04-03-96 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 3, 1996
8 P
1. Chair will call meeting, to order.
Chair Carl Swenson called the April 3, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting to order at
8:05 PM.
Roll Call: Eugene Goenner, Bruce Rask, Carl Swenson, Jim Kolles, Arleen Nagel,
Richard Nichols; Larry Fournier, Council Representative. Excused Absence: Ing Roskaft;
Staff: Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney, Bob Kirmis, Assistant Planner; Larry Koshak,
City Engineer; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator; Judy Hudson, Deputy
Clerk, Carol Olson, Secretary.
2_ Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1996,
Richard Nichols motioned to adopt the March 20, 1996 Planning Commission
Minutes. Seconded by Jim Kolles. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chair Swenson stated this Hearing was continued to allow time to complete the
engineering work.
Staff Report
Mr. Kirmis stated a sketch plan submission was done by Mr. Bulow. The Preliminary Plat
before the Planning Commission is similar to the previous sketch plan but there are some
minor design modifications which Mr. Kirmis highlighted.
Mr. Kirmis went over the NAC Report dated March 7, 1996 and April 2, 1996 which are
attached.
Mr. Kirmis had the following concerns:
1. Rezoning - This is considered to be a matter of City Policy to be determined by
the City.
PUD Zoning Request has been proposed in consideration of precedent
issues as well as the existence of the Immediate Urban Service Area
Boundary and possible resulting effects which could result from expanding
the Immediate Urban Service Area westward.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 2.
2. Containment of the Northern approximately 220 feet within the Wild and
Scenic District. Wild and Scenic District establishes a minimum 2.5 acre lot size.
Lots within the plat that lie within the Wild and Scenic District are one acre lots.
Staff feels the one acre lots can be justified considering that they are an expansion
of the existing undersized lots.
3. Access to the First Addition Lots. Bulow Estates, 1st Addition, lies directly
west of this plat, includes two lots which received driveway access from Nashua
Avenue. When that plat was considered, a condition was placed on the Plat, that
when and if easterly street becomes available, those driveways would hook into an
interior street and access from Nashua would be omitted.
This plat does not provide an interior driveway access. NAC feels that Plat Design
is positive by providing potential access to the Great River Acres Subdivision and
possible opportunity for future re -subdivision.
Major changes in Preliminary Plat submission:
1. All lots within this version meet the 1 acre and 150 foot
lot width requirements.
2. The loop street provided within the plat has been shifted so that
it lies adjacent to the Great River Acres Plat. The intent of this
street alignment is to provide an opportunity for the Great River
Acres lots to be re -subdivided if desired. A condition of
Preliminary Plat Approval, NAC recommends that the entire street
within the subdivision be constructed at the cost of the developer
and no financial impact on the Great River Acres Lots.
NAC recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the fourteen conditions
listed in the NAC Report of March 7 and April 2, 1996. Mr. Kirmis recited the fourteen
conditions from his report.
Andrew MacArthur went over his letter of March 7, 1996 (attached) which addressed his
concerns of the portion of the proposed plat (the northerly lots) that lies within the
boundaries of the Wild and Scenic, even though it is South of CSAH 39. The Plat is
subject to the DNR approval.
It is the City Attorney's interpretation of the ordinances (20-74-4 and 20-74-19), that the
City, if it wishes, can justify approval of the lots as they are designated on the plat.
Mr. MacArthur stated approval of the plat is subject to approval by the DNR and it should
be clearly understood that the applicant would be solely responsible for any appeal,
petition, or other proceeding required by the actions of the DNR.
Another issue was the easterly boundary of the plat, where there is a series of outlots
between the proposed plat and the Great River Acres. Three of the outlots are owned by
the applicant as of March 25, 1996, four are owned by the adjoining property owners to
the East. Mr. MacArthur said a meeting was held with the property owners, the applicant
and himself and it was his understanding there may be some potential claim for adverse
possession by the developer over these lots. It is his understanding that included in the
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, contd. Page 3.
conditions is affirmation that the developer has agreed to provide Quit Claim Deeds to
those property owners to help resolve this matter. It is a City issue because of the fact
that we are approving a street along the easterly boundary which, in the future, are
potentially assessable only if title is in the adjoining property owner the Quit Deed Claims
will clear up that situation.
