04-03-96 PCNorthwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Bob Kirmis/David Licht
7 March 1996
Otsego - Bulow Estates 2nd Addition:
Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
176.02 - 96.03
Chris and Linda Bulow have requested approval of a 29 lot single family residential
subdivision entitled Bulow Estates 2nd Addition. The proposed subdivision overlays a 36
acre tract of land located south of County Road 39 and east of Nashua Avenue. More
specifically, the subject property overlays that portion of the Original Townsite Plat
between the Bulow Estates First Addition and Great River Acres 2nd Addition subdivision.
The subject property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service and lies partially
within the Wild and Scenic River District. To accommodate the development proposal, the
following approvals have been deemed necessary:
Vacation of the Original Township streets which underlie the subject property.
2. Rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District to a
PUD, Planned Unit Development designation.
3. Replat/subdivision of the property (preliminary plat being considered at this time).
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit D - Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
Recommendation
Based on the following review, it is the opinion of our office that the requested PUD zoning
of the property is the most effective means of dealing with the property's existing
development rights, while maintaining the integrity of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Although our office believes that justification does exist to approve the requested rezoning,
such requests are considered matters of City policy to be determined by City officials.
Should the City find the PUD rezoning of the property to be appropriate, our office would
recommend approval of the Bulow Estates 2nd Addition preliminary plat subject to the
following conditions:
1. As a condition of final plat approval, the City vacate those streets which currently
underlie the subject property.
2. City officials endorse one of the following options in regard to wild