02-19-08 PCMany of you have seen or heard about the recent articles in the Star Tribune and
City Pages about the mortgage scam that is being investigated in Otsego Preserve.
I want to provide a bit of information about how that affects the rest of us.
The City became aware that something was going on more than a year ago. We
started getting complaints about lawns and houses not being maintained. When
we tried to contact the property owners, we had a hard time figuring out just who
owned the property. As the result we implemented a Rental policy last year, one
of the first in the area.
Last spring, during the Board of Review meeting, when people can come in and
discuss their property valuation, we heard people who said that they paid less for
their houses than the county records show. The county assessor told us that was
often an indication that some type of scam was involved. Later we heard that the
FBI was investigating people involved with the situation.
Last year you may remember hearing about how New Prague, MN got caught in a
similar scam and how it was going to affect the rest of the residents with
increased property taxes. I want to explain how Otsego residents are NOT in the
same position.
When the developers went to New Prague, they talked the city into building all
the roads, curbs, gutters, storm water ponds, water towers and sewer
improvements and then assessing the cost to the houses to be later paid by the
future owners. Costs like that can easily be upwards of $40 thousand dollars per
house. If a house then goes into foreclosure, the city may not get the money to
pay the assessment bonds for a few years so the rest of the taxpayers have to pick
up the bill. Many cities have policies similar to those of New Prague.
That did NOT happen in Otsego. Our policy is and has been that the developer
pays all those costs up front. They build the roads; install sewer and water pipes,
storm water ponds, etc. all to city specifications. We inspect them as they are
being built. They pay us for the inspections. When complete, they give us title
those improvements and a two year warranty at no cost to the city. They pay
their share of the sewer and water plants and towers, up front. No assessments
for infrastructure improvements are allowed on residential property. Only those
in this room whose houses are physically connected to the sewer and water
system have paid toward those costs. The rest of us have not paid a dime of
those bonds. We have a policy that says "only the users pay."
So just how big is our risk? We believe the risk is small. It really is no different
than if your next door neighbor cannot make the payments on their house and it
goes into foreclosure.
The downside is this, if a house goes into foreclosure, the property taxes may not
get paid on time. On a regular basis, we know that about 3 to 4 % of property
taxes are paid late. People forget to pay, the property transferred to a new
owner and the new mortgage company hasn't gotten all the paperwork complete,
etc. Last year the county warned us that there was a slowdown in the payment
rate. Very, very rarely do we not get the money. The reason is that if the
property taxes don't get paid, governmental units get the property and can sell it
for the back taxes. No matter who are the real owners of these houses, the
mortgage companies don't want to lose any more money. The last thing they
want to do is lose a $200-300,000 house because they didn't pay $3000 in taxes.
(Keep in mind that the city's share of that $3000 bill is about $900.) In the past 15
years, we've gotten back about three properties. None of them had houses on
them.
How big is the problem? There are almost 5000 houses in Otsego. In a typical
year the slow pay rate is about 2-4%. That represents about 100-200 houses.
Unlike the newspaper articles that said there are as many as 130 houses affected,
the actual records show 66 houses in Otsego Preserve are affected. That means
we might be slow to collect about $50-$70,000 in property taxes. Currently we
collect about $3.7 million in taxes a year. The amount at risk is under 2% of that
tota I.
When we did the 2008 budget, we adjusted our anticipated spending downward
8% knowing that some sort of shortage could happen. The tax statements you
received in January reflect our adjusted budget. If you look at your city portion of
the tax bill, it most likely went down or stayed the same. Mine went up 19 cents
on a city portion of my tax bill which is about $750.
What would we do differently? Remember these are single family houses. The
city doesn't have any legal authority to interfere with who people decide to
purchase their house from or who they select to be their mortgage company. The
last thing any of us want is for the city to be at our closing when we buy or sell a
house.
Bottom line, I believe we have structured our policies and adjusted our budgets to
get us thru this situation with the least possible impact on other residents of the
city.
1010 WEST ST. GERMAIN STREET
SUITE 600
ST. CLOUD, MN 56301-3406
MAIN: 320.252.4414
FAX: 320.252.4482
Via email and U.S. Mail
February 14, 2008
MICHAEL ROBERTSON
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY OF OTSEGO
8899 NASHUA AVE NE
OTSEGO MN 55330
Re: IUP Permit and EAW for Randy and Karen Pouliot Land
Dear Mr. Robertson:
ITEM 3-1
LEE HANSON
ATTORNEY
MAIN OFFICE: 320.252.4414
FAX: 320.252.4482
LEE.HANSON@GPMLAW.COM
Applicants in the above -referenced matter request the City Planning Commission consider this
matter at its March 3, 2008 meeting instead of the February 19, 2008 meeting. The Elk River
School District will not have an opportunity to act on the contract for the agreement to travel
across its land until after the February 19 Planning Commission meeting.
If you have any questions please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
Lee Hanson
Attorney
LWH:smc
cc: Daniel Licht
GP:2330158 v1
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.
A FULL-SERVICE LAW FIRM
MINNEAPOLIS, MN • ST. CLOUD, MN • WASHINGTON, DC
WWW.GPMLAW.COM
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners(cynacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 14 February 2008
RE: Otsego — ISD 728/Pouliot IUP/EAW
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 07.07
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 4 February 2008 to consider the
above referenced applications. Following comments by City staff, the applicant and
testimony by the public, the hearing was closed. The public comment period for the
EAW required by Minnesota Rules 4410.1600 also ended on 13 February 2008.
Minnesota Rules 4410.3100, Subp. 1 requires the City Council to make a declaration on
the EAW prior to acting upon the IUP application.
ANALYSIS
Timeframe. The City is required to process consideration of the EAW in accordance
with the timelines established by Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 2.A. The City
Council is required to make a declaration regarding the EAW within 30 days of the end
of the EAW comment period. This date is 14 March 2008. The City Council must then
act upon the IUP application within 60 days of the deadline for a decision on the need
for an EIS in accordance with Minnesota Statues 15.99, Subp. 3.d. This date is 13 May
2008. Because of the inter -related nature of the EAW and IUP application, City staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council take action on both
applications concurrently before 14 March 2008.
EAW. The City acting as the Regulatory Government Unit (RGU) in evaluating the
EAW and making a declaration as to whether a project has potential for significant
environmental effects is required to provide specific responses to the comments made
regarding the EAW during the public comment period. Information received during the
public hearing and 30 -day public comment period specific to the EAW are as follows:
■ Comments from the letter submitted 22 January 2008 by the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture:
The EAW should include a plan for reclaiming land for agricultural use
prepared by a qualified soil scientist or soil technician.
Response: A plan for reclaiming land for agricultural use prepared by a
qualified soil scientist or soil technician will be considered as a condition of
approval for the IUP.
2. Item 9 does not mention what will happen to the existing farmstead.
Response: The existing farmstead is to remain during the excavation and
after restoration of the property.
Comments from the letter submitted 4 February 2008 by Jeremy P. Greenwood
and Jeffery D. Gram, attorneys for Otsego Community Awareness Association:
The EAW should be listed as "mandatory", not "discretionary".
Response: Following the City Council's decision on 23 April 2007 to order
preparation of a discretionary EAW for the project in accordance with
Minnesota Rules 4410. 1000, Subp. 3, the proposer expanded the project
to the extent that the threshold established by Minnesota Rules 4410.4300
Subp. 12. b for a mandatory EAW is exceeded.
2. The EAW does not mention a non-metallic general permit for the crusher
use that is planned for the gravel mine.
Response: A non-metallic general permit is required for use of the
proposed crusher and may be addressed in relation to the submitted IUP
application.
3. The potential impacts on Blanding's Turtles, a threatened species,
warrants further investigation.
Response: Disturbance of any wetland on the property is subject to
approval of a wetland permit, which the applicant must apply for. Potential
impacts to Blanding's Turtles will be mitigated by avoiding any impacts to
the wetland areas adjacent to Otsego Creek and proposed installation of a
flat bottomed culvert for the proposed temporary haul road crossing of an
existing wetland allowing continued wildlife movement.
4. OCAA is concerned that the proposed gravel mine's impacts on water
resources cannot be property evaluated at this time, nor can they be
intelligently responded to, because the proposed impacts on water have
significantly changed since the project was initially proposed and, indeed
the proposed impacts are still changing.
2
Response: Potential impacts on water resources are to be mitigated by
required compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
Engineering Manual.
5. OCAA believes the EAW traffic estimate is inaccurate and minimizes the
truck traffic that will be traveling city roads if the gravel mine goes forward.
Response: The City Engineer concurs with the estimate of 184 average
daily trips generated by the proposed use as stated in the EAW.
6. The proposed haul route for the gravel mine trucks will bring the trucks
alarmingly close to hundreds of school children on a daily basis
Response: MacIver Avenue is a public, designated collector street
constructed to MSA standards to accommodate traffic levels up to 12,000
and 16, 000 vehicle trips per day, of which 20 percent may be anticipated
to be heavy truck traffic of the type generated by the proposed use. The
traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capacity of Maclver
Avenue. Operation on Maclver Avenue is addressed by general traffic
laws and Minnesota Statutes 169.444 specifically regulates operation of
any motor vehicle upon public streets in relation to stopped school buses.
7. ...the EAW fails to consider the air emissions from the large number of
trucks coming to and from the mine site daily.
Response: Vehicle related emissions are subject to regulation by the EPA
and/or MPCA.
8. ...the EAW still fails to "identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and
estimate impacts on them.
Response: Potential impacts from fugitive dust to surrounding sensitive
receptors will be mitigated by implementation of dust control measures to
be required as a condition of the IUP. These measures have been
identified by other environmental studies prepared within the City for
grading projects of similar scope as adequate to mitigate potential
impacts.
9. [Impact #24] also includes a substantial inaccuracy when it claims that
there are merely 28 single family dwellings on rural parcels within a one -
mile radius of the site.
Response: Using Wright Count aerial photographs and City maps, 16
single family dwellings were identified within one-quarter mile of the
excavation site where potential impacts from odors, noise and dust would
be anticipated to be most severe.
10. The EAW is inaccurate in that it indicates that there are no parks,
recreation areas or trails in proximity to the proposed site of the Gravel
Mine.
Response: The physical separation of the site and designated haul from
existing City park facilities and commercial recreation uses mitigates any
potential impact related to proximity of these sites. The trail along the east
side of Maclver Avenue from 80th Street to CSAH 37 was constructed in
part to provide for separation of pedestrians/bicyclists from vehicle traffic
on Maclver Avenue which has a design capacity of 12,000 to 16,000 ADT
including up to 20 percent heavy truck traffic of the type generated by the
proposed use. Provided that the traffic generated by the proposed use is
within the design capacity of Maclver Avenue, there is no impact to the
existing trail.
11. Evidence on the record indicates that the gravel mine presents several
incompatibilities with the City of Otsego Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The authority to interpret and apply the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan rests with the City Council. There are no findings by
the City Council in the record showing that the proposed use is
inconsistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
12. The EAW inaccurately states that no new or expanded public services will
be required as a result of the gravel mine. This is patently not the case.
Response: The Zoning Ordinance allows for the City to require execution
of a performance agreement as a condition of 1UP approval. The
performance agreement may provide for City administration of the 1UP
and enforcement of the terms and conditions of 1UP consistent with City
observation of other similar projects. The performance agreement would
provide for fees and securities to pay all costs incurred by the City in the
administration and enforcement of the 1UP and performance agreement.
There will be no impact to or expansion of public services resulting from
the project.
13. Among the cumulative potential effects that the EAW should evaluate in
this case is the "current aggregate effects" of the spate of development
that has occurred along the Otsego Creek in recent years.
Response: The City has adopted a Stormwater Management Plan for
Otsego creek to address the potential impacts from development within
the watershed. Measures implemented under this plan include
improvement and capacity expansion of Otsego Creek from 701h Street to
the wetland in Section 30 and cleaning out of Otsego Creek and installing
increase capacity in culverts within in rural areas from the Section 30
wetland to the Mississippi River. Stormwater management for the
proposed use will be adequately provided for by required compliance with
4
the Stormwater drainage provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
Engineering Manual with respect to rate control and water quality.
14. ...the EAW should evaluate whether on its own or as a cumulative effect...
... the gravel mine has the potential to contribute to the fish biology
impairment of the Mississippi River.
Response: Otsego Creek is an intermittent stream. Stormwater
management for the proposed use will be adequately provided for by
required compliance with the Stormwater drainage provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance and Engineering Manual with respect to rate control
and water quality.
15. OCAA believes the EAW has not adequately evaluated the gravel mines
potential impacts to groundwater and nearby drinking water wells.
Response: Soil borings taken on the subject site confirm that the
excavation will be no closer than 10 feet to the known ground water level.
Stormwater runoff is to be managed in accordance with the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance and Engineering Manual, including provisions for
rate control and water quality. Accidental fuel spills will be handled in
accordance with MPCA requirements. The City Engineer has stated that
the proposed use will not negatively impact ground water resources.
■ Comments from the letter submitted 4 February 2008 by Ben J. Bastyr:
Item #24 in the EAW regarding odors, noise and dust says the population
near the site is "low".
Response: The subject site is within a rural area and land uses abutting
the excavation site include rural residential uses, agricultural farmsteads
and agricultural fields. Using Wright Count aerial photographs and City
maps, 16 single family dwellings were identified within one-quarter mile of
the excavation site where potential impacts from odors, noise and dust
would be anticipated to be most severe. The Comprehensive Plan policy
cited in the letter is not applicable as the character of the area is not
consistent with the definition of a low density residential neighborhood and
establishment of permanent land uses to which the policy applies. The
City has not required buffering measures for short term grading activities
between undeveloped and developed properties, although the physical
separation and screening of the proposed staging area is an issue to be
considered as part of the IUP. The rural development character of the
area abutting the subject sites and the performance standards established
by the Zoning Ordinance and Engineering manual is sufficient to mitigate
potential impacts related to the excavation of the Pouliot property.
2. How are 60ft. trucks going to access Co. Rd. 37 off MacIver Ave? ...item
#28 in the EAW needs to be revised to answer "yes" to the question of
needing to expand roads to serve the project.