Larry Koshak has reviewed the latest version of the proposed plan and have been able to
work out the drainage calculations and drainage plan. The project drains to the North and
to the South and is in the North Mississippi Watershed District. His concern was for the
developer to provide for adequate drainage and he feels that the City can accept what they
will provide. His general comments were for the developer to provide adequate ROW
along CSAH 39, frontage roads issues be taken care of and addressed as stated in the
letter Wright County Highway Engineer wrote, wetlands need to be delineated, (after
Spring thaw), need perk tests and septic/drainfields.
Mr. Koshak said based on his review, he recommends approval subject to this
recommendations as outlined in his letter of April 3, 1996 (attached).
LaDonna Ahrens
9397 Nelmark Avenue
Owner of one of the outlots.
Wanted clarification of Quit
Claim Deed, where the developer
will quit claim any title he has to
them. At this point, Gary Sorenson
is the true land owner, does this
mean that Mr. Sorenson is also
quit claiming any right or title or is
this just relieving Chris Bulow of
title.
Andrew MacArthur responded that the Quit Claim Deed would come from both owners.
Chris Bulow
9946 Nashua Avenue
Applicant/developer
Comments on some of the
conditions - driveway access -
discussed with City Engineer and
Assistant Planner, that another way
to resolve the easterly driveway was
in the property continue to owner of
west side of property, Lot 2, Block 1
Bulow Estates, keep that driveway
and create an easement that would
run North to Lot 1, Blockl, Bulow
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, contd. Page 4.
Estates. If you eliminate the
driveway
it may be tough to create additional
access in the future, this would give
the City ROW for a frontage road to
possibly eliminate access from
CSAH 39.
Mr. Kirmis responded that the intent (if frontage road is ever needed) to provide an
easement as a safeguard.
Larry Koshak said that he and Mr. Bulow discussed this as a possibility and nothing
formal was ever submitted. This is conceivable that it can be done but the question would
be if adequate ROW given for a service road than would the house have adequate setback
from the service road and without that information doesn't think there would be anything
to be discussed.
Chair Swenson closed the Public Hearing.
Planning Commission Comments
None
Richard Nichols motioned to rezone the subject property from A-1, Agricultural,
Rural Service District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Seconded by Arleen
Nagel.
Voting For: Bruce Rask, Carl Swenson, Jim Kolles, Arleen Nagel, Richard Nichols.
Voting Against: Eugene Goenner
Motion carried five (5) to one (1).
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: Eugene Goenner stated he can not support this rezoning because it goes
against the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, even with the PUD his feeling is that the
City is side-stepping the Comprehensive Plan.
2_ Preliminary Plat - Single Family Subdivision
Mr. Kirmis reminded the Planning Commission that they are looking for a position in
terms of the Wild and Scenic and the access issue as part of the recommendation.
Whether or not the one acre lots in the Wild and Scenic District is acceptable and a
position on the driveway issue.
Bruce Rask asked if this pertains to the entrance on CSAH 39.
Mr. Kirmis said when the Bulow Estates, lst Addition, was approved there was a
condition if easterly street access became available, those lots tie into that interior loop
street and accesses to Nashua be removed. Staff talked about this when this was
considered when plan submission was first bought forth and we looked at providing a
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3,19%, cont'd. Page 5.
street which would abut the Bulow Estates, 1st Addition, which would provide interior
loop access and by doing that they ending up losing the potential street access to Great
River Acres. Its a fixed dimension here in terms of providing a loop because of standard
lots depts. That was an option looked at but Staff felt the benefit to provide an
opportunity for these lots with 600 foot depth to split overweighed the driveway issue.
Richard Nichols motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the fourteen
(14) conditions listed in the March 7 and April 2,19% NAC Report including
recommendation to approve Item 2 A, one (1) acre lot size and recommend vacation
of access onto Nashua Avenue. Seconded by Arleen Nagel.
Eugene Goenner motioned to amend the motion that Item 2 C. be petitioned to be
brought out of the Wild and Scenic District, giving a more defined line and uniform
plan rather than Item 2 A. Seconded by Richard Nichols.
Bob Kirmis wanted clarification on the vacation of the driveways. Are you looking at
removing driveways from Nashua Avenue or may they continue to exist and approve plat
as is.
