre 15434 70th Street On behalf of Sabina Lefebvre, Rita Lefebvre and herself, she asks that the Planning Commission make a decision tonight and not fall for any ploys to delay any longer so they know where they are at. Mrs. Lefebvre reported that these are hurtful personal hateful attacks and allegations. Flyers are being illegally distributed, contain lies, misinformation and illegally using the Otsego Logo, flyers are not signed and make no sense. Opposition are making up things, with horrible frightful statistics and statistics that have nothing to do with this expansion. They are being used by a select few and get people up in arms. Citizens who are concerned for Otsego are being very spiteful, putting manure in the mailbox, feeding misinformation. They should be more concerned with expansion than the Hearing itself. The City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Page S. Jan Lefebvre, cont'd. Lefebvres are putting up with humiliating comments, like our houses and clothes and furniture stink. Allegations that we are purposing placing a facility near the neighbors and not ourselves. The truth is we live 20 paces from cattle. Jim and Rita have cattle right next to them. Greg and Sabina will be living very close to the proposed site and right now live next to a barn.It is our land and simply trying to expand a dairy business. Greg has said several times, several sites were considered for this but the Engineer picked the site they thought best for a variety of reasons. But one of main reasons is, the Lefebvres are concerned with improving water and air quality. This area could be zoned residential, with 100 homes and lots of cars and people. This is reality and not a factorial picture of farming, but this is our livelihood. Part of growing family farm. Mrs. Lefebvre asked not to prolong this, and to make a decision tonight so the family can get on with farming. Roger Bentz 6649 Packard Has a farm in Martin County, where he has a feedlot. Martin County passed regulations this year that any new feedlots must be 1,320 feet from any residence and half a mile from 10 or more residents. The reason is because of odor. Would never put a feedlot within 300 feet. Mr. Bentz talked to a professional manure hauler. Pumps 50,000 gallons a hour, 650 ft. of hose. To empty out hose, they drive over them and its a smelly mess. He will not lay out his hose for less than 100 acres. Can haul 200,000 gallons a day. 10,000 gallons per acre at 90% coverage. Will give off odor. Hauler wondered if the City knows what they are getting into. Smell from pit when crust is broken is horrendous. Rain and other delays will prolong manure hauling Herb Peck S12oke in Orn.=nosition 96th Street 65 years of construction with Corp of Eng for US Army. Notice here that money hasn't been mentioned, which he is concerned about. The City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Page 9. Herb Peck, cont'd. Lefebvres are energetic, business and honorable people. When an area is invaded with permanent odor it has no value, not worth anything. Anything that leads to the determent of home, kills the home and people in it. If the City is going to approve this project, suggest the Lefebvres buy out their homes and put their families in them and they can suffer the benefit or reap the benefit of the project and suffer the determent of the smell. Paul Tomes 22 St. Croix Drive This facility might not effect him as much as the people living next to it. Concern with those residents buying at the current level of farming, they are concerned with the future. The city just turned down the Church, are cows more important? Gabe Davis 6689 Packard Attended the Site Inspection on Saturday. Mr. Davis read the attached letter, Exhibit 14, and also submitted Exhibit 13, please refer to these. He stated this proposed use is not compatible in Land Use. He has a well know garden located at his residence with more than 1000 visitors each year, visiting to smell the flowers not manure. Stressed to use common sense in considering this CUP. Glen Daleiden 1326142 St NE This is now the responsibility of the Planning St. Michael Commission. The PCA is done with it. Haven't changed their policy since 1981. with odor, noise and dust. He lives by a plant, his complaints go to Brainard and takes 2 hours to come down here. PCA won't help you. Jean Baumgartner 15857 70th Street Resident of 11 years. Lefebvres are good farmers. Not opposed the Lefebvres building larger farm but oppose the location by residential. Repaired her mailbox and wasn't able to complete because of flies. City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20,1995, cont'd. Pg 10. Jean Baumgartner, cont'd. Gil Darkenwald Jr. 6570 Packard Avenue Michael Blaine USDA SOIL CONSERVATION Anoka Sand Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project 12433 Pine Street Becker MN 55306 612-261-4410 BMP Consultant Gordon Goodin Also noticed the odor. Submitted Exhibit 11. Please refer to. Spoke in Onnosition Resident of 13 years, 600 ft from proposed feedlot. Concern is loss of resale value of his home. Here at the invitation of Lef-Co. Assists producers in the 11 County Area with manure management. Not attending with opinion but here to response to questions from the Planning Commission regarding scientific use of manure management in the past and as it would pertain to the storage in the future. Will be available for any questions. 