Response: The City of Otsego constructed Maclver Avenue to MSA
Collector Street standards with substantial completion of the roadway in
2004. The plan for the intersection of Maclver Avenue and CSAH 37 was
subject to Wright County review and approval. Modifications to CSAH 37
were required based on Wright County's review of the plans and
understanding of the design capacity of Maclver Avenue. Construction
traffic related to on-going development in the West Sanitary Sewer
Service District currently utilizes this intersection. No modification of the
CSAH 37/MacIver Avenue intersection is required to accommodate the
traffic generated by the proposed use.
■ Comments from the letter submitted 4 February 2008 by Melora Kopp:
EAW does not address the shallow residential water wells in the area.
Response: Soil borings taken on the subject site confirm that the
excavation will be no closer than 10 feet to the known ground water level.
The City Engineer has stated that the proposed use will not negatively
impact ground water resources.
2. There will be onsite equipment plus hundreds of trucks each day that drip
grease, oil and fuel not to mention the very real possibility of an accidental
fuel spill.
Response: Stormwater runoff is to be managed in accordance with the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Engineering Manual, including
provisions for rate control and water quality. Accidental fuel spills will be
handled in accordance with MPCA requirements. The City Engineer has
stated that the proposed use will not negatively impact ground water
resources.
3. The EAW states that there are "no designated parks, recreation or trails in
proximity to the site" I believe this is inaccurate. Otsego's Prairie Park is
within 1 mile of the Pouliot property. The Stone Bridge Golf Course is one
mile from the Pouliot property. There are numerous parks in every
community south of 80th Street off MacIver that would be within a mile of
the site. There is also the well -utilized walking path that runs all along
MacIver that would be within proximity of the site and the one designated
truck route.
Response: The physical separation of the site and designated haul from
existing City park facilities and commercial recreation uses mitigates any
potential impact. The trail along the east side of Maclver Avenue from 80th
Street to CSAH 37 was constructed in part to provide for separation of
III
pedestrians/bicyclists from vehicle traffic on Maclver Avenue which has a
design capacity of 12, 000 to 16, 000 ADT including up to 20 percent heavy
truck traffic of the type generated by the proposed use. Provided that the
traffic generated by the proposed use is within the design capacity of
MacIver Avenue, there is no impact to the existing trail.
4. The EAW states that "no public services will be required". I believe that
police coverage will have to be addressed to keep all trucks (including
empties and subcontractors) on the designated haul route and within
posted speeds.
Response: City administration of the IUP may be provided for through a
performance agreement between the operator and the City that includes
payment of City incurred expenses. Failure to comply with the terms and
conditions of the IUP can lead to City action to revoke the IUP.
■ Comments from the letter dated 11 February 2008 submitted by Katie Evans:
Response: The letter is submitted in support of a negative declaration on the
EAW. No response is required.
■ Comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources received via e-
mail on 13 February 2008:
Response: The DNR provided no comments on the EAW. As such, no response
is required.
■ Comments from submitted on behalf of Randy and Karen Pouliot received on 13
February 2008.
Response: The letter is submitted in support of a negative declaration on the
EAW. No response is required.
■ Comments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in a letter dated 12
February 2008.
Response: There were no specific comments in the letter regarding the EAW
requiring a response.
As noted in the reports by City staff, the proposed use is similar in character to grading
activities associated with development occurring in the City. Performance standards
have been adopted as part of Federal and State regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and
Engineering Manual that adequately anticipate and control the effects from potential
impacts such as noise, dust, emissions or impacts to sensitive natural areas or public
infrastructure. Furthermore, these potential environmental effects have been evaluated
as part of other environmental studies for generally similar activities within the City and
have been found not to have the potential for significant environmental effects when
properly regulated. The IUP process, requiring numerous and significant conditions of
7
approval, a written enforceable agreement between the applicants and operator and the
City and with the requirement of securities to insure compliance with the terms and
conditions of the agreement provides adequate insurance that particular environmental
concerns are properly mitigated and controlled. Adoption of findings that the proposed
use has potential for significant environmental effects requiring preparation of an EIS
would be inconsistent with past City actions and establish an unwanted precedent for
approvals of future development applications implementing the plans and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. City staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
findings for a negative declaration regarding the EAW.
IUP. It is an applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that a proposed use is consistent
with City policies and established performance standards and satisfies the criteria for
approval of a development application. With respect to the requested IUP, the record
shows the application to be incomplete. Correspondence from City staff to the applicant
had previously advised them of the deficiencies in the submitted plans presented at the
public hearing, which are as follows:
The applicant has not presented an executed legal agreement allowing them
access across PID 118-500-193200 owned by ISD 728 for access to MacIver
Avenue at 80th Street. A fully approved and executed agreement with ISD 728
acceptable to the City is central to the application submitted. All City staff review
and presentations of the proposed IUP have been based upon the representation
that such an agreement was in place or would be prior to the public hearing. Staff
would not recommend any conditional approval of the IUP without receipt and
review of a fully approved and executed Agreement. Without access to MacIver
Avenue, the Planning Commission and City Council may consider findings that
existing streets abutting the property have insufficient capacity to accommodate
the use.
2. The submitted plans are not signed by a registered Professional Engineer as
required on Page 1 of the Engineering Manual under Section 1.1.
3. The submitted plans do not include calculations required to verify compliance
with stormwater management requirements outlined in Section 20-16-9 of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Engineering Manual.
4. The submitted plans propose impacts to existing wetlands in terms of physical
intrusion and potential hydrological disruptions. The applicant has not applied for
or received approval of the required wetland permit and verification that the
proposed impacts to the wetlands are not in conflict with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and Wetland Conservation Act.
For this application, the ability of the applicant to secure an agreement for access
across the ISD 728 and receive a wetland permit in compliance with the Wetland
Conservation Act is uncertain. The City can, and often does, allow conditional
approvals of IUP applications when satisfaction of such conditions necessary for
compliance with established policies and performance standards can be determined on
a technical basis or there is certainty that the condition can be complied with. In this
case, these matters, and particularly the access agreement with ISD 728, are central to
the application and thus cannot be considered for conditional approval. The applicant
has had an extended period of time from the last application and throughout the EAW
time period to pursue and obtain an Agreement with the school district. No agreement
has been submitted to the City prior to closing the public hearing for this application.
Because of the public interest in the proposed project, City staff would recommend that
conditions included in an approval of the IUP be limited to performance related issues
and not demonstration of unresolved technical compliance with established Zoning
Ordinance and Engineering Manual requirements. Submission of additional information
by the applicant to address these four items would require re -opening the public hearing
to this and other information. The City Attorney does not recommend reopening the
public hearing to avoid creating potential conflicts and inconsistencies in the established
record for consideration of the application. The Planning Commission and City Council
may consider the four unresolved items above as a basis for denying the application.
Application Processing. Section 20-4-2.13 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that any
person with interest in property within the City may make application for an IUP as
allowed within the various zoning districts. Section 20-4-2.0 of the Zoning Ordinance
provides that whenever an application for an interim use permit has been considered
and denied by the City Council, a similar application involving the same property is not
to be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least (1) year
from the date of the initial application being denied. The City Council may decide to
reconsider such an application before the one year period passes by a 4/5th vote of its
members
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends adopting findings of fact recommending the City Council make a
negative declaration regarding the EAW and that the IUP be denied in the form attached
hereto consistent with possible action "C" below.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
A. Motion to adopt findings of fact recommending the City Council make a negative
declaration regarding the EAW and approval of the IUP in the form attached
hereto.
B. Motion to adopt findings of fact recommending the City Council make declaration
the need for an EIS prior to consideration of the IUP application.
C. Motion to adopt findings of fact recommending the City Council make a negative
declaration regarding the EAW and denial of the IUP in the form attached hereto.
C. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Judy Hudson, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Roger Stradal, DNR
Gregg Downing, EQB
Butch Belair, Eagle Trucking, Inc.
Randy and Karen Pouliot, property owners
Dr. Mark Bezek, ISD 728
Ben Bastyr, EAW Petitioner's Representative
Jeremy Greenwood, Greenwood & Gram
H
CITN" OF
0 T S E G 0
NN RIGHT COUNTY, NIINNESOTA
APPLICANT: Eagle Trucking, Inc. and Frattalone Companies.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
EAW — NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPLICATION: Consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) related to a
proposed excavation within the City of Otsego.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 19 February 2008
FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application, and evidence received, the Planning Commission of
the City of Otsego now makes the following findings of fact:
A. The legal description of the subject site is PID118-500-193100, 118-500-192300,118-500- 1 92400
and 118-500-193200.
B. The City has received an application for an interim use permit (IUP) to allow for excavation for
transport of more than 50 cubic yards of material from the subject site.
C. A petition requesting preparation of an EAW for the proposed CUP has been received by the City
on 29 January 2007 and remains in effect for one year from that date.
D. The City Council ordered preparation of an EAW for the project at their meeting on 23 April 2008.
E. Preparation of the EAW is mandatory in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subp. 12b.
F. In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.0500, the Environmental Quality Board has designated
the City as the Responsible Government Unit for determining if an EAW is to be prepared.
G. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 and Section 20-38-3.D.4 of the Zoning Ordinance require the City
Council to consider the need for an EIS on whether a project has the potential for significant
environmental effects based on (but not limited to) consideration of the following factors:
a. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects.
Finding: No permanent environmental effects will result from the project.
b. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects.
Finding: The project does not create for potential cumulative environmental effects.
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority.
Finding: The project is subject to Federal and State regulations and the performance
standards specific to the use established by the Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Manual
and City Code, which are adequate to anticipate and mitigate potential environmental
effects.
d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of
other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of
EISs previously prepared on similar projects.
Finding: The project is similar in scope to other development related activities occurring
within the City of Otsego related to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. EAWs
and AUARs prepared for other projects within the City establish that potential
environmental effects related to the use can be appropriately mitigated by existing Federal
and State regulations and performance standards established by the Zoning Ordinance,
Engineering Manual and City Code.
H. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on 4
February 2008 to consider the EAW, preceded by published and m ailed notice; following a review
of the application and receipt of evidence, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing.
The 30 -day public comment period for the EAW required by Minnesota Rules 4410.1600 ended
on 13 February 2008.
The Planning Report dated 31 January 2008 and Memorandum dated prepared
by the City Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
K. The Engineering Review dated January 31, 2008 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances and criteria, the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a negative declaration regarding the need for an
EIS.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
ALL IN FAVOR:
THOSE OPPOSED:
Attest:
ADOPTED by the Otsego Planning Commission this 19th day of February, 2008.
A
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
Chair
CITY OF
0 T S E G 0
WRIGHT COON"1'1', MINNESOTA
APPLICANT: Eagle Trucking, Inc. and Frattalone Companies.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
EAW — POSITIVE DECLARATION
APPLICATION: Consideration of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) related to a
proposed excavation within the City of Otsego.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 19 February 2008
FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application, and evidence received, the Planning Commission of
the City of Otsego now makes the following findings of fact:
A. The legal description of the subject site is PID118-500-193100, 118-500-192300,118-500- 1 92400
and 118-500-193200.
B. The City has received an application for an interim use permit (IUP) to allow for excavation for
transport of more than 50 cubic yards of material from the subject site.
C. A petition requesting preparation of an EAW for the proposed CUP has been received by the City
on 29 January 2007 and remains in effect for one year from that date.
D. The City Council ordered preparation of an EAW for the project at their meeting on 23 April 2008.
E. Preparation of the EAW is mandatory in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subp. 12b.
F. In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.0500, the Environmental Quality Board has designated
the City as the Responsible Government Unit for determining if an EAW is to be prepared.
G. Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 and Section 20-38-3.D.4 of the Zoning Ordinance require the City
Council to consider the need for an EIS on whether a project has the potential for significant
environmental effects based on (but not limited to) consideration of the following factors:
a. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects.
Finding: The project has potential for permanent environmental effects.
b. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects.
Finding: The project has potential for cumulative environmental effects.
The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority.
Finding: The project is subject to Federal and State regulations and the performance
standards specific to the use established by the Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Manual
and City Code and further study is required to determine if these regulations are adequate
to anticipate and mitigate potential environmental effects.
The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of
other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of
EISs previously prepared on similar projects.
Finding: The potential environmental effects resulting from the project cannot be
adequately anticipated by other environmental studies.
H. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on 4
February 2008 to consider the EAW, preceded by published and m ailed notice; following a review
of the application and receipt of evidence, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing.
The 30 -day public comment period for the EAW required by Minnesota Rules 4410.1600 ended
on 13 February 2008.
The Planning Report dated 31 January 2008 and Memorandum dated prepared
by the City Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
K. The Engineering Review dated January 31, 2008 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances and criteria, the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a positive declaration regarding the need for an
EIS.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
ALL IN FAVOR:
THOSE OPPOSED:
Attest:
ADOPTED by the Otsego Planning Commission this 19"' day of February, 2008.
0
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
Chair
CITY OF
0 T S E G 0
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICANT: Eagle Trucking, Inc. / Frattalone Companies, Inc.
02-08-08
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
IUP DENIAL
APPLICATION: Request for approval of an interim use permit (IUP) to allow excavation and
transport of more than 50 cubic yards within the A-1, Agriculture Rural Service District.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 19 February 2008
FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the Planning Commission
of the City of Otsego now makes the following findings of fact:
A. The legal description of the subject site is PID118-500-193100, 118-500-192300,118-500-
192400 and 118-500-193200.
B. The subject site is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for future Low Density Residential and
Low Density (Large Lot) Residential land uses within the Urban Service Expansion Area W2.
C. The subject site is zoned A-1, Agriculture Rural Service District; Excavation and transport of
material of more than 50 cubic yards not related to an approved developm ent plan is allowed
as an interim use within this district subject to the criteria, conditions and performance
standards established by the City Code, Zoning Ordinance and Engineering Manual.