Richard Nichols stated he was following their recommendation to pull access from
Nashua.
Mr. Kirmis said this would result in a very significant redesign of the plat to get interior
access to those lots. Bob Kirmis said Staff felt there was justification for the plat design
as currently proposed, which doesn't necessary provide that interior access. In effect, it is
a trade-off providing re -subdivision ability to the Great River Acre lots or shift the loop
street 300 feet to the west and pick up the driveway access.
Richard Nichols stated he would not be favor of shifting the street 300 feet and he likes
the plan as is and that was the intent of his motion
Mr. Kirmis explained by pointing out using an overhead the lots they are talking about
regarding the driveways.
Andy MacArthur wanted to provide clarification to the amendment motion on 2 C
regarding petitioning to have it removed from the Wild and Scenic District. This means
that the developer would have to go the DNR and request a Rule Change. The boundary
itself is part of the Minnesota Rules. Having to amend those rules, you are talking about a
nine (9) month process.
Eugene Goenner withdrew his amending motion. Richard Nichols withdrew his
second.
Richard Nichols withdrew his original motion. Arleen Nagel withdrew her second.
Richard Nichols motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat, subject to the fourteen
(14) conditions listed in the NAC Report dated March 7 and April 2, 1996 including
Item 2 A. Seconded by Arleen Nagel. All in favor. Motion carried.
Elaine Beatty stated this will be on the April 8, 1996 City Council Agenda at 6:30 PM.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 6.
Chair Swenson opened the Public Hearing and explained the hearing process.
Elaine Beatty stated the proper noticing and publishing was done.
Chair Swenson explained that the City is requesting to change the existing Ordinance and
the presentation will be done in three (3) parts.
1. Richard Nichols, who chaired the sub -committee the City Council appointed to
investigate and recommend changes to the existing ordinance. He will explain
the method used and background information.
2. Bob Kirmis, Assistant City Planner, will go over the detailed items in the
ordinance to explained how they will work.
3. Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney, will give the legal aspect.
Richard Nichols went over the process of what the sub -committee did
Feedlot moratorium to June 1, 1996.
Committee members appointed by City Council.
Ann Bentz
Mary Ann Struss
John Holland
Jim Barthel
Doug Lindenfelser
Jim Becker
Greg Lefebvre
Paul Berning
Richard Nichols
Lee Raeth, Wright County Extension Agent
Tuesday meetings December 26, 1995 through March 5, 1996.
Eleven meetings were held.
Reference materials included other ordinances,
Blandin Report
Manure Management Guides
Minnesota Rules 7020
Misc. articles.
NAC draft ordinance (Redwood County Model)
Committee discussed draft ordinance word by word. Approved as written or
amended by majority vote.
Committee draft reviewed by City Planner and City Attorney. Their comments
and committee draft will be reviewed by Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 7.
Goal is final ordinance published by June 1, 1996.
Bob Kermis. Assistant City Planner
Mr. Kirmis said he was directed to prepare a summary of the proposed Feedlot Ordinance
which was proposed by the Feedlot Committee. This ordinance is the version created by
the committee and has not integrated any staff comments or concerns. This summary is
not meant to be an endorsement, but a summary of its contents in order to help the
public's understanding of what the most important components of the ordinance are.
Mr. Kirmis went over his Summary Outline which was viewed on the overhead
and a copy is attached. The seven subjects covered were:
1. Purpose
2. Animal Feedlot Definitions
3. Prohibited Feedlots
4. Feedlot Setbacks
5. Conditional Use Permits
6. Facility Closure
7. Abandonment
Andrew MacArthur, City Attorney,
Mr. MacArthur said he and Mr. Kirmis went over the proposed ordinance, which was
drafted by the committee and the only changes made where slight grammatical changes.
They have presented written comments, but they are not included in the proposed
ordinance the Planning Commission has. This ordinance is the result of the moratorium
that was put in effect December 6, 1995.
Mr. MacArthur said that what is going on is partially the result of something that the City
is in litigation about right now. He understands that people, on both sides of this issue,
are here and they will be making comments. His message to the Planning Commission
was to specifically let the Planning Commission know that as City Officials, he advised
them not to comment on things that relate specifically to the issue that is in litigation right
now.
