Loading...
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