D. Consideration of the application is to be based upon (but not limited to) the criteria set forth
by Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
Otsego Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: The proposed use is not consistent with the following policies of the
Comprehensive Plan:
a. The Comprehensive Plan states that "Transportation facilities shall be planned
to function in a manner compatible with adjacent land use (O tsego 2004
Comprehensive Plan, page 23); and,
b. The Comprehensive Plan calls for "existing streets [to be] upgraded in
compliance with MNDoT standard specifications for construction (Otsego
2004 Comprehensive Plan, page 24); and,
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Finding: The subject site is surrounded by the following proposed/existing land uses:
Direction
Land Use Plan
Zoning Map
Existing Use
North
LD Residential
A-1 District
Agricultural fields
Rural Sin le Family
East
LD Residential
A-1 District
Agricultural fields
Rural Sin le Family
South
LD Residential
A-1 District
Agriculture fields
Farmstead
West I LD Residential I A-1 District I Agriculture fields
The uses immediately surrounding the subject site include rural residential and
agricultural uses. Conformance with established performance standards for the
excavation use outlined by the Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Manual and City Code
will provide for compatibility of the use with the surrounding rural area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained within the
Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the City Code.
Finding: The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with all applicable
performance standards, including:
a. The application does not include an executed agreement between the
property owner/operator and ISD 728 to cross PID 118-500-193200 for access
to Maclver Avenue at 80th Street.
b. The submitted plans are not signed by a licensed Professional Engineer as
required on Page 1 of the Engineering Manual in Section 1.1.
C. The submitted plans do not include calculations related to stormwater
drainage needed to determine compliance with Section 20-16-9 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
d. The applicant has not submitted a hyrology report needed to evaluate
potential impacts to existing wetlands within the subject site and has not
applied for or received approval of a wetland permit to disturb an existing
wetland within the subject site to construct the proposed overland haul route
to Maclver Avenue at 60th Street.
4. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
Finding: The applicant has did not provide an agreement with ISD 728 for access
across PID to reach Maclver Avenue at 801h Street. The City Engineer has
previously reviewed existing public streets abutting the property and determined that
they are inadequate to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed use as:
a. There are insufficient shoulder widths for the posted speeds along Mason
Avenue, Marlowe Avenue, 80th Street and 83rd Street.
b. Ditch slopes are too steep for posted speeds along Mason Avenue, Marlowe
Avenue, 801h Street and 83rd Street
C. There are insufficient turning radii for tractor -trailers at the intersections of
Mason Avenue/CSAH 39 and 83rd Street/Mason Avenue.
d. The City has not adopted plans to improve said streets to the specifications
established by City Standard Plate 100.
5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and facilities
and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Finding: Without overland access to Maclver Avenue at 80th Street, the proposed use
2
has the potential to overburden existing streets accessing the property.
E. The Planning Report dated 31 January 2008 and Memorandum dated
prepared by the City Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., are incorporated
herein.
F. The Engineering Review 31 January 2008 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
G. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on 4
February 2008 to consider the EAW, preceded by published and mailed notice; following a
review of the application and receipt of evidence, the Planning Commission closed the public
hearing.
DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the Planning
Commission recommends the application be DENIED.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
ALL IN FAVOR:
THOSE OPPOSED:
ADOPTED by the Otsego Planning Commission this 19"' day of February, 2008.
By:
Chair
Attest:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
CITY OF
0 T S E G 0
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICANT: Eagle Trucking, Inc. / Frattalone Companies, Inc.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
IUP APPROVAL
APPLICATION: Request for approval of an interim use permit (IUP) to allow excavation and
transport of more than 50 cubic yards within the A-1, Agriculture Rural Service District.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 19 February 2008
FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the Planning Commission
of the City of Otsego now makes the following findings of fact:
A. The legal description of the subject site is PID118-500-193100, 118-500-192300,118-500-
192400 and 118-500-193200.
B. The subject site is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for future Low Density Residential and
Low Density (Large Lot) Residential land uses within the Urban Service Expansion Area W2.
C. The subject site is zoned A-1, Agriculture Rural Service District; Excavation and transport of
material of more than 50 cubic yards not related to an approved development plan is allowed
as an interim use within this district subject to the criteria, conditions and performance
standards established by the City Code, Zoning Ordinance and Engineering Manual.
D. Consideration of the application is to be based upon (but not limited to) the criteria set forth
by Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance:
1
F,
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
Otsego Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Finding: The subject site is surrounded by the following proposed/existing land uses:
Direction
Land Use Plan
Zoning Map
Existing Use
North
LD Residential
A-1 District
Agricultural fields
Rural Sin le Family
East
LD Residential
A-1 District
Agricultural fields
Rural Sin le Family
South
LD Residential
A-1 District
Agriculture fields
Farmstead
West
LD Residential
A-1 District
Agriculture fields
The uses immediately surrounding the subject site include rural residential and
agricultural uses. Conformance with established performance standards for the
excavation use outlined by the Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Manual and City Code
will provide for compatibility of the use with the surrounding rural area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained within the
Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the City Code.
Finding: The proposed use will be required to conform to all applicable provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Manual and City Code.
4. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
Finding: The proposed access to the subject site utilizes streets with adequate
capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and facilities
and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Finding: The proposed use will be accommodated by existing public services and
facilities.
E. The Planning Report dated 31 January 2008 and Memorandum dated
prepared by the City Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., are incorporated
herein.
F. The Engineering Review 31 January 2008 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
G. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on 4
February 2008 to consider the EAW, preceded by published and mailed notice; following a
review of the application and receipt of evidence, the Planning Commission closed the public
hearing.
DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the Planning
Commission recommends APPROVAL of the application, subject to the following conditions:
The comments of the Engineering Review dated January 31, 2008 are to be addressed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. The use is allowed pursuant to the submitted plans and information approved by the City
Council except as modified herein, including but not limited to the excavation phasi ng plan
and shall at all times comply with the requirements of the City Code, Zoning Ordinance,
Engineering Manual and the conditions of this permit.
3. The Final Grading / Closure Plan shall be completed within 30 days after termination of use of
the Property. The reclamation/restoration security will be returned to the Property Owner upon
confirmation by the City Engineer that all aspects of the Reclamation and Restoration Plan have
been completed and ground cover is established.
4. The operator shall submit a plan for restoration of the site for agricultural use prepared by a
qualified soil scientist or soil technician, subject to review and approval by City staff.
5. The hours of operation are restricted to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. No
activities related to the grading operation shall occur outside of these times. Operations are
prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays.
6. The Property Owner and Operator shall cause the property or equipment located on the
property to be secured from unauthorized entry. A locked gate across the haul road shall be
2
installed and locked appropriately when excavation is not in operation.
Signs designating school bus stops shall be installed at locations determined by ISD 728 and
their transportation contractor, subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Vehicles used for hauling material from the site shall be subject to the following restrictions:
a. All vehicles shall be licensed and maintained as required to operate on public streets.
b. Vehicles shall obey all traffic laws.
Vehicles shall be limited to the following routes to/from the subject site:
MacIver Avenue between 60th Street and 80th Street and are to remain on
County State Aid Highways or State Trunk Highways unless approved by the
City Engineer.
d. An executed agreement between the property owner, operator and ISD 728 for
access across PID 118-500-193200 to allow access to MacIver Avenue at 80th Street
for the duration of the interim use permit shall be submitted and is subject to review
and approval of City staff.
e. Vehicles shall be subject to seasonal road weight restrictions on local streets.
9. The operator shall comply with MPCA Minnesota Regulations APC 7005 and institute the
following additional measures to control dust related to the operation:
a. A rock construction access consistent with City Standard Plate 505 shall be provided
at the site entrance.
Provide for daily sweeping of MacIver Avenue and 80th Street or as deemed
necessary by the City Engineer.
C. All interior haul roads and processing or staging areas shall be surfaced with Class 5,
subject to approval of the City Engineer.
d. Apply water/chemical dust treatment to haul roads and exposed soils as deemed
necessary by the City Engineer.
e. The operator shall "wash" the trees being grown for sale on PID 118-500-192203
following a period of ten (10) consecutive days, subject to approval of City staff.
10. Site drainage and erosion control shall be provided for as required by the Zoning Ordinance
and Engineering Manual, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
11. The Property Owner and Operator shall provide proof of an NPDES permit issued by the State
of Minnesota for the Property, and Property Owner shall comply at all times with the conditions
of that permit.
12. Disturbance of any wetlands or wetland impacts shall require issuance of a wetland per mit,
subject to review by the Technical Evaluation Panel and approval of the C ity Engineer.
13. Noise generated on the subject site in relation to grading activities shall conform to Section
20-16-14 of the Zoning Ordinance with reference to MPCA Minnesota Regulations NPC
3
7010.
14. The property owner and operator shall provide the following securities as a letter of credit or
cash escrow in amounts approved by the City Engineer within a performance agreement
executed between the property owner, operator and City:
Erosion control and restoration security in the amount of $3,000.00 per gross acre of
land being actively graded or not fully restored at the completion of each phase.
A street security as determined by the City Engineer for repair and overlay of
designated City street haul routes damaged by vehicles involved in the exportation of
material from the subject site, including trips to and from the subject site.
C. A security in the amount of $10,000.00 for daily street sweeping. The security shall be
re-established to $10,000.00 each time its balance falls below $1,000.00. The intent of
the escrow is to allow the City Public Works Department to complete the required daily
street sweeping if the operator fails to do so and recover costs incurred in this action.
The City shall provide Property Owner with a monthly statement detailing any charges
against the escrow.
d. A cash escrow in the amount of $5,000.00 for the purposes of assuring that the City has
funds available to cover costs of administering the operation. The escrow shall be re-
established to $5,000.00 each time its balance falls below $1,000.00. It is the intent of
this Agreement that the City have available to it at all times sufficient funds to administer
the operation.
e. The City shall provide Operator with a monthly statement detailing any charges against
the escrow.
f. At the end of the operation all remaining unused securities shall be returned to the
Operator.
14. The property owner and grading operator shall execute a performance agreement with the
City regarding the conditions of the IUP and provide all securities and administrative escrows
required by it, subject to approval of the City Attorney.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
ALL IN FAVOR:
THOSE OPPOSED:
ADOPTED by the Otsego Planning Commission this 19"' day of February, 2008.
4
By:
Chair
Attest:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
Page 1 of 1
Judy Hudson
From: "Michael North" <Michael.North@dnr.state.mn.us>
To: <judy@ci.otsego.mn.us>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:55 AM
Subject: ISD 728/Pouliot Mining Permit #8 EAW
The DNR has no comments on the referenced EAW. Thank you for the opportunity to review the EAW.
2/13/2008
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 1 651-296-6300 1 800-657-3864 1 651-282-5332 www.pca.state.mn.us
�. is u!
FEB 13 ?008 b§1
February 12, 2008 /Y—
Ms. Judy Hudson
Otsego City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: ISD 728/Pouliot Mining Permit #8
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has received copies of the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for the above project, prepared by the city of Otsego,
Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The MPCA has not reviewed the EAW for this project;
therefore, the MPCA has no specific comments to provide the RGU. This decision not to review
the EAW does not constitute waiver by the MPCA of any pending permits required by the
MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any required permits
and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. The enclosed checklist identifies permits that
the project may require, together with the most recent contacts at the MPCA.
We remind the RGU that, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 5 (Environmental Quality
Board Rules), a copy of the RGU's decision on this EAW needs to be sent to the MPCA.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ebertz
Planner Principal
Environmental Review and Operations Section
Regional Division
JE:mbo
Enclosure
cc: Butch Belair, Eagle Trucking, Inc./Frattalone Companies
1111�7
St. Paul I Brainerd I Detroit Lakes I Duluth I Mankato I Marshall I Rochester I Willmar 150 YEARS
,/STATEHOOD
18582008
CHECKLIST
After a cursory review of the proposed project, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff noted areas that may
need additional follow-up and/or a permit from the MPCA. Those specific areas are checked below:
❑ SDS Permit — Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit
A State Disposal System (SDS) Permit is required for any extension of a sanitary sewer. If a sanitary sewer is
proposed as a part of this project, an application for the SDS Permit should be made to the MPCA by contacting
David Sahli (Municipal Division, St. Paul office), at 651-296-8722.
❑ NPDES/SDS Permit for dredged material disposal.
If disposal of dredged material is anticipated, then Julie Rantala (Industrial Division, St. Paul office) should be
contacted at 651-297-8332.
NPDES Permit — Construction Stormwater:
A General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the MPCA for construction
activities will be required for all projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of land. The NPDES Permit
specifically requires Best Management Practices which are detailed in the permit (additional information can be
found in the MPCA document Protecting Water Quality in Urban Area) to prevent erosion and control
sedimentation during construction and a stormwater pollution prevention plan to manage pollutants in storm -
water runoff from the site that will occur after construction is complete. As a requirement of the NPDES Permit,
storm -water wet -detention ponds must be installed to treat the storm -water runoff whenever a project replaces
surface vegetation with one or more cumulative acres of impervious surface. If you have need of technical
assistance regarding this, please contact Lawrence Zdon (Municipal Division, St. Paul office) at 651-297-8219 or
Todd Smith (Municipal Division, St. Paul office) at 651-215-6008. For more general information, please contact
the appropriate MPCA Regional Office staff below:
❑ Brainerd, Scott Lucas at 218-828-6069
❑ Duluth, Jim Dexter at 218-529-6253
❑ Detroit Lakes, Joyce Cieluch at 218-846-7387
❑ Willmar/Marshall, Judy Mader (Big Stone, Chippewa, Cottonwood, Jackson, Kandiyohi, Meeker,
McLeod, Renville and Swift Counties) at 651-296-7315 or Heidi Lindrgen (Lac qui Parle, Lincoln,
Lyon, Murray, Nobles, Pipestone, Redwood, Rock and Yellow Medicine Counties) at 507-537-7033
❑ Rochester, Roberta Getman at 507-280-2996
Metro, Brian Gove (Ramsey and Washington Counties.) at 651-296-7036; Teddi Seibring-Trofm
(Hennepin and Wright Counties) at 651-284-0299; Brandon Finke (Carver and Scott Counties) at 651-
215-0267; Paul Estuesta (Anoka and Sherburne Counties) or Duane Duncanson (Chisago, Dakota,
Goodhue and Isanti Counties) at 651-296-7205
XNPDES Permit — Industrial Stor_rnwater
❑ Brainerd - vacancy
❑ Duluth, John Thomas at 218-723-4928
❑ Detroit Lakes - vacancy
❑ Marshall, Eric Pedersen at 651-296-9626
❑ Mankato/Rochester, Scot Sokola at 651-297-8479
❑ Rochester, Jeff Smith at 507-285-7302
Major Facilities, Marni Kamowski (Industrial Division, St. Paul Office) at 651-297-8662
❑ Individual Septic Tank System
Individual septic tank systems design and construction must comply with Minn. R. 7080. For additional
information, contact Mark Wespetal (Municipal Division, St. Paul office) at 651-296-9322.