Chair Swenson went over the following procedures for public impute.
1. If anyone from the public wishes to speak, they must go to the podium
and give their name and address.
2. Address their remarks to the Chair.
3. If there is a formal presentation and representing others, they will be given
additional time otherwise, remarks are to be limited to three (3) minutes.
4. Detailed reports or articles that are pertiant, give a summary and give a copy
to the Deputy Clerk and she will include them part of the record.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 8.
Mark Berning Spoke against the Ordinance.
11800 80th Street Representing two other groups
beside himself Wright County
Otsego Pork Producers - they wrote a
letter (Exhibit A) supporting the
MPCA guidelines and stated they do
not support the proposed Feedlot
Ordinance. Mr. Berning
read the letter. Also, Minnesota Pork
Producers Association, a letter
dated March 27, 1996 (Exhibit B)
stating supportfor feedlots and
support the MPCA guidelines, also
stating feedlot regulatory authority
has not been granted to cites. Mr.
Berning read the letter Mr. Berning
also wrote a letter address to the City
(Exhibit C) stating his concerns and
opposition to the proposed
Ordinance.
Gerard Zachman Spoke in opposition of proposed
6905 Oakwood Avenue Ordinance. He supported Mr.
Otsego Bernings comments. He has had
a lagoon pit since the 1970 and has
irrigated it and had no complaints.
Talked about measuring distances.
Has about 300 homes by him and no
one has complained. Talked about
how his taxes have increased every
year. He stated he can't develop his
land because of zoning but doesn't
know he will be able to make a living.
City stated they were going to
preserve AG land. Feels this
Ordinance will stifle agriculture in the
City.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3,19%, cont'd. Page 9.
Russ Voigt
13949 91st Street NE
Otsego
Paul Berning
10265 99th Street NE
Otsego
Ron Beaudry
80th Street (across from Berning farm)
Otsego
Spoke in opposition of proposed
Ordinance. He moved out here
because of the farm land and no one
forced him to move here. Feels this
will force the farmers out. Farmers
have worked hard for the people.
He wants to see more industrial but
also need the farmers and not to push
them aside.
Spoke in opposition of proposed
Ordinance. He served on the
Feedlot Committee and does not
support their recommendation.
He stated disappointment in the
committee and if you missed a
meeting there still would be a vote.
Too many extremes in the committee.
His recommendation and others
were to follow the MPCA Rules.
Stated City Attorney did not inform
them of certain court cases, showing
that certain procedures are illegal.
City can control setbacks. Don't
worry about the big farms moving
in because there is not enough land
base. Section 20-38-8. Setbacks.
He wants the words and existing
removed and add new animal
feedlots. Land Value - Land value
is higher across the street from his
farm than in the developments, which
have newer homes. Odors - matter
of opinion. He tries to be a good
neighbor. Don't destroy
agriculture.
Spoke in opposition of proposed
Ordinance. He enjoys living there
doesn't smell anything. Don't
restrict the farmers. If farmers
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 10.
can't expand, they are out of
business, just like any other business.
Jim Farmenstead Spoke in opposition of proposed
Livestock Specialist Ordinance. Covers a territory
for Central River Coop from Albertville to Osseso WI.
In his territory, Hugo is very
similar in size and facing the same
challenges as Otsego. Per Hugo's
Mayor, Hugo is broken in 3
divisions: Residential, Rural
Residential and Agriculture. In the
AG area (including several
residential) policy the AG active
diary, crop and livestock businesses
will be encouraged to remain and
expand, no restrictions will be
placed on a normal farm activities.
Hugo's manure management that
farmers are the best stewards and
no further restrictions than the
MPCA The Mayor of Hugo
would give a copy of Comp. Plan
to anyone. Mr. Farmenstead asked
if the residents of Otsego would
prefer houses right next to them or
the rural atmosphere.
Jerome Bauer Spoke in opposition of proposed
6685 Odell Avenue NE Ordinance. His concerns were
Otsego if everyone was aware of how
restrictive this ordinance is. He
said if a diary farmer proposed to
build a 150 milking cow operation,
he already is in violation because of
young stock, dry cows, heifers,
calves, etc. He said with the
setbacks, he would need a minimum
of 1 sq. mile, no such place exists in
Otsego, 2,500 feet setback from all
neighbors means he has 280 X 280
square feet in the middle of sq. mile
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3,19%, cont'd. Page 11.