220 E Central Half owner of a farm directly across from St. Michael feedlot. Regarding the concern with flies but how about the mosquitoes that come with wetlands. Last meeting it was said the City is not responsible to make farms more profitable but residents are asking City to be more responsible for selling their homes for more profit. This is a farm and they should remember where they built. Residents wants this built in the middle of nowhere but the Lefebvres don't live in the middle of nowhere. Tom Casey Exhibit 12, Gabe Davis Ag Stats Request a continuation of Public Hearing for the reason of rebuttal. Expert from PCA was here, didn't know this until 2-3 days ago. Allow for his clients the chance for the Planning Commission to see another feedlot. This will allow us a fair hearing to supplement the record of additional information. Wouldn't oppose if denied. City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Pg 11. Chair Swenson commented that Mr. Casey's comments regarding an unfair Hearing are unfortunate because we have tried v 4 hard. Lisa Berg 6939 Packard Do they check out the information the applicant puts on the permit, specifically: Site Plan shows farm within 800 feet of Shoreland, setback, applicant put down 1000 ft., was told by a Paul from the MPCA they met the 1000 ft setback. The City seems to think that even if its within 800 MPCA thinks it OK. Mr. Nelson Regarding Paul Trapp, excellent employee, but less than 6 months of employment, not an accurate answer. MPCA checks information, mostly by desktop method, USGA, Area photos etc. are used, Regarding the 1,000 ft setback, our rules define a potential pollution hazard that any facility within 300 feet of Shoreland as a potential pollutant but we don't inhibit construction. Look to see if that is indeed a pollution hazard that hasn't been addressed. We approve quite a number of facilities within Shoreland setback. Many cases local ordinances deny it. Confusion with what is a public water. There are items on application we don't look at any more, typical applicant doesn't give accurate information, we look up ourselves,. the geological information. In terms of setbacks, we do review, don't have a strict prohibition on new facilities. If someone knowingly states false information, felony charges have been filed. Program is built upon a certain level of trust. Commonly there are errors and omission. Dairy Farms Stats: 3 dairy farms a day going out of business, not farms. Odors: current rules states manure storage must be done in a nuisance free manner. Can reduce by injection. Enforcement: Have done 20 - 30 gross misdemeanors in past 2 - 3 years. Done quite a number of civil penalties. No enforcement done on odors with feedlots. City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Pg 12. Tom Casey Submitted Exhibit 13 & 14 Letter and statement from Gabe Davis Exhibit 15, Larry L. Johnson & Assoc. Exhibit 16, Letter from Soil and Water in Morrison County Exhibit 17, J L Wilkes, Oct 1995, talking about Feedlots Problems Jan Lefebvre Submitted Exhibit 18, Flyer Illegal Use of Letterhead Tom Casey Noted his objection to Exhibit 18, saying it is irrelevant something that they didn't intend to submit, part of Freedom of Expression, part of this Hearing. Roger Bentz Question for MPCA: Explain the test well and how pit is monitored? David Nelson This varies from facility to facility and he stated he is not an expert on this. Wouldn't typically require one for this facility. Lisa Berg Question for MPCA The Engineer had stated to Planning Commission that Lef-Co farm proposal was smaller one compared to larger one she had seen, what happens in 4 or 5 years when economics demand to expand and add more animals, what does he have to do? How do you know if manure is being spread correctly? David Nelson Rules are pretty clear, before any expansion, a permit processing must be done and would be reviewed. Engineering Plans and Specs. Manure Application: its in the producers best interest to maximize the nutrient value, and you do that by also protecting water quality by applying at appropriate rates. Require records be kept for 3 years, for manure spreading, soil testing and what crops are grown on the larger facilities. Won't check out unless there is a complaint. City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20,1995, cont'd. Pg 13. Herb Peck Assuming this goes through, and assuming every- thing is satisfactory, assume smell travels and valuation of homes goes down, how will this affect the rest of the taxpayers. The budget is set up and always short of money and who will pay the taxes when this project is knocking them down. Mick Raiker Spoke in onnosition MPCA tells us you can call us, but don't pay any attention to us because its probably wrong. Application process, but don't pay a lot of attention to application process. They don't have a lot of money, what does MPCA do? Chair Swenson asked if there is any other material to be submitted. Chair Swenson closed the Hearin. Eugene Goenner addressed the flyerssituation. He has received them but won't read them because they haven't been signed. Ing Roskaft took exception to Mr. asey's remarks regarding the September 16th site inspection being a Hearing. Mr. Ro kaft stated that was a site inspection and not a Hearing. Chair Swenson added to the record, a personally contacted each member of the Planning Commission and informed them that it would be inappropriate to make any discussions either good or bad on the situation, nd to his knowledge, no one did. Mark Wallace wanted to clarify soZ misconceptions the audience may have on the way a site inspection is run versus a Public Hearing. Site Inspection is run as a meeting, Public Hearing is closed, and no comments are taken. Also regarding the blue prints, A CUP is issued first, then building pe�Wt is applied for, at which time blue print is received. Bruce Rask wanted to clarify some misunderstandings. We did comment jokening that the dead skunk on the road smelled worse than the facility smell. Lefebvre's farm smelled traditionally worst than the site we loured. Bruce felt that the questions the residents wanted to ask were answered by the owners of the site they visited. Mr. Rask felt he tried to ask questions when everyone was around to hear. Mr. Rask said he read every letter that was sent to his house. In one letter it stated that developers would stay away from this area. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is that this area is zoned A-1, we wouldn't want something like this in the immediate service area. City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Pg 14. Homes that are there are clustered off the one per forty splits. This area is farmed in the traditional way of spreading manure on ground. The site that was visited was a state of the art situation. Mr. Rask also pointed out that Otsego has a Church and a Bank right next to a farm at the present time and it doesn't seem to be driving anyone away. Mark Wallace pointed out that we have a request for an agricultural use going into an agricultural zone. Mr. Wallace read from the Zoning Ordinance Section 20.4.1 Purpose of CUP., and Sec 51. Ag Rural ServiceDistrict, Purpose. Based on these Ordinances and evidence presented, Mr. Wallace feels they cannot deny this request based on Otsego's current zoning laws. The Planning Commission must make their decision based on current zoning ordinances. Ing Roskaft motioned to grant the Conditional Use Permit to Lef-Co Farm Corp. on the condition that they furnish the grading plan and all other necessary plans for the City Council to make the final decision. Seconded by Eugene Goenner. Discussion: Mark Wallace reiterated that when a request is brought before the Planning Commission we have to base our decision on the current zoning ordinances. This is a recommending body to the City Council. Eugene Goenner asked the Planner on Item 6 from his report regarding storage of manure, can this be stretched out to one year. Mr. Kirmis said this is a reiteration of the City's Nuisance Ordinance and a variance Might likely be in order. Andy MacArthur, City Attorney, strongly encouraged the Planning Commission, because of the amount of exhibits presented this evening, to delay making a decision this evening to give the Planning Commission more time to review the information received. He also pointed out this will not delay this request going to the City Council. Chair Swenson agreed with this recommendation. Ing Roskaft stated he would not withdraw his motion stating the City Council and Attorney can review information prior to the City Council Meeting. Bruce Rask asked Mr. MacArthur regarding the residents asking for another site inspection, we wouldn't have time for another one. Mr. MacArthur's opinion that the Public Hearing is closed and both side have fully been heard but the Planning Commission should examine the exhibits before recommendation. Mark Wallace stated we are basing our decision on current written ordinances, all other things are to be determined by the City Council and not by the Planning Commission by definition of what the Commission job definition is. Chair Swenson stated that one CUP!criteria we have to consider is the reduction of property values and information has been given regarding this. If the vote is to be taken, Chair Swenson would vote against it on that basis. He would feel more comfortable voting after reviewing the material presented. Mr. MacArthur clarified the Planning Commission decision is a recommendation to the City Council and should be based upon a full record and if there are documents submitted City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 1995, cont'd. Pg 15. tonight and the Planning Commission hasn't reviewed them, then they are not making a decision based upon a full record. Mark Wallace agreed and recommended that Planning Commission take time to review information. Ing Roskaft felt that the Planning Commission has heard all information as presented, and that the City Council will have the final decision and they will be reviewing all material submitted. Richard Nichols feels that this is a very serious topic for recommendation, and since it has been established that the Planning Commission delay of vote will not impact delaying the City Council decision, there is responsibility to review the exhibits and the vote should be delayed. Carl Swenson said there are two options here, postpone voting or defeat the motion. Arleen Nagel motioned to table the vote until October 4, 1995. Seconded by Mark Wallace. Voting For: Arleen Nagel, Bruce Rask, Jim Kolles, Mark Wallace, Ing Roskaft, Carl Swenson. Voting Against: Eugene Goenner Motion carried 6 to 1 to table the motion. Tom Casey requested to supplement) records with another site visit. Chair Swenson said no, the Planning) Commission is a volunteer group, they have spent a lot of time on this and feel one site inspection is sufficient. Mr. Casey noted his objection. 4 Continue Brainstorming for Visioning Session - With Richard Nichols- (Continued ichols_(Continu .d from 9-6-95 PC) Chair Swenson noted this has been canceled and to bring our ideas to the City's October 16th Brainstorming Session. 5. Any other Planning Commim*Qn- Mark Wallace announced his resignation from the Planning Commission effective October 3, 1995. (see attached letter). City of Otsego Planning Commission Meeting of September 24,1995, cont'd. Pg 16. Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mark Wallace. All in favor. Motion carried. Arleen Nagel, Secretary By: Judy Hudson, Recording Secretary jh