April 2007
Federal Water Quality Certification
Wetlands are identified within the proposed project area. It is presumed that the project proposer and/or RGU
verified whether these wetlands fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) prior to
placing this environmental review document on public notice, and that the information identified in the required
approvals section is accurate. If a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Individual Permit is required by
the Corps, then an MPCA CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or an MPCA statement waiving the
- certification, must also be obtained as part of the permitting process. Under the Section 401 certification process,
the MPCA is responsible for reviewing the proposal to determine if it will comply with state water quality
standards in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7050. Those standards require that when prudent and feasible alternatives
are available, impacts to wetlands must be avoided. If prudent and feasible alternatives are not available, then the
impacts to wetlands must be minimized and/or mitigated. Also, the potential impacts that a proposed project has
on wetlands that are hydrologically connected to impaired waters is increasingly being evaluated by the MPCA
during the Section 401 certification process. For further information, please contact Kevin Molloy (Municipal
Division, St. Paul office) at 651-297-7572.
❑ Demolition Debris
Demolition debris must be disposed of at a properly permitted disposal facility. For information on the location of
one nearest you, please contact the appropriate MPCA Regional Office staff below:
❑ Brainerd, Curt Hoffman at 218-828-6198
❑ Detroit Lakes, Roger Rolf at 218-846-0774
❑ Duluth, Heidi Kroening at 218-723-4795 or Tim Musick at 218-723-4708
❑ Marshall, Paul Kimman at 651-297-8592
❑ Rochester, Cory Boeck at 507-280-5562
❑ Metro, Don Nelson at 651-296-8621
❑ Asbestos
Asbestos may be present in the building(s) that will be demolished, which requires special handling. Please
contact Jackie Deneen at 651-297-5847 or Derek Pemble at 651-297-8504 for additional information.
❑ Wells
Abandonment and/or installation of wells must be done by a licensed well driller. Please contact the Minnesota
Department of Health 651-201-4600 for additional information.
❑ Above and Below Ground Tanks
The installation and/or removal of ALL above and below ground tanks must be reported to the MPCA before any
work begins. Please contact the MPCA Customer Assistance Center at 651-297-2274 or 800-646-6247 for
additional information.
Cumulative Potential Effects
A "cumulative potential effects" inquiry under Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, requires a Responsible
Governmental Unit to inquire whether a proposed project, which may not individually have the potential to cause
significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects that
(1) are already in existence or planned for the future; (2) are located in the surrounding area; and (3) might
reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resokirces. TA
Other Issues Identified bmf
April 2007 2
Katie Evans
11149 76h Lane N.E.
Otsego, MN 55301
To: City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue N.E.
Otsego, MN 55330
February 11, 2008
Re: ISD 728/Pouliot Mining Permit and Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Attn: Mayor Larry Fournier and City Council Members
My name is Katie Evans, I graduated with a degree in Wildlife Ecology and
Management, Biology, and Soil Science from the University of Wisconsin — Stevens
Point, I am currently a technician for a Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District,
and I have served on a task force that has reviewed an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for a mining operation in Minnesota. I would like to provide the City
of Otsego the following information and reasons why I am in favor of the ISD
728/Pouliot Mining Project.
I have been a resident of Otsego for many years and have recently moved back to the area
and I am familiar with the proposed project site. I have been at every public meeting
regarding this project and have listened to community concerns. I have also read the
EAW that was submitted and I would like to submit my comments regarding this project.
Please consider the following:
Sand and gravel mining is an important industry in Minnesota that contributes
significantly to the state economy. Constructed sand and gravel is used in concrete
aggregates, concrete products, asphalt, road base, fill, snow and ice control, and other
miscellaneous uses. In 1990, every person in the state of Minnesota consumed
approximately 8.5 tons of sand and gravel. Sand and gravel consumption is so important
to the economy that it is considered one of the most accurate measures of economic
activity (Cynthia G. Buttleman of the MN DNR Division of Lands and Minerals, July
1992).
William H. Langer of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) states the following
information in the 2002 publication "Managing and Protecting Aggregate Resources:"
"Aggregate is a high -bulk, low unit value commodity that derives much of its
value from being located near the market. Transporting aggregate long distances
can add significantly to the overall price of the product. For example, a city of
100,000 can expect to pay an additional $1.3 million for each additional 10 miles
that the aggregate it uses must be hauled. Therefore, aggregate operations
frequently are located near population centers and other market areas.
Furthermore, citizens have their own ideas on how to use the land. Many citizens
do not support mining, in part because they do not recognize the dependence of
society on aggregate. Personal use is very little, if any, and individuals may not
recognize aggregate mining as a necessary land use, even though the need for the
commodity is constant. A survey conducted during 1994 concluded that the public
in general believes mining exploits workers, harms the environment, harms the
people in nearby communities, and has little personal benefit to the individual.
For these and other reasons, citizens may prefer that stone and sand and gravel not
be mined nearby. This "not in my back yard" syndrome may restrict aggregate
development."
Mr. Langer further states the following information regarding aggregate resources in
Minnesota:
"During 1984, Minnesota Statute 84.94 was enacted to protect aggregate
resources; to promote orderly and environmentally sound development; to spread
the burden of development; and to introduce aggregate resource protection into
local comprehensive planning and land use controls. The legislation initiated
county -level identification and characterization of aggregate resources, and
directed county planning authorities to use the information to consider the
protection of identified aggregate resources in their planning decisions.
Substantial progress was made regarding the identification and mapping of
aggregate resources, but by the late 1990's, little progress had been accomplished
to protect aggregate resources.
During 1998, the Minnesota Legislature created the "Aggregate Resources Task
Force" to examine issues concerning the need for and use of the state's aggregate
resources, (Laws of Minnesota 1998, Chapter 401, Section 50). The Task Force
Final Report (Aggregate Resources Task Force, 2000) made a number of
recommendations designed to facilitate the task of making wise use of aggregate
resources.
Minnesota is a pioneering state in both areas of aggregate resource mapping and
sustainable community management. During the last decade, Minnesota has taken
actions that have won it recognition as one of three leading States in applying
principles aimed at achieving environmental and economic sustainability in the
United States. Perhaps it will also lead the way in instituting measures for
sustainable aggregate resource management.
Minnesota's Governor and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board convened
the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative in 1993. The group's final
report, Redefining Progress: Working toward a Sustainable Future, included the
recommendation to inventory the State's natural resources. The Minnesota Round
Table on Sustainable Development (MRTSD) grew out of the initiative, and was
the main forum for advancing its goals and principles. Its flagship report Investing
in Minnesota's Future elaborated five principles of sustainable development, the
third of which — Conservation — makes note of the need to make wise and
efficient use of Minnesota's renewable and non-renewable resources. Minnesota
Statutes 2001 4A.07 mandated the preparation of a planning guide for local units
of government to plan for sustainable development. That guide, Under
Construction — Tools and Techniques for Local Planning (Minnesota Planning,
2002) describes aggregate as a potential community asset, and recommends that a
county's natural aggregate resources should be recognized in a land use element."
I have enclosed two maps that were generated by the State of Minnesota, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Lands and Minerals. These two Wright County
maps were completed in 1997 and show areas in the county where potential aggregate
resources occur. I have highlighted the proposed ISD 728/Pouliot Mining Project area on
both of these maps and attached a map onto each showing a closer view of the proposed
project.
The first map, Aggregate Resources, Wright County, Minnesota, depicts the areas in the
county that have been identified as potential aggregate resources (represented in orange).
These are geological units that are inferred to contain potentially significant aggregate
deposits. Gravel pit symbols and MN/DOT — aggregate symbols indicate identified
resources. The geological units having potential for aggregate resources include terrace
outwash, outwash, collapsed outwash, and ice -contact deposits. The proposed ISD
728/Pouliot Mining area is very well defined on this map as can be seen in the
highlighted area. The two hills that are proposed to being graded down are distinctly
identified as being potential aggregate resources, and they also contain the gravel pit
symbol which further identifies them as an aggregate source.
The second map, Aggregate Resources and Quaternary Geology, Wright County,
Minnesota, depicts the areas in the county that contain ice -contact deposits (resented in
yellow). These deposits contain sand, gravel, and silt, ranging from sandy silt to sandy
pebble and cobble -gravel, complexly interbedded, and in places is moderately to well
sorted. The two hills in question as part of this grading operation are also distinctly
represented as ice -contact deposits as well as being identified again as a potential
aggregate resource (represented by the gray dotted pattern). This pattern depicts geologic
units that are inferred to contain potentially significant aggregate deposits, and as in the
first map, gravel pit symbols and MN/DOT aggregate symbols indicate identified
resources.
I have brought this information to your attention because of comments and concerns that
were stated that question whether or not this proposed project area is feasible to supply
aggregate, and these maps depict that they are, in fact, identified sources of aggregate
material.
Below I have listed the potential benefits that this project would have for the City of
Otsego and its citizens:
• The amount of money that the city of Otsego could save with this project is huge
when looking at the amount of growth in this area. It is also a great opportunity
for the City to take advantage of this natural resource.
• By mining the aggregate resource on this property, the grading of the site would
reduce the steepness of the current slopes making the area able to support
residential development.
• Because of the close proximity of this site to the number of construction and
development projects there would be a large reduction in pollution due to the fact
that trucks would not be hauling material from other locations. Instead, material
would be hauled from within the City of Otsego to projects within the City as
well.
• Close proximity to project sites within the City will also have safety benefits.
Trucks will not have to haul material from remote locations and thus will not be
driving through other towns. If material is mined from this location, trucks would
only be hauling on one route, down MacIver Avenue, and a lot of the materials
mined have the potential to be used within Otsego.
• With the amount of material that is proposed to being graded off of the proposed
project site, the City of Otsego would see a large yield return on a short term
investment of time with the project being proposed to only take three years to
completion.
A concern raised by the community was relating to the location of the site. There have
been seven other gravel operations in Otsego; however, none of them are near this
proposed location, which happens to be one of the fastest growing areas in Otsego. This
close proximity has the potential to save the City and its tax payers a lot of money.
Another concern raised by the community was related to health concerns from mining
due to silica sand. However, as reported by the MN DNR Division of Lands and
Minerals, silica sand is mined in Southeastern Minnesota and not in this area.
According to the Minnesota census, there was an estimated 6,837 people living in Otsego
in 2003. It is now 2008, five years later, and it is certain that this number has risen.
Otsego is a city that is growing very fast with new residential developments, new
business, shopping malls, roads, and schools. There are approximately 50 people who
have expressed opposition to this project (by speaking at the recent Planning Commission
meetings, or who have submitted written comments). This is less than I% of the total
population of Otsego. This project will present many benefits for the entire Otsego
community, and decisions regarding the approval of this project should not be based
solely on what 1% of the population say. It is easier for those who are in opposition of
something to come forward and make the most noise; however, they are not a
representation of the City as a whole and should not be treated as one. Listening to the
comments raised by those who attend the recent meetings, I am appalled to find the
number of those who make false accusations, present inaccurate information, and
threaten other individuals of the community as well as threaten elected officials who may
not agree with their opinions of this project.
As an added note, I was appalled to see how some of our elected officials behave in these
settings. Jolene Jorgensen, for example, is a member of the ISD 728 School Board who
attended the February 4, 2008 Planning Commission meeting and spoke openly about the
role that the School Board is playing in this project. I believe that as an elected official it
is your duty to act as a neutral party and to be open when discussing projects that have an
effect on the community that you represent. Another example that I saw of this was of
Councilmember Tom Darkenwald who also attended the February 4, 2008 Planning
Commission meeting and who I noticed to be "coaching" members of the community as
they stepped up to state their comments relating to the proposed project. For a
councilmember who will be involved with this decision, he should not be acting as a
citizen participant. I find these to be conflicts of interest and elected officials who possess
personal agendas and thus should not be able to represent the entire city when making
these decisions.
I would like to state again that I am in favor of this project because I believe it is a great
opportunity for our growing Otsego community. We have the opportunity to use our own
local natural resources and with the number of new developments and construction
projects that are coming into our community, I don't think we should turn this down.
Thank you for considering my comments regarding the ISD 728/Pouliot Mining Project.
Sincerely,
AA�VX17.4-,�
Katie Evans
tl
77
q� �, t
• Pelican
lake-
_.
N
O
CO)
W
Z
Z
2
a33
� a � 4 ' L ae q •�;�'$a
8
LeE^illims 11_ HEIR -S L
o
F
ill
i LY1 zE 55Agay
Ali- 11-Ki�. ane=�E_'E
H- • £ � '� ' S A �6 1BRI �u$S! � 9g�a�s g ��yv�$Ec� a
� v� �
s 52
A.-It
�8eggS4 yg va
g�C s IN- " A t A M � ] ems $a_A A a �e�'. —
REAE fill y ji$s'l §R a , un
�� s�
aif2 $ g6� �fl��A 1ti 210 11 F
n=0 [1 0 0 0 0 o�
� e
Yn
�a
E p
It
• s
• J t
1. •�. ••*• "'�'f •
i ice._-...-�_ 4 ai • � ♦ • • • � .{ � \`�•• � �...
0001�1
RR
' � • i •,� •• i � iii • i % —
• • . �•4s• :• • •�� Q�IN •• �.