Brian Buck
Not an Otsego Resident
Wright County Businessman
of a Farmer Owned Cooperative
Doug Kolles
8700 Parrish Avenue NE
Otsego
in which to raise 240 animal units,
then add to that the setbacks from
streets etc. His question to the
Chair was if the City is to impose
these restrictions to any business
or new business as to these farmers
what type of businesses are we going
to have?
Spoke in opposition to proposed
Ordinance. Supports Mark
Bernings comments. Going beyond
MPCA guidelines with no method
to enforce. Talked about
Agriculture providing jobs.
Education is a key - Manure
Management is an issue and have to
work on getting up to MPCA
standards. Farm Credit is willing to
offer classes. Encourages the City
to listen to Agriculture Sector.
Commented on NY State AG.
Finance - improved technology -
only way is through profit and
farmers must be given that
opportunity. Encouraged City to
address the farmers concerns and
give them the opportunity to have
strong AG in this area.
Spoke in opposition of proposed
Ordinance. They have 3 diary
farms, history of 4 generations.
Grandfather was on Otsego Town
Board. They have never had any
problems with neighbors on odors
or spreading of manure. Odors
can't be controlled and only stays
around for a short time. People
moving in knew what was around
them. Land is valuable here, but only
as valuable as what is used for and
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3,19%, cont'd. Page 12.
only if you get what is is worth. A lot
of their land is in the Flood Plain and
in this Ordinance, you prohibit from
spreading manure on land in Flood
Plain but MPCA does not. He
encouraged City to use common
sense. He wants the words Call
before you Haul placed on the
Otsego Identification Sign.
Arnell Beckman Spoke against the proposed
9018 Mason Avenue NE Ordinance. He was raised on a
Otsego farm and enjoys the farm. He feels
the setbacks are too restrictive and
are ridiculous and he said the
City was going to protect AG Land.
Floyd Goenner Spoke against the proposed
8013 Nashua Avenue Ordinance. Asked if anyone on the
Otsego Feedlot Committee sat down with a
City Map and figured what and
where setbacks were, how close to
developments, were can you
expand. He sat down with a
person who did this and there is no
place in Otsego where you can
expand expect for one small spot.
If the City won't let the farmers
expand, then let them sell for
development.
Anthony Berning Spoke against the proposed
11756 80th Street NE Ordinance. Life time resident of
Otsego Otsego and never thought he
would see this happen in Otsego
Wants the City Attorney to tell
committee what the rules and laws
are. He went to Court House and
received information on values
of the homes across the street from
his farm. City has never given
these homes a break for being
across from a farm. They are
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 19%, cont'd. Page 13
Greg Lefebvre
70th Street
Otsego
valued higher than the houses
located on CSAH 19.
Exhibit D - valuation information
Spoke against the proposed
Ordinance. Referred to the
Blandin Report, Page 3 & 4, wants
Otsego to answer all of these
questions i.e. Is the livestock
industry valuable to us as citizens
of the State of MN, if they are
we need to think of our social and
environmental policy towards this
industry. Need to pay attention
and change the local government's
ability to impose stricter
regulations than the state. The
livestock industry is the largest
single industry in the City.
Economic Importance of 1500
Cows to Otsego (Exhibit E) Mr.
Lefebvre read this. He said he
served on the Feedlot Committee
He felt City Council made a
mistake in allowing himself, John
Holland, Ann Bentz and Mary Ann
Struss to be on this committee
because of their vested interest.
City Council never asked two of
the volunteers who asked to be
on the committee. The Committee
worked 25 to 30 hours and he
stated he is embarrassed he was on
the committee coming up with this
draft ordinance. The ordinance
resembles Redwood County and
Blue Earth County that NAC
came up with, which are permitting
Counties and are nothing close to our
surrounding cities and counties.
Another mistake of the committee
was not inviting outside speakers
to come in and talk about what
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 14.
they have gone through. Major
concern is separation of authority
between the City and MPCA. It is
illegal for the City to deal with any
pollution issues including manure
issues. His concerns about the
proposed ordinance.
Definitions: Mr. Lefebvre agrees
with them.