.• .. •- f � `fir � t:•.•�
At
I Ix
( 21
yr ;
'e •• r � � r� �r L7
• r � .Tl
r �
The following map indicates the locations where different minerals are mined, including regions of known
but undeveloped resources. As you can see from this map, silica sand is not mined anywhere in Wright
County and there are no known sources near our region. Silica sand is marked with the blue triangles on
this map and is mined in Southeastern Minnesota.
Mineral Industri
N
IG9s on Roseau
Lake of the w oo s
Marshal
Pennington
Koochlohing
Pak
Bekami
Norman MaAnomen rr.a— r
Hubbard
oker
es of Minnesota
including regions of known
but undeveloped resources
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
Itasca 4a
X
D X iC
SL Louis
1 i X
Califon
W Ailk i
Pin•
BentonIF
1e
os
Is anti
Sherburn
Chisa
Anoka
W hnglon
Wright
Ram
Hen neDi
e Carver
Cook
CURRENT OPERATIONS
Lake Metallic operations, ferrous
y( Taconite & Iron Ore
Industrial minerals operations
A Slice send
Ir Dlm ansbnal granite
Q DlmansIonal & crushed
limestone
Y Kadin clay
Crushed stone
x Horticultural peat
®Region of m any crushed
stone operations
AREAS OF POTENTIAL
Metallic potential, non-ferrous
0 Copper/nickel
® Manganese
® Sulfur
0 Titanium
Metallic potential, ferrous
Iron ranges
Industrial minerals potential
Lnooln Lyon Redwood Nice Le SueurRbc AoodA ? Dimension stone
own quarry prospect
-1peston Murray Cottonwood Watoman Blue Earth Wase° Steele Dodge +
Rook I Nobles Jackson Marti Libaurt I Freeborn Mo—
cape
ower n
apyllglL 199x.■e1H01 caperrl itol Me%of He toe aces. Tl9 dotes i lib li%ldadbpmabe ge l e B lo...tbl o l topes aid toci—chs of aIf* Ito a■g ala qunyMg opera loss
C1. a M 1 esaL, i Id a M3' MRI poe 19x1 br fits M a M e u I ope ra colt. Tit daL DMfeJ to le M 1101 tl ie ro a r be all rpn it
a at le pttarll/ baasou ly pie dale to r ex a Is tMe . Tle da
sloot do lot+OMdt ae a a.yoolstreol)k said aid grate loperatblt 11 of afar•. Tl+Map■gybe Rpl9dIQd I" an aigposes. for Ore deg s lltoraatbl.
00 haat tle 11111 rates! D M9. ■ Ile ras 009b..
Waden C
X
{
Otter Td
wlkl
Ara nt Dou las
Todd Mori
ravers•
Big Stone
Steven Pope
Stearns
1'
Swift
Chippewa
Kandlyohi Mee or
Lao Oul Parle
M
Yellow Medicine
Renville
es of Minnesota
including regions of known
but undeveloped resources
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
Itasca 4a
X
D X iC
SL Louis
1 i X
Califon
W Ailk i
Pin•
BentonIF
1e
os
Is anti
Sherburn
Chisa
Anoka
W hnglon
Wright
Ram
Hen neDi
e Carver
Cook
CURRENT OPERATIONS
Lake Metallic operations, ferrous
y( Taconite & Iron Ore
Industrial minerals operations
A Slice send
Ir Dlm ansbnal granite
Q DlmansIonal & crushed
limestone
Y Kadin clay
Crushed stone
x Horticultural peat
®Region of m any crushed
stone operations
AREAS OF POTENTIAL
Metallic potential, non-ferrous
0 Copper/nickel
® Manganese
® Sulfur
0 Titanium
Metallic potential, ferrous
Iron ranges
Industrial minerals potential
Lnooln Lyon Redwood Nice Le SueurRbc AoodA ? Dimension stone
own quarry prospect
-1peston Murray Cottonwood Watoman Blue Earth Wase° Steele Dodge +
Rook I Nobles Jackson Marti Libaurt I Freeborn Mo—
cape
ower n
apyllglL 199x.■e1H01 caperrl itol Me%of He toe aces. Tl9 dotes i lib li%ldadbpmabe ge l e B lo...tbl o l topes aid toci—chs of aIf* Ito a■g ala qunyMg opera loss
C1. a M 1 esaL, i Id a M3' MRI poe 19x1 br fits M a M e u I ope ra colt. Tit daL DMfeJ to le M 1101 tl ie ro a r be all rpn it
a at le pttarll/ baasou ly pie dale to r ex a Is tMe . Tle da
sloot do lot+OMdt ae a a.yoolstreol)k said aid grate loperatblt 11 of afar•. Tl+Map■gybe Rpl9dIQd I" an aigposes. for Ore deg s lltoraatbl.
00 haat tle 11111 rates! D M9. ■ Ile ras 009b..
ITEM 3-2
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATKD CONSULTANTS, 114C.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202. Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 783.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2581 plan ners:u-nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO.-
FROM:
O:FROM:
RE:
REPORT DATE
NAC FILE:
BACKGROUND
Otsego Planning Commission
Laurie Smith / Daniel Licht
Otsego — Cronies Bar and Grill; Rezoning, Preliminary/Final Plat,
Site and Building Plan Review
14 February 2008 APPLICATION DATE: 22 January 2008
176.02 — 08.03 ACTION DATE: 21 March 2008
Centrasota Commercial has submitted a preliminary/final plat and site and building
plans for Cronies Bar and Grill. The 9,630 square foot building is proposed to be
constructed east of Quaday Avenue NE and west of TH 101 to the north of Otsego
Waterfront West. The subject site is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service
Area but is guided for future commercial uses by the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the site to B-3, General Business District to allow
for the proposed restaurant and bar use. The subject site was subdivided from the
balance of the surrounding 19.39 acre parcel owned by the Richard E. Lefebvre Trust
by recording the division at Wright County without City approval in accordance with the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. As such, approval of a preliminary and final plat is
also being requested to legally establish the lot.
Exhibits:
A.
Site Location
B.
Final Plat
C.
Site Plan
D.
Building Elevations
E.
Floor Plan
F.
Grading Plan
G.
Utility Plan
H.
Landscape Plan
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map
amendment to allow for a rezoning of the subject site from A-1, Agricultural -Rural
Service Area to B-3, General Business District to allow for the proposed use. The B-3
District allows for restaurants with on -sale liquor as a permitted use. Consideration of
the Zoning Map amendment is to be based upon, but not limited to the criteria
established in Section 20-3-21 of the Zoning Ordinance:
The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
Otsego Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The subject site is guided for commercial uses by the Comprehensive
Plan as a part of a concentrated retail area near the intersection of TH 101 and
CSAH 39. The proposed restaurant use is a destination service business
consistent with the intended character of this area.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment. The subject site is surrounded by the following existing and planned
land uses:
Direction
Land Use Plan
Zoning Map
Existing Use
North
Commercial
A-1 District
Agricultural field
East
Commercial
PUD District
Waterfront East
TH 101
South
Commercial
PUD District
Otsego Waterfront
West
Commercial
A-1 District
Agricultural field
The proposed use will be compatible with the planned commercial character and
complementary of other existing businesses in the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained within
the Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the City Code.
Comment. The subject site and proposed use shall be required to comply with
all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering
Manual.
4. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving
the property.
Comment. Quaday Avenue will be extended the width of the subject site with
sufficient planned capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed
use.
5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and
facilities and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Comment: Sanitary sewer and water utilities will be extended the width of the
proposed lot from Otsego Waterfront and adequate City services exist to
accommodate the proposed use.
Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following table displays the lot requirements
and setbacks for uses in the B-3 District along with those being proposed by the
applicant.
Lot
Setbacks
Area Lot Width Front
Side Rear
Required 1 acre 200 feet 30 feet
10 feet 20 feet
Proposed 1.64 acres 195 feet 106 feet
10 feet 92 feet
The proposed project is consistent with all lot requirements except for width of the lot as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance. If the initial subdivision of the subject site recorded
at Wright County had been processed in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance,
there would have been verification that the lot conformed to all applicable lot
requirements as a condition of approval. Conveyance of land without approvals
required by the Subdivision Ordinance is a violation of Section 21-10-3 of the
Subdivision Ordinance. That the subject site was subdivided by recording at Wright
County without City approval is not justification for allowing the width to be less than 200
feet as required for lots in the B-3 District by variance or establishment of a PUD -CUP.
City staff recommends that applicant or property owner be required to obtain additional
land necessary to comply with the 200 foot lot width requirement and submit a full set of
revised preliminary plat and final plat documents for review.
Access. The site plan identifies two access points from the subject site. The primary
access to the site will be to the north of the proposed building directly off of Quaday
Avenue. Access to Quaday Avenue would also be available via a shared driveway with
the Holiday Inn property to the south. The second access point would primarily provide
circulation between businesses or service vehicle access for maintenance, deliveries
and trash pick-up.
The applicant is required to extend Quaday Avenue from its current end at the north line
of the Otsego Waterfront development to the north line of the subject site. The design
of Quaday Avenue is to be consistent with the existing street to the south within the
Otsego Waterfront development and is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer. A temporary cul-de-sac is proposed at the north end of Quaday Avenue and
extends beyond the 80 foot right-of-way into the proposed lot. A temporary easement is
required for the temporary cul-de-sac to encroach upon the subject site. The applicant
must also provide a site plan showing restoration of the temporary cul-de-sac for when
Quaday Avenue is extended in the future (this cost will be borne by those extending
Quaday Avenue). Where Quaday Avenue currently ends with a temporary cul-de-sac,
the applicant will be required as a condition of preliminary plat and final plat approval to
3
remove the temporary cul-de-sac, restore the concrete curb, sidewalk and grass areas
within the boulevard and Holiday Inn yard at their cost.
Six foot concrete sidewalks are proposed around the perimeter of the restaurant
building as well as along the front lot line of the subject site. Pedestrian curb ramps are
provided in the parking lot area to allow for pedestrian circulation between the
restaurant and the sidewalk along Quaday Avenue.
Building Design. The proposed restaurant building is a one-story structure
constructed primarily of EFIS with cultured ledge stone and stone cap accents. The
building is proposed be to 27.5 feet in height from the finished floor elevation to the top
of the proposed parapets. This height is consistent with height limitations for the B-3
District. Standing seam metal awnings are proposed over the front entry and window
areas. These materials are acceptable exterior building materials in the B-3 District.
Staff suggests that the columns of the cultured ledge stone material at the building
entrance be extended up to the parapet to provide additional visual emphasis and to
break up the long horizontal span of EFIS material.
Patio. A patio is proposed along the west building elevation consisting of approximately
360 square feet. The applicant will need to be aware of the requirements for
construction of patios to restrict exterior access if liquor is to be served on the patio.
Landscaping. Section 20-16-7.0 of the Zoning Ordinance requires landscape plans for
commercial properties to address the perimeter of the subject site, perimeter of the
proposed building and perimeter of parking and loading areas. A landscape plan for the
perimeter of the building and the parking area has been submitted. A total of 21 trees
and 103 shrubs are proposed for the site. A variety of trees and plants are proposed
that are appropriate for the area and the proposed plantings are consistent with the
City's size and height requirements. The proposed plan adequately addresses the
building's perimeter, however, City staff recommends that additional trees be provided
along the north property line to space plant locations 40 feet on center.
Off -Street Parking. Restaurants, bars and banquet facilities must provide one parking
stall for each 40 square feet of gross floor area for dining and bar areas and one parking
stall for each 80 square feet of kitchen area. Being more of a commercial entertainment
use, the game room area should provide one stall per 200 square feet of floor area.
The required parking breakdown for the proposed project is as follows:
Use
Area
Requirement
# of Stalls
Dining
1,463 sq.
ft.
1 stall/40 s.f.
37
Bar
2,263 sq.
ft.
1 stall/40 s.f.
56
Game Room
2,100 sq.
ft.
1 stall/200 s.f.
11
Banquet
706 sq.
ft.
1 stall/40 s.f.
18
Patio
360 sq.
ft.
1 stall/40 s.f.
9
Kitchen
1,775 sq.
ft.
1 stall/80 s.f.
22
Total
153
4
The proposed site plan indicates a total of 127 parking stalls, including four handicap
accessible stalls. Staff feels that the number of proposed parking stalls is adequate for
the subject site based on anticipated interchange between the restaurant, bar and game
facilities within the building and seasonal use of the patio.
Snow Removal. Only 0.28 acres of the 1.64 acre subject site is pervious surface.
Stormwater drainage is accommodated by the regional stormwater basis within
Waterfront West adjacent to the Mississippi River. The applicant must provide a plan
for removal of snow from the property to be dumped at the regional storm pond as there
is no room for on-site storage. The snow removal plan is subject to review and approval
of City staff.
Signs. The applicant has not submitted details regarding the proposed site signage.
All signs must comply with the provisions of Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior
to placement of any signs on the subject site, sign plans and specs must be reviewed
and approved by City staff and a sign permit shall be approved.
Lighting. The applicant has not submitted a lighting plan. As a condition of approval, a
lighting plan must be submitted identifying the type, location and height of all exterior
light sources and a photometric light plan showing compliance with Section 20-16-10 of
the Zoning Ordinance and subject to review and approval of City staff.
Trash Enclosure. A trash enclosure area is shown on the submitted site plan at the
southeast end of the building. The trash area should be constructed of the same
exterior materials as the building so as to blend into the structure.
Grading Plan. The applicant has submitted a grading plan showing existing and
proposed contours. Site grading is subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
Utility Plans. Plans for sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer have been submitted for
the subject site. These plans show extension of utilities within Quaday Avenue from
their current end at the north line of Otsego Waterfront. All utility plans are subject to
the review and approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall pay applicable SAC
and WAC fees at the time the development contract is executed.
Park Dedication. Platting of the subject site triggers park and trail dedication
requirements. Commercial plats are required to pay $7,000.00 per buildable acre
subdivided in accordance with Section 21-7-18.1.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The
buildable area of proposed Lot 1, Block 1 and Quaday Avenue right-of-way is 2.0 acres.
The required park and trail dedication fee is $14,000 and must be paid at the time the
development contract is executed.
5
Development Contract. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant is required
to enter into a development contract with the City and pay all fees and securities
required by it. The development contract shall be executed and recorded with the final
plat within 100 days from the date of City Council approval.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends tabling the application and directing the applicant and/or property
owner to address the width of the subject site to comply with the requirements of the B-
3 District.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Decision 1 — Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1
District to B-3 District based on a finding that the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table.
Decision 2 — Preliminary/Final Plat
A. Motion to approve a preliminary and final plat for Lot 1, Block 1 Cronies Addition
based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, subject to the following conditions:
No building permit shall be issued for PID 118-500-154101 until a
preliminary and final plat is approved for a lot conforming to the
requirements of the B-3 District as this parcel is an unapproved
subdivision in accordance with Section 21-10-3 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
2. The applicant or property owner shall acquire additional property
necessary to comply with the minimum 200 foot lot width required within
the B-3 District and submit a complete set of revised development plans
as outline in Sections 21-6-2 and 21-6-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
n
3. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating restoration of the
temporary cul-de-sac. The cost and responsibility for removal and
restoration of the temporary cul-de-sac shall be those extending Quaday
Avenue in the future.
4. The applicant shall submit temporary public right-of-way easement for the
temporary cul-de-sac, subject to review and approval of City staff.
5. The applicant shall submit an executed ingress/egress easement between
the subject site and Lot 1, Block 1 Otsego Waterfront 4t' Addition, subject
to review and approval by City Staff.
6. The applicant shall pay applicable SAC and WAC fees at the time the
development contract is executed.
7. The design and construction of all streets and utilities shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer.
8. All grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer.
9. The applicant shall pay $14,000.00 as satisfaction of park and trail
dedication requirements in lieu of land at the time the development
contract is executed.
10. The applicant shall enter into a development contract subject to review
and approval by the City Attorney, which is to be recorded with the final
plat within 100 days of City Council approval.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Ordinance.
Decision 3 — Site and Building Plan
A. Motion to approve a site and building plans for Lot 1, Block 1 Cronies Addition,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The exterior building plan shall be revised to extend the columns of the
cultured ledge stone material at the building entrance up to the parapet.
2. The landscape plan shall be revised to include additional trees be
provided along the north property line to space plant locations 40 feet on
center and provide a plan for in -ground irrigation.
7
3. The applicant shall provide a plan for removal of snow from the property to
be dumped at the regional storm pond within Outlot A, Waterfront West,
subject to review and approval of City staff.
4. All signs shall comply with Section 37 of the Zoning Ordinance and prior to
placement of any signs on the subject site, sign plans and specs must be
reviewed and approved by City staff and a sign permit shall be approved.
5. A lighting plan shall be submitted identifying the type, location and height
of all exterior light sources and a photometric light plan showing
compliance with Section 20-16-10 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to
review and approval of City staff.
6. The exterior trash enclosure shall be constructed of the same exterior
materials as the principal building.
C. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Judy Hudson, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Philip Rondeau, applicant
0
LI■� " . � , I�ui
■
- -,_._+ rel +� :.■c..-� �•
as
II
:umu�
MIIIIIIIN ii 1" Ire ===�_- �1 ■■■.II
_main=--
KIM
I
I
rtsr .Mr u• rr csr �a a rxc tt /• v n a r.an...sar.
I�
I
QUADAY AVENUE NE
r------------------ — ---------- -
I I
..P un/n I' .-
I I
3 3°3s z3,
•3 sm§..a q s�'�. ; o a :q y�- ~3�8-5 49
2e3
"
s>84'�aAlf. R� I i
S•gBiaS "' a'v $. °aa•S;°"'g4i
sgsoe P
.1 0'
g"gcsm3 I Pt � g8«
J 12
of iv4=y
! I �
34°•. 8l S _388:><on �R Y; - I I
I I
- I I
g 8
A a 370 �s� a � I ,�.• �—� --__ tl I �
g2 'se•_� ,� x 1. —' _ —1
°6 3
}'€ s RS
=
4 :3
SY
D
—� W
00
aI aCRONIES71
NORTH
OTSEC,O, MINNESOTA
0 30 so Rnff2Et"`_-1
CENTRASOTA
COMMERCIAL
BCAIE IN MIST MHUMBOLDTDRNE
BIG LAK: SUITE
IOTA
Lc6NRL1$O: A
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES
•
ASSOCIATES
zmelnz w
A a claw. - �
�. eee®O.swleex
s.,pe. eae..tet. _ Iv �,.«. awekepm .em• - •
eser
by aha.. ai,baMo .0.�5�3aM1 o ame�c
ytlaae�el�e��e wb; Mml«Ipw�aPmn b wY • r•puFwnwae al
Y Bew,mw, a B,aFe,F eFa FiMlm. Bel. w,.
.iUF 1r •uw1 ngnl•M .er (ae..a.. a.M w ae.e� � Y
p. •cepw sm1. a.. CM' wb
to mn nI Oefn4 eronikm w eneerPe.M eoU.
Mr Fa• w n.oe,e ...eea aU F tle rlyn o • a. pM of 1M w.
a ryeene ey u. aa4peV h emb eU a
.ep imiy�i: a e•vaM�riT. Ow I.�.Mw�t. M n� ul%MtFa
B.
I we om me rwnere m Yr eaM4� M •xe emm wb Io � p uA rm rMmesW YI+ M IIMe 1wn tlw n. eMY. Y a.wFa
M Hwy r�lmn«irtd w 1 swvd tlm.
, w ,.Bm.e 1e mmF m p.mn. riven u. c�1y ..
ure Iw .ot a. wa o ik .Mt or .ey.
I wa weee•e F�iurUwm mem.np.e� le net me.n w au mw » aerwrMa
Face iw,eweFG BTiM snw cave btw� as ma Imacr. m.
I aiw pntw mm a Fn1mm et W cage a a anunm
mMre�� uMwr n�� M Upwrf vN aappee a e Y t�
I•. � veae a Mb� p pvAOia a1 Ue «.Bn. ae.n wa ar mown
Qe tw uMwa•
u w�.eMe e�a�U=enw •mtFa axe a we F.tai Bale
,5 sr I as •-I a weaFq ma �t.rtw
ta. u ranele w.e I «ewe
• plold 1- amt 1"11
v a
t wepeee cmel�uctlmBte wave+ s nn.a� a ux MIM
e w•mie. wa to mn me e.wby. Mmeee pernnt wee.
ea pet 9 u e. F•tm M w+•wt ..ab pmNaw pw Bxm s�M.
c�L �soBc , wa
Gopher State One Call
E aa
®
EXHIBIT C
:..w.�,:;:
,.rwe�eBe..m,
__
w � w�ww_�^'ax
` z—r—%wr _
er��r•.��.�.r`ri�
N Mrr.
e.eM wrlFw�rM+Fr
wYrwns•1weR
Fs OF
MIB AWf
',3a�'GTn
�� ��
� mA
.s.Bda
g m
g_ 4me1a
unnY
avulG
etualhnol
1pn2Btawt
SITE PLAN
07-165
C2-'
d 1181"X3
(1NON-J) .O -A - .8/1 '3-[VOS
NOLLV EEE H1.?JON
--_ - AK +
COLOR CLAD
METAL CAP FLASHING
WOOD PANELS
STONE CAP
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8' - 1-0' (LEFT SIDE)
COLOR CLAD
METAL CAP PLASHING
STONE CAP
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8' - P -O' (LEFT SIDE)
WOOD PANELS
2<v
J
Q
t
N
D�J00
SCALE IN FEET
GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES
I. in. <mbmtm ands r.rs to tn. pm. m. •rp 4rtbr ana
rW awlim. wro�zeuw,.wl �.kP�Iw.Ya dl PorM.a rmga bmY adeq
L ae el.rve.e wTMOWm.e ve• I^ b Iw u rM M m we
Yps•Fy Y, a nt
a iw rebwtw Meely. M P � t� er..wy q awe wa.2�em�ep. q
Yr wwbuctb�i pwr of qb poKi
prwatly w ma,ldneq Wrx mnlyd
pw.b+a.a a.mY9 .qn w.cume� w �wb��i. tdl
w p.b m poernrr. i
emrmn ro U. mpromleb YM.wu aepstmml er Trm.pvmtlon .N�beaM
anp.l .�rPm•w b ammtim� m PdelM u•�tl rl•lyr
ma p.9w<Y ewNp IM prMmow:. al Ilw avk >M r.wrwnnl
+ rdr :mue„w,ar me rot e. Irnx.e m waved aehlnq nw.a •
e .rywer w IM e•wrw le mrp,n cm•1rvctYn r•M. e1 u•
cmYrlm nM mw Y wt Y1.MM U tl YrvcIM d1 u• aep,wy p u•
l b• e.iYNp ca.lrverllwm u w nw • cm
pea al di pobb er wnld. nit 1ram� pm}cl Ma S.tliR� ubmc• Pee
Mo.n m Awl ra-I er u�p.e}n pen.n. e.eum al U. weF.n. s_ eMa.
Prwltlw, y weYwrrmla ab U• e•loe• Mom m Awt cY-I at l wo}ot pens
11 -laIlly"me 1. ravel—W--1
Gopher State One Call
EXHIBIT F
CRONIES
M.
I ME
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
CENTRASOTA
COMMERCIAL
690 HUMBOLfJI DRIVE
EAST SUG
BIG LAKE, MINWSOTA
LGomm�R
•
ASSOCIATES
.Yrs • W siy�.� • lweber.lq
tweq.arwe... ar..w.l
Odm ���•
r
sa --;5F5=
AMB MRF
RLL
GRADING PUN
07-165
Is—
C3-1
11
a a l
a a /
lewmtn �Ewmt�ie li waezv
IE
I i /
I
I I
I O
� I I
I
� I � O
Gj Outlot D
Q I
I
I
II,,\
------- ---------- ---
�x L��j
O I Outlot E
Outlot E
/i O
0Z
TT
0 0
3
I -c
c
I
♦—_
me
porn
is I
C
�M co
!i
i
i
NORTH
0 00 90
y
SCALE IN FEET
UTILITY PLAN GENERAL NOTES'"''
CRONIES
0
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
a e:
C WN IEROTA
COMMERCIAL
690HUMBOLDTDRIVE
BIG LAKE. WAN SOTA
LcEa„aAsoTA
1
•
ASSOCIATES
k.u� leu �.°r.��kiia a t�ne:t�(aµU. �on
e �mR w
1 M Wly eM bau�e _aib mrq:t_� n Ik. O_'+In ma_rle Dn q•
M� spniec.ua. wtnu.e on qu __s.�nb
.yb0.pnunnl al Ep"rYq i "ua M -1 rwr.nnt. 1b
_e Blsgek_Mnikn. —.11 _a
nynw �nu.1 b MNI.0 o1 Nwt prin m ny unu
.11M tl_ euNo npnt el sF n uvM kpnlSq stlk uulu_
_ stn .nNc_ _m 1-- .1 U. wmnry Rw uNu
a
Al
1- : n b^
.�. � —1—w— q.._.„,� dgnity
1 M eb .utak mu.t nm.. mkkvm .t r.S /wt .t sn.
11 v;
s�e.m s.un e� Mss s �Y tu'�e' ue�n t..
�•„ e p
Gopher State One Call
EXHIE3IT c--
I
I
I
I
I
\I
I
—
I i dI
S
Ib�•._r.
•
�F
—
—
I
_ J
C4-1
11
a a l
a a /
lewmtn �Ewmt�ie li waezv
IE
I i /
I
I I
I O
� I I
I
� I � O
Gj Outlot D
Q I
I
I
II,,\
------- ---------- ---
�x L��j
O I Outlot E
Outlot E
/i O
0Z
TT
0 0
3
I -c
c
I
♦—_
me
porn
is I
C
�M co
!i
i
i
NORTH
0 00 90
y
SCALE IN FEET
UTILITY PLAN GENERAL NOTES'"''
CRONIES
0
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
a e:
C WN IEROTA
COMMERCIAL
690HUMBOLDTDRIVE
BIG LAKE. WAN SOTA
LcEa„aAsoTA
1
•
ASSOCIATES
k.u� leu �.°r.��kiia a t�ne:t�(aµU. �on
e �mR w
1 M Wly eM bau�e _aib mrq:t_� n Ik. O_'+In ma_rle Dn q•
M� spniec.ua. wtnu.e on qu __s.�nb
.yb0.pnunnl al Ep"rYq i "ua M -1 rwr.nnt. 1b
_e Blsgek_Mnikn. —.11 _a
nynw �nu.1 b MNI.0 o1 Nwt prin m ny unu
.11M tl_ euNo npnt el sF n uvM kpnlSq stlk uulu_
_ stn .nNc_ _m 1-- .1 U. wmnry Rw uNu
a
Al
1- : n b^
.�. � —1—w— q.._.„,� dgnity
1 M eb .utak mu.t nm.. mkkvm .t r.S /wt .t sn.
11 v;
s�e.m s.un e� Mss s �Y tu'�e' ue�n t..
�•„ e p
Gopher State One Call
EXHIE3IT c--
t...lrsm
wuMhw.usu. lfMf
ayen W
O.
'
—ur�r.r%r�rrr.
—
—
Ib�•._r.