Section 20-38-1. Purpose.
This is in clear violation of State
Law, this is MPCA authority only.
B. and E. should be removed.
20-38-2: He agreed with this.
20-38-4. Prohibited Feedlots.
When discussed, he asked if there
was anything in the ordinance that
says no gas stations allowed over
4 pumps etc., This is ridiculous.
20-38-5. Pollution Control
Requirements.
A. Purpose.
More restrictive is illegal.
B. C. D. E.F. is the same as MPCA
20-38-6. Information Requirement
He is confused here and what it is
for. Is it for a MPCA permit?
Is it for information required for
new feedlots? existing feedlots?
The whole section is bad.
Setbacks - there are major
inconsistencies, especially in the
shoreline. Page 5, Section
20-27-4E says that only Parks
will be subject to setbacks, should
be MPCA issues same for slopes.
#5. In 20-274E, we say 1,000 ft
and this part we say 2,500 ft. for a
Park.
#6. Drainage Ditches. Should be
MPCA issue.
#7, Private Residences.
Should be from either Al or
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 15.
add a new #10 that says all of the
above setbacks work in reverse.
20-38-8. Manure Stockpile/
Application Setbacks.
All of this should be removed.
20-38-9. CUP
A. This is reasonable.
B.1. the words use for a wind
break for trees shouldn't be in there
See minutes of 2-20-96, Page 2.
His conclusion was if the City feels
its necessary to include MPCA
Rules or Regulations in City Ord.
use different type or color so
people can clearly tell this is MPCA
Rules. Only zoning issues can be
addressed and no pollution issues
including everything dealing with
manure.
Also submitted a petition signed
by AG Businesses that feel
proposed ordinance is too restrictive.
(Exhibit F)
Tom Berning Spoke against the proposed
Attending the U of M ordinance. He has decided to return
to his family dairy. He sees that
expansion is required. At the U of M
he heard a statistic, in order
to increase your profitability you
need to expand 60% every ten years.
This Ord. says that's not possible in
Otsego. He believes its his
constitutional rights to expand.
Ann Bentz Spoke in support of the proposed
6699 Packard Ave NE Ordinance. Her comments were that
Otsego they have heard a lot about MPCA
doing the rules and guidelines and
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 16.
protecting water and manure hauling. She
received a list of the farms that are
permitted in Otsego from MPCA:
AKM Dairy- 2 employees, Permitted for
84.5 AU, issued in 1991; Alfred Barthel
has 3 employees, 202.5 AU, issued 1993;
Don Praught, 2 employees, 84 AU,
permitted in 1975; Vernon Weidenbach
2 employees, 3 part-time, 186 AU, issued
in 1983; Alan Zachman, 2 employees,
50 AU, permitted in 1975; MPCA
informed her there are two other ones
that have interim permits which means
they have pollution problems that they are
working with. MPCA says you need a
feedlot permit if you have a feedlot with
more than 10 AU and whenever any of the
following occur: A new feedlot is to be
constructed; a feedlot is expanded or
modified; change of ownership operations
takes place, family members included;
existing feedlot is restocked after being
abandoned more than 5 years or inspection
by MPCA staff reveals that a feedlot is
creating a potential pollution hazard.
These farmers have said they have a right
to expand 60% over 10 years - there isn't
a farm here that has over 300 AU - why
is Otsego setting its AU at 1,500 when
all they need is 60% over 10 years? That
wouldn't take us up to 500 AU.
Mrs. Bentz stated she was on the
Feedlot Committee and they did look at
other city's ordinances, they had a hard
time finding one where feedlots were
allowed in the City. The City of Roger's
Ordinance they are zoned industrial and
taxed as such. Mrs. Bentz also had
comments and suggestions on the proposed
ordinance which she submitted as Exhibit
K. Wright County rules are less
restrictive that what we have right now.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 17.
Roger Bentz Spoke in support of proposed Ordinance.