�F
UTILITY PLAN
07-165
C4-1
I�
I�
k
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oo.`�•:�• m ..,��--sr--�--�� ate.,..•:»
oo� .:,;�. •=��.:,, . �r���a�
�Ll•E�r:.m...-m.:c
t'��<:IRxr. .�� � ,•+ter—..�fL:]��..��an�:: s'�
CRONIES
OTSEGO, HNNESOTA
cENTRASOTA
mll!!R
690 HUMBOIOT ORIVE
BIG � 1�N MA
I(�' cEPIfM$O �N
•
ASSOCIATES
AMB SOB
�R
-ems u�
L �^
_� mwmcmx —
LANDSCAPE PLAN
No 07-165
w.:
L1-1
I/I
x 1
j
1
I
1
I
11
1
1 I
i
1 11
I
'
I i
1
'
�
I
I
1 1 1
1
I
I 1
1
j
1
1 '
I
I 1
I
I
1
�1
1
�1
1
I
I
1
�1
1
�
1 ;
I
oo.`�•:�• m ..,��--sr--�--�� ate.,..•:»
oo� .:,;�. •=��.:,, . �r���a�
�Ll•E�r:.m...-m.:c
t'��<:IRxr. .�� � ,•+ter—..�fL:]��..��an�:: s'�
CRONIES
OTSEGO, HNNESOTA
cENTRASOTA
mll!!R
690 HUMBOIOT ORIVE
BIG � 1�N MA
I(�' cEPIfM$O �N
•
ASSOCIATES
AMB SOB
�R
-ems u�
L �^
_� mwmcmx —
LANDSCAPE PLAN
No 07-165
w.:
L1-1
Hakanson 4
1 Anderson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Anoka, MN 55303
Assoc., Inc. Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax: 763/427-05200
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator
Judy Hudson, Clerk
Dan Licht, NAC
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ronald Wagner, P.E. City Engineer
Philip Rondeau, Centrasota Commercial
Rich Simon, Cronie's Gameroom Bar & Grill
Steve Carlson, Cronie's Gameroom Bar & Grill
Andrew Berenberg, P.E., Loucks Associates
From: Brent Larson, P.E.
Dan Sidla, PLS
Date: February 14, 2008
Re: Cronies Gameroom Bar & Grill
We have reviewed the Final Plat, dated 1/22/08, Preliminary/Final Plans, dated 1/22/08, for the above -
referenced project and would offer the following comments:
Final Plat
A written agreement regarding allowing Cronies access to the Holiday Inn's driveway is required.
2. The Electric Transmission Line easement along the east side of the property differs between
drawings. Some reference document number 1031636 and others reference document number
552630. The layouts of the easements associated with each of these documents do not match.
3. The plan indicates that there is an underground gas line near the south property line (possibly
servicing the Holiday Inn). This gas line appears to run under part of the building and the parking
lot. The gas line will need to be relocated to within the provided easements along the lot line.
4. The hydrant coverage is insufficient. An additional hydrant(s) is required. All hydrants and
watermain to the hydrants shall be covered by a minimum 20' wide drainage and utility easement
centered over the pipe.
5. The legal description is not complete. It does not identify the section, township, range, county or
state where the property is located in
6. The graphic portion of the plat does not follow the calls in the description. Deflection angles are
called out in the description but turned angles are shown on the plat
C:\Documents and Settings\Tami\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\ALXMOZ9C\ot2500 Cronies rvwl.doc
Preliminary/Final Plans
Title Sheet
1. Plans shall be signed (all sheets).
2. The Electric Transmission Line easement along the east side of the property differs between
drawings. Some reference document number 1031636 and others reference document number
552630. The layouts of the easements associated with each of these documents do not match. (All
Sheets)
3. Provide the contact name and number for the record owner/developer. Also the contact name for
the Architect is missing.
4. This submittal is being considered for preliminary and final approval at this time. The plans and
submittal shall provide all required information for both types of submittals. Therefore the
following additional information shall be submitted at this time:
a. A street and storm sewer profile sheet(s).
b. Hydrology and storm sewer calculations.
C. Geotechnical report with soil borings and recommended R -value.
d. Statements certifying the environmental condition of the site and that no wetlands
are located on the site.
e. Grading and Construction Specifications.
Preliminary Plat (CM)
1. The following existing conditions shall be depicted:
i. Existing zoning classifications for land in and abutting the subdivision.
ii. Show location, names, widths of existing streets, buildings, etc.
iii. Provide the location, size, and elevations of existing sewers, watermain, culverts, and
other utilities within 150' of the project boundaries.
2. The existing contours are missing.
3. Include the block number along with the lot number.
4. The Benchmark being used for this project is the Top Nut of the Hydrant at the northeastern edge of
the Quaday Avenue NE cul-de-sac. It is unclear how the Top Nut elevation for this hydrant was
obtained.
Removal Plan (Sheet C1-2)
1. Please remove the old Otsego Waterfront Outlots D and E labels and refer to the property to the
south as Lot 1, Block 1 Otsego Waterfront 4t' Addition. (All sheets)
2. Verify there is no septic system on site.Hakanson
Anderson
CADocuments and Settings\Tami\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\AU Assoc., (nc.
3. The note to "remove and salvage casting..." for the storm sewer structure in the southeast corner of
the site on the Holiday Inn site refers to a City standard drive over casting. The City of Otsego does
not have a typical, flat, drive over casing as would be needed in this instance. Please call out the
type of casting proposed and include a detail in the plans.
Site Plan (Sheet C2-2)
Please depict the removed cul-de-sac and curb and gutter as lighter, background, lines and/or in
different line types.
2. Provide a proposed final driveway entrance layout off of Quaday Avenue NE for after the
temporary cul-de-sac is removed in the future. The current two entrances will not be allowed when
the cul-de-sac is removed.
3. Provide the overall layout of the existing and proposed streets, sidewalk, sewers, watermain, and
other underground facilities within 150'. We suggest the utilities be shown in a background color to
help the readability of the plans.
4. See final plat comment #3.
5. The reverse curve in the Holiday Inn driveway at Quaday Avenue NE may be difficult to navigate
for larger delivery trucks. Please provide horizontal curve information for the realignment of the
driveway.
Grading Plans (Sheet C3-1)
1. Locations and results of soil borings, percolation tests, etc.
2. The minimum grade along curb and gutter along Quaday Avenue NE is 0.601/o. We suggest
providing the minimum grade throughout the parking lot also.
3. Please remove the old existing spot elevations from the areas that are to be regraded.
4. Please provide additional proposed spot elevations (top curb or gutter line) and grades through out
the parking area especially along the cul-de-sac radius and driveway entrances.
5. Depict the existing contours offsite and the proposed contours tying into them.
SWPP Plan (Sheet C3-2)
1. No comment.
Hakanson
Anderson
CADocuments and Settings\TamiTocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\Content.IE5\ALS Assoc., Inc. ;
Utility Plans (Sheet C4-1)
Provide the location, size, and elevations of existing sewers, watermain, culverts, and other utilities
within 150' of the project boundaries.
2. There is insufficient hydrant coverage. Minimum hydrant spacing is 300' (150' radius) in
commercial areas.
3. A profile for the street and storm sewer is required.
4. The plans depict a hydrant on the west side of Quaday Avenue NE at the north end of the cul-de-
sac. This is incorrect. The hydrant is located along the east side of Quaday Avenue NE.
5. It appears that there may be a potential conflict with the storm sewer pipe to CB 6 and the existing
gas main crossing. Please verify.
6. It appears that the overhead power line deflects at a point near the southeast corner of the parking
lot, which would indicate that there is a power pole at this location. The power pole or parking lot
will need to be relocated.
7. A temporary hydrant is required at the north end of the watermain stub for flushing purposes.
The existing storm sewer along the west side of Quaday Avenue NE shall be extended to the north
property line.
9. A gate valve is required on the 6" water service. The valve shall be located 10' beyond the property
line.
10. A minimum 10' of separation is required between the sanitary sewer and water service to the
building.
Detail Sheet (C8-1 & C8-2)
1. Many of the Otsego Standard Plates have been revised with the most recent Engineering Manual
revision (May 2007). Please find attached revised Otsego Engineering Manual with the revised
standard plates.
2. The Commercial Driveway concrete apron is not an Otsego Standard Plate. Please remove the City
of Otsego label on this detail.
3. Include a typical sidewalk typical section.
4. A typical street section and parking lot section shall be based on a Geotechnical Engineer's
recommendation.
5. Include details for the required inlet protection. Hdkdnson
1Anderson
CADocuments and Settings\Tami\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\Content.lE5\AL, Assoc.., Inc. ;
Other Considerations
This submittal is being considered for preliminary and final approval at this time. The plans and submittal
shall provide all required information for both types of submittals. Therefore the following additional
information shall be submitted at this time:
a. An existing conditions sheet(s).
b. A street and storm sewer profile sheet(s).
C. Hydrology and storm sewer calculations.
d. Geotechnical report with soil borings and recommended R -value.
e. Statements certifying the environmental condition of the site and that no wetlands
are located on the site.
Summary and/or Recommendation
Due to the number of comments and missing information we recommend that this item be tabled until the
above comments are addressed.
Hakanson
Anderson
CADocuments and Settings\Tami\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IEMAL: Assoc., Inc. ;
ITEM 3-3
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners@)nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP
DATE: 14 February 2008
RE: Otsego — Banack CUP
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 08.01
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission opened a public hearing at their meeting on 22 January 2007
to consider a conditional use permit application to allow construction of a home on Lot
5, Block 1 Island View Estates. Information was submitted as part of the public hearing
indicating that the subject site and an abutting lot were under common ownership, which
in accordance with Section 20-95-4 of the Zoning Ordinance would make the property
unbuildable. The Planning Commission tabled the application to allow City staff to
research the issue further.
Exhibits:
A. Amendment of Section 20-95-4
ANALYSIS
The current ownership of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 Island View Estates is as follows:
Lot 4, Block 1: Randolph P. and Barbara C. Henk
Lot 5, Block 1: Barbara C. Neddermeyer
Ms. Neddermeyer and Ms. Henk are the same person. Ms. Neddermeyer-Renk owned
Lot 4, Block 1 with a previous husband who passed away and she has remarried. She
now jointly owns Lot 4, Block 1 with Mr. Henk. In 1986, Gary and Barbara
Neddermeyer acquired Lot 5, Block 1, from Alvin and Shirley Jones, who were the
owners of Lot 6, Block 1. Under this situation, Section 20-94-5.E of the Zoning
Ordinance renders Lot 5, Block 1 unbuildable and it must be considered as a zoning lot
combined with Lot 4, Block 1 based on contiguous ownership by the Jones' on the date
the WS District was adopted first by Wright County on 1 August 1978 and again by the
Neddermeyers when the WS District adopted as part of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance
on 27 December 1994:
20-95-4E. If in a group of two or more contiguous lots under a single
ownership any individual lot does not meet the lot width
requirements of the local ordinance, such individual lot cannot be
considered as a separate parcel of land for purposes of sale or
development, but must be combined with adjacent lots under the
same ownership so that the combination of lots will equal one or
more parcels of land each meeting the lot width requirements of the
local ordinance, or to the greatest extent practical.
City staff discussed the applicant's options to proceed with an application to construct a
house with DNR staff given the WS District issues. Both City staff and DNR staff agree
that the City and DNR would be within their authority to declare Lots 4 and 5 to be a
zoning lot for the purposes of complying with the current minimum lot area requirement
of 2.5 acres based on contiguous ownership that existed in both in 1978 under Wright
County jurisdiction and 1994 under the City of Otsego. However, the provisions of
Section 20-95-4 of the Zoning Ordinance do contemplate development of lots with less
than the minimum lot area (down to parcels with an area of 20,000 square feet) within
the WS District.
Development of these substandard parcels is allowed provided that the construction
and site work complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in a
manner consistent with the intent of the regulations and compatible with the character of
the area. City staffs evaluation of applicant's development plan is that the proposed
house construction would meet all WS District and other Zoning Ordinance
requirements except for the pre-existing lot area and lot width of Lot 5, Block 1. Only
the ownership status, and not physical constraints caused by the non -conforming lot
dimensions, prevents development of the property.
Lot 5, Block 1 is one of 76 lots within Island View Estates approved on 24 May 1973
prior to adoption of the WS management plan but now subject to WS District
performance standards, of which there are 16 riparian lots along Kahler Avenue that are
approximately the same dimension as Lot 5, Block 1. City staff believes that only three
of the lots in Island View Estates that are within the WS District are vacant, including Lot
5, Block 1. The other two lots (and an outlot) are also riparian and are located northeast
of Lot 5, Block 1. These three parcels have severe drainage issues that City staff has
previously advised the property owners will require the combination of the lots to correct
the drainage issue in order to allow for any construction. That the application of the WS
District lot requirements makes this lot unbuildable when other lots of the same size
within the same plat were developed may be a hardship justifying a variance as
provided for Section 20-6-2.B.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance:
20-6-2. B. 2. b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter or
deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to any
reasonable use.
Variances within the WS District are subject not only to approval by the City Council, but
certification by the DNR. It is noted that the factors outlined above may be a hardship
unique to this property justifying a potential variance related to application of the WS
District specific only to areas of Otsego. The DNR must ensure consistent
implementation of the WS management plan along the entire Mississippi River.
Recognizing this and the City's own past practice of not approving variances, an option
other than a variance was discussed by City staff and DNR staff to address potential
development of Lot 5, Block 1.
Lot 5, Block 1 became a legal non -conforming lot of record upon the date that Wright
County adopted WS District regulations on 1 August 1978. Otsego incorporated as a
City in 1991 and in 1994 adopted essentially the same WS District regulations that had
applied to Lot 5, Block 1 since 1978 as part of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance. City staff
and DNR staff agree that amending the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the effective date of
the Wright County WS District regulations would be consistent with the intent of the WS
District regulations that have applied to Otsego since adoption of the WSRR
Management Plan. Because Lot 5, Block 1 was under common ownership in both 1978
and 1994, this change alone does not allow for development of the parcel.
DNR staff indicates that language that further defines the clause "greatest extent
practicable" in the ordinance means has been approved elsewhere. DNR staff said that
for the Rum River, the rules and local ordinances use a 60 percent of required lot width
standard; if two contiguous lots under common ownership exceed 60 percent of the lot
width requirement and no variances would be needed to develop the lots individually,
the lots would not be required to be combined. DNR staff indicated that such an
approach would be acceptable to address the issue presented by Lot 5, Block 1. A draft
Zoning Ordinance amendment has been prepared by City staff. These provisions would
address allowance of development rights for Lot 5, Block 1 granted other properties
under similar physical conditions and would avoid any potential precedents for Otsego
and the DNR that may result from approval of a variance in allowing development of Lot
5, Block1. The applicant has submitted an additional application to amend Section 20-
94-5 of the Zoning Ordinance as outlined above and request approval of the conditional
use permit required by the proposed language. A public hearing to consider the
application is scheduled for 19 February 2007.