6699 Packard Avenue NE He was just told he doesn't have rights.
Otsego He talked about his farm in Martin
County - have 1/4 mile setbacks, which
works out very well - they are 1/2 mile from
the City - to put an addition on their feed-
lot they have to notify the City - going
through a variance and go through the
County Commissioners. Here in Otsego if
you are a resident it seems like your the
last one to have any consideration. He
attended all but one feedlot committee
he was disappointed with the comments
and the attitudes displayed. They have
an agreement in Martin County that they
inject their manure. Surface hauling
is done in the winter. Taxes in Otsego
are the highest in the State. Employment
from AG can be compared equally with
other businesses. AG is important and
we need it and it effects him. We need
regulations and the comments here if we
can't enforce the regulations don't do any
thing - that would be the poorest form
of government. Need regulations because
of problems. Otsego has the opportunity
to address them before the fact.
His question to the Chair - There are two
people on the Planning Commission that
have Conflict of Interest. How will this
be dealt with? Please look at the by-laws.
This would be with Mr. Goenner and Mr.
Kolles.
John Ouliot Spoke for compromise
6132 Packard Avenue NE Agrees with everything that was said
Otsego at this Hearing. He had read in the
Manure Management that if a large
feedlot was proposed and the neighbors
objected it may have to be dropped.
Believes that common sense should be
used and if compromise was used this
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 18.
wouldn't have been such a big issue.
John Holland Spoke in support of proposed ordinance
Packard Avenue He was a member of the Feedlot
Otsego Committee and early on they all knew
it was going to be a no-win situation.
He felt that the members of the committee
took it seriously and worked hard. Felt
committee was not equally balanced, with
six members having animals and 2 were
residents that did not participate in AG
Business but he said that was fine. When
he reviewed the minutes almost all motions
were passed unanimously. He is concerned
with the 1500 AU. He said this allows:
1500 AU = 1,070 dairy cattle, 1500 steers,
1500 horses, 3750 swine over 55 lbs.,
7500 ducks, 15000 sheep, 30000 swine
under 55 lbs, 83330 turkeys, 150000
chickens. Manure Management Plan,
committee never in their group saw what
manure management plan was. A
worksheet showing what 1500 AU needs
are: 1500 AU per year will produce
5,420,250 gallons of manure with
nitrogen of 224,475 lbs, phosphorus of
90,885 lbs, pot ash of 177,945 lbs.,. With
that being applied on land and produce
corn of 150 bushels per acre you will need
to have 728 acres for the nitrogen, 1,136
acres for the phosphorus, 827 acres for the
pot ash. For alfaha at 6 tons an acre, now
847 acres for the nitrogen, 1515 for the
phosphorus, 539 acres for the pot ash.
Concern then with the where and the how
of the disposal of the manure. The new
technology needs to be worked with but the
pot ash and the phosphorus stays in the soil.
Understands that there still needs to be
more compromise and encourages
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 19.
Gordy Goodin
220 East Central
St. Michael
Owns land in Otsego
Roger Bentz
6699 Packard Avenue NE
Otsego
Gabe Davis
6689 Packard Avenue
Otsego
everyone to talk this out, look at the purpose
of this.
Exhibit G
Spoke in opposition of proposed
ordinance. When he first saw ordinance
he was angry but tried to looked at it
objectively. He feels ordinance is stupid
setbacks are ridicules. People misuse more
spreading fertilizer on their lawns. He
doesn't see room for compromise. He
went to City of ER, they had one thing on
feedlot, CUP. He feels this could be
handled through a Nuisance Ordinance and
read ER, he noticed most was dedicated
to dogs. If farmers can't expand, how will
they make a living? He asked if people
would rather see high density housing than
the rural areas?
Exhibit H - A-1 Agricultural Conservation
District, Statement of Purpose.
Exhibit I - Public Nuisance Define, #1.
Health problems/concerns, this is very
much of a concern. Talked about how
400,000 people in WI got ill from water,
from a virus that was linked with cow
manure. He also talked about procedures
in the State of NY - Dutch Yardstick
Program. Ordinances do have value.
People must follow the rules.
In reading through Ordinance, there
doesn't seem like there was much
compromise, needs to be improved.
Not addressed, MPCA doesn't go out and
check. Suggested a conference committee
to review ordinance. Encouraged
Planning Commission not to vote on the
ordinance the way it is written.
Exhibit J - Suggestions for changes
of proposed ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 20.
Roger Bentz
6699 Packard Avenue NE
Otsego
He talked to Don Haugie, from MPCA
and asked him if the City has the right
to set restrictions on setbacks. Mr.