The City Engineer has also reviewed a detailed site and grading plan for construction of
a single family home Lot 5, Block 1 relative to the area drainage issues and bluff erosion
concerns raised during the public hearing on 22 January 2008. City staff would note
that concerns related to the integrity of the retaining wall on Lot 6, Block 1 is a property
maintenance issue that is the responsibility of that property owner. The need for
maintenance of these retaining walls should not infringe on the property rights for Lot 5,
Block 1. City staff would advise that maintenance of the retaining wall on Lot 6, Block 1
would not be a reasonable criteria related to the conditions for development of
substandard lots within the WS District set forth by the existing and/or proposed
requirements of Section 20-95-4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The site and grading plan for
construction of a single family home on Lot 5, Block 1 would, however, minimize
potential impacts to Lot 6, Block 1 by locating the home on the west side of the lot and it
is the applicant's intent to preserve the existing tree cover on the lot beyond the
immediate building site.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment
modifying the provisions of the WS District addressing development of substandard lots.
Under the proposed language, abutting lots under common ownership within the WS
District on 1 August 1978 would be allowed to develop as a conditional use provided
that the combined area and/or width of two continuous parcels is greater than 60
percent of the current minimum lot area or lot width standard. The proposed language
addresses the unique situation of Lot 5, Block 1 as vacant platted lot within the WS
District prohibited from development when other lots under similar conditions have had
single family dwellings constructed upon them while maintaining the intent and purpose
of the WS District. City staff also recommends approval of a conditional use permit to
allow construction of a single family dwelling upon the property in accordance with
submitted the site plan.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Decision 1 — Zoning Ordinance Amendment
A. Motion to approve an amendment to Section 20-95-4 of the Zoning Ordinance
based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and intent of the WS District provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to
certification by the DNR.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the WS District
established by the Zoning Ordinance.
C. Motion to table.
Decision 2 — Conditional Use Permit
A. Motion to approve a CUP allowing construction of a single family home upon Lot
5, Block 1 Island View Estates subject to the following conditions:
4
Development of the lot shall comply with all applicable provisions of the
WS District, including but not limited to setbacks and vegetation cutting
restrictions.
2. All grading, drainage and erosion control issues shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer.
3. The design and location of a proposed septic system shall comply with
Chapter 6, Section 3 of the City Code, subject to review and approval by
the Building Official.
C. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Judy Hudson, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator
Tim Rochel, Building Official
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Dale Homuth, DNR
Roger Stradal, DNR
Barbara Henk, property owner
Joe Banack, applicant
ORDINANCE NO.: 2008 -
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING
SUBSTANDARD LOTS WITHIN THE WSRR DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 20-95-4 of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as
follows:
20-95-4: SUBSTANDARD LOTS: Any lot of record established on or before
August 1, 1978 that does not meet the dimensional requirements of this
Section may be allowed as a building site subject to approval of a conditional
use permit, provided that:
A. The use is allowed in the WSRR District and base zoning district.
B. If two or more contiguous lots were under common ownership on August 1,
1978, any individual lot that does not meet the minimum lot area or lot width
requirements of this Section shall not be considered as a separate lot of
record for purposes of sale or development if the total lot area or lot width of
two or more abutting lots under common ownership is less than sixty (60)
percent of the minimum lot area or lot width requirements of this Section, and
the non -conforming lot shall be combined with the abutting lot(s) under the
same ownership so that the combination of lots will equal one or more lots
each meeting the lot requirements of this Section to the greatest extent
practical.
C. The lot is at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in area.
D. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable setback requirements of
the WS District and base zoning district.
E. Sewage treatment is provided for as required by Chapter 6, Section 3 of the
City Code.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
ALL IN FAVOR:
THOSE OPPOSED:
ADOPTED by the Otsego City Council this 25"' day of February, 2008.
CITY OF OTSEGO
BY:
Larry Fournier, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
nHakanson O
Anderson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Anoka, MN 55303
Assocnder lnc. Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax: 763/427-0520
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
cc: Mike Robertson, Administrator
Judy Hudson, Clerk
Dan Licht, NAC
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ronald Wagner, P.E. City Engineer
Joe Banack
From: Brent Larson, P.E.
Date: February 14, 2008
Re: Lot 5, Block 1 Island View Estates
We have reviewed the plans submitted to obtain a conditional use permit to build a single-family
home and septic system at the above-mentioned location. We have reviewed the submitted Plans,
received 2/4/08, and have found them acceptable.
ITEM 3_4
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202. Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 7e3.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners,'nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Laurie Smith / Daniel Licht
RE: Otsego — 9447 85th Street NE; Rezoning and CUP
REPORT DATE: 8 February 2008
NAC FILE: 176.02 — 08.04
BACKGROUND
Mr. Jerry Hudson owns an 80 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of 85th Street
and Jalger Avenue. The subject site includes an existing house and pole barn. The
property owner desires to subdivide an 8.3 acre parcel encompassing the homestead
from the balance of the property. The existing parcel is currently zoned A-1,
Agricultural -Rural Service District. The A-1 District requires a minimum lot size of 20
acres. The A-2 District allows for lots less than 20 acres by approval of a conditional
use permit (as well as greater potential density). As such, the property owner is
requesting a rezoning to A-2, Agricultural Long -Range Urban Service District and
approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the proposed subdivision of property.
Fxhihits-
A. Site Location
B. Site Survey
ANALYSIS
Zoning. The subject site is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural -Rural Service District and
the minimum lot size for lots established after October 2002 is 20 acres. The applicant
is requesting a rezoning of the existing 80 acre parcel to A-2 District in order separate
the existing homestead from the balance of the property based on the allowed one
dwelling unit per 10 acre density and lot area less than 20 acres allowed by CUP.
Density. The allowed density within the A-1 District is one dwelling unit per 40 acres.
With a rezoning to A-2 District, the allowed density increases to one dwelling unit per 10
acres. As such, the subject site will be allowed up to eight development rights, including
the existing dwelling. The administrative subdivision establishing the 8.3 acre parcel will
include a deed restriction on that parcel prohibiting further resubdivision until rezoned
again for urban use and a restriction on the parent parcel allowing for up to seven
additional development rights under the proposed A-2 District zoning.
Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following table outlines the setback
requirements of the A-2 District and displays the proposed lot's compatibility with the
requirements.
Lot
Area
Lot
Width Front
Setbacks
Side Rear
Required 20 acres
450 ft. 35ft.
10 ft. 50 ft.
Proposed 8.3 acres
490 ft. 565 ft.
77+ ft. 89 ft.
The proposed lot meets all A-2 District lot requirements and setbacks, except for the
minimum lot area. Section 20-52-5.H of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the creation of
lots less than 20 acres in area within the A-2 District by conditional use permit. The
approval of the CUP is to be based on compliance with the following criteria:
1. All other applicable requirements of Section 20-52-6 of this Chapter
are complied with.
2. A concept plan utilizing all development rights allowed by Section
20-52-6.B of this Chapter is submitted and recorded with the
subdivision.
3. Lots are to be clustered and the overall subdivision designed in
such a manner so as to provide for logical future street and utility
extensions.
4. No lot shall be less than one (1) acre in size or 150 feet in width.
5. The maximum lot size for clustered lots in the Urban Service
Reserve Area shall be two and one-half (2.5) acres except if one of
the following conditions is met:
a. Topography, soils, wetlands, or other natural features dictate
a larger minimum lot area.
b. The location of existing buildings cannot be fully
accommodated in compliance with applicable setback
requirements of Section 20-52-6. C of this Chapter.
0:
C. One (1) development right as allowed by Section 20-52-6.8
of this Chapter is used for a dwelling located on the present
parcel outside of the residential cluster.
6. A resubdivision plan for future division of each lot with availability of
municipal sanitary sewer service is submitted and recorded on the
deed for each lot. Principal and accessory buildings shall be
located on each lot in conformance with all present and future
setback requirements based on the resubdivision plan.
7. A deed restriction is placed on the parcel exercising development
rights and all subdivided lots to prohibit additional subdivision
unless is conforms to applicable zoning district requirements.
8. Each lot is capable of accommodating a private well and septic
system.
9. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.F of this Chapter are considered
and satisfactorily met.
The proposed 8.3 acre parcel to be subdivided is consistent with the applicable
requirements set forth above. The proposed parcel currently accommodates a private
well and septic system as well as the existing pole barn and house within applicable
setback requirements. City staff does not believe a submission of a resubdivision plan
for the 8.3 acre parcel or the balance of the 71 -acre remaining parcel is necessary as
the subdivision design being proposed is based specifically on the location of existing
buildings.
Access. The existing homestead will continue to access off of 85th Street upon
approval of the requested subdivision. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 50 feet of
right-of-way along 85th Street as part of the proposed subdivision consistent with the
planned 85th Street Parkway shown on the Transportation Plan.
Administrative Subdivision. The proposed subdivision qualifies as a subdivision that
can be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator. Because the Zoning
Administrator is the applicant's spouse, the application will be subject to review and
approval by the City Planner and Deputy Clerk. The property owner has submitted the
necessary survey and legal description for the proposed lot. City staff will approve the
subdivision upon City Council approval of the Zoning Map amendment and conditional
use permit.
Park and Trail Dedication. The minor subdivision creates the opportunity for an
additional dwelling unit to be constructed on the remaining 71 acre parcel. As such, the
property owner is required to pay one park and trail dedication fee of $3,280.00 as a
condition of approval for the administrative subdivision. Additional park and trail
3
dedication would be required if additional lots are subdivided in the future based on the
current land or cash fee in lieu of land requirements in effect at that time.
Review Criteria. Consideration of the requested Zoning Map amendment and
conditional use permit applications is to be based upon (but not limited to) the criteria
outlined in Section 20-3-21 and Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan guides the site for rural land uses. The
proposed rezoning will allow for a large single family residential lot, which is
consistent with the future land use plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment: Surrounding land uses currently consist of primarily all agricultural -
rural service area uses. The surrounding area is guided for rural and rural
residential uses. As such, the proposed use will be compatible with the existing
and planned land uses surrounding the subject site.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment: The proposed use will conform to all requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering Manual.
4. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic
beyond the potential for one new dwelling on the remaining undeveloped 71
acres. Streets accessing the property have adequate capacity to accommodate
potential development of the remaining 71 acres based on the density allowed by
the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and
facilities and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the
City's service capacity.
V.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has submitted the required materials for rezoning and conditional use
permit for the establishment of an 8.3 acre homestead from an existing 80 acre parcel.
The minor subdivision and rezoning will allow for the continued use of the existing
homestead as a single family residential property and the remaining 71 acre parcel will
be reserved for future development. Our office recommends approval of the rezoning
and conditional use permit subject to the following conditions and any comments of
other City staff.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Decision 1 — Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1
District to A-2 District based on a finding that the request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table.
Decision 2 — Conditional Use Permit
A. Motion to approve a conditional use permit allowing a residential lot size of 8.3
acres within the A-2 District, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed administrative subdivision shall comply with all
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and is subject to review and
approval by the City Planner and Deputy Clerk.
2. The 8.3 acre parcel shall be deed restricted to prohibit further subdivision
unless there is a change in the Comprehensive Plan or the property is
rezoned to allow a more intensive use.
3. The 71 acre parcel shall be deed restricted to not more than seven
potential dwelling units subject to necessary zoning and subdivision
approvals unless there is a change in the Comprehensive Plan or the
property is rezoned to allow a more intensive use.
4. The applicant shall satisfy applicable park and trail dedication
requirements for one new development site as a condition of approval for
the minor subdivision.
5
B. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Ordinance.
C. Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Tami Loff, Deputy City Clerk
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Ron Wagner, City Engineer
Jerry and Judy Hudson, Property Owner
0
I all M -4 m wmr�jidp
I A kl.,.l X ef I
NAC
CERT/F/CA TE OF SURVEY
_---- Ab61 ww d e. E171 o/SWI14 a$ -.1Z T.121,"4
---------i--�/
PARCEL A
�r tf 0.56 Acres
Id
FOR: Judy Hudson
t sauM iw d 654 awa aQao h41 a/ aw E1/2 W 11X4
li I I
I I I
II I
II I !
I, I
� 1
II I I
I I
II I I
I I
I1
---__—_.l_L___—moo _—_---�--I_—
I I
I
f I r li I
II I
II I
II I
I.I
fi PARCEL B !
8.32 Acres I I
a r"
I
I
I
I !
I
� I !
i I
I I
$ I I
A10M RW R/IfR L4W S(.A YORS NIG MS MIRE M7
I6f37M n W OR #Z01 AgOW SE CH FAN
E45E1019W5 OF R£CLVID, VOUAMIACEY, RfynWC7AC
FACC AN ACaM7r AW CWBPENT RILE MR W
114Y A=asE
w
eN of N4 M'M MW f.0 fab E112 ora 14
l hereby pibYy O1ot lhJa survey, p/m1 or rsport woe
Mepersd by me or under my attest rpaHdon and
Mat / am o duy itenaad Load Swr-ayv under the
Ane a srov Of 1WMlssoto.
Dote 1213107
PROPOSED PARCEL A:
(TO BE DEEDED TO CITY)
The North 50.00 feet of the Eost 490.A
feet of the East Hoff of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 22, Township 121, Re
24, Wright County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED PARCEL B.
the South 740.00 feet of the North 79C
feet of the £oat 490.00 feet of the Em
Half of the Southwest 0 -def of Sect -
22. Township 121, Range 24, IYright Co,
Minnesota.
Y
N
50 0 50 100
GRAPHIC SCALE — FEET
SCALE 1 RVCH - 50 FEET
• L1EMES A SET PK AHK
e DEWES A FWW JM AOkW EM
o DENOTES A SET 1 MW PPE LMH ,
FEASW PLUG STAM9EV RLS 13293
aMMINSS SHOW AAE ASSLM
RUM RIVER
Tann SURVEYORS,TD
41350.Rua Rwv Dr. reNV—(761)3