Haugie said yes, MPCA does not deal
with this MPCA is strictly for clean water
and pollution issues but setbacks are left
to local government.
Chair Swenson closed the Public Hearing for now and brought back to the Planning
Commission for discussion.
The Chair noted all the new material submitted and he stated that it seems appropriate to
give the Planning Commission time to review and asked if they wish to continue this
Hearing.
Arleen Nagel motioned to continue the Public Hearing until April 17, 1996, 8 PM, to
allow more time for the Planning Commission to review all of the new material
submitted.
Seconded by Richard Nichols.
Voting for: Bruce Rask, Richard Nichols, Arleen Nagel, Carl Swenson, Jim Kolles.
Voting Against: Eugene Goenner
Motion carried five (5) to one (1).
(Discussion occurred between the motion being made and the actual vote)
Discussion: Eugene Goenner stated he felt they have a lot of material to go though and
feels they should address some tonight, feeling they won't be able to get all this done in
one meeting. He reminded everyone of the timeline they are dealing with. He suggested
to start with the definition, address some of the concerns and questions some of the people
had.
Chair Swenson said if they continue the Hearing to April 17, 1996 and if at that time, the
Planning Commission does not feel comfortable voting, a special meeting could be held.
Mr. Goenner requested comments from the City Attorney regarding specific court cases
documented, as far as what the City could control, and he would like this investigated by
the City Attorney.
Mr. MacArthur replied the only case mentioned was Valadco and that was brought up all
through the previous proceeding. He won't comment until he sees what court cases they
are talking about, and are they talking about district court cases, as far the Court of
Appeals, there aren't that many that are appealed. There are quite a few in the process at
the District Court Level.
Mr. Goenner said the City Attorney had mentioned at the Lef-Co Hearing that the
Planning Commission could not decide on a pollution issue whether or not to deny or to
grant the request. Mr. Goenner asked how is that based? If there are pollution issues in
front of us that are more restrictive than the State, than we will be regulating.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 21.
Mr. MacArthur reminded him that was based upon the ordinances that were in effect at
that time. A CUP was required but the ordinance only referred to an MPCA permit along
with normal CUP criteria. The issue is whether or not the City can include requirements
that are more stringent based primarily on planning authority. Not saying that is a clear
cut legal issue, there are arguments both ways.
Mr. Goenner had a question for Mr. Kirmis - Documents submitted on property values
across from livestock operations. He would like to see a more extensive breakdown of
percentage of increase. Has property value been deflated on property across from farms
compared to comparable homes within the City, or have they risen at the same rate.
Richard Nichols asked for some kind of ruling or comments from City Attorney on
whether or not the draft ordinance as submitted truly does put more restrictive rules on
than the MPCA in terms of pollution.
Mr. Rask said under Section 20-38-1. F. Promote compatibility of uses. He said he
doesn't have any conflict of interest, try to keep a open mind on this. He reads this to
promote conformity of the farmers. Would like everyone to think how this regulates the
City, which there are 3 different zones, which we worked very hard at preserving AG
Land when the Comp. Plan was done. He doesn't feel in this proposed Ordinance,
residents aren't second class citizens but the farmers when the City zoned them AG 1 and
remain in AG 1 we took away their privilege to develop that land, they can't develop
because the City said until the year 2020 that will be preserved as farm land. Therefore,
they have no rights unless the City rezones it. When we have residential people living in
the AG 1 residence, that is where we have to work hard at this but if someone 4 miles up
the road and there is a farm in the Immediate Service Area, there should be totally
different regulations. Doesn't see this as promoting farm activities in this community at
all. This can't apply to the Kolles Farm in a Commercial Area and to a Lindenfelser Farm
in the other end of the City, can't write for the same setbacks. He said for the resident to
stay 1000 feet away from the farmer and you stay away 2500 feet away from them, then
de will believe in compatibility. That should be in writing so we can't allow development
to encroach on them.
CM Fournier spoke in favor of the motion that a lot of information has been received and
need to digest this. He suggested for the Planning Commission Members to submit any
questions to the Chair and he can direct them to the proper staff person for the answer for
the next meeting.
Bruce Rask motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Richard Nichols. All in
favor. Motion carri
Bruce Rask, Secretary
Recording Secretary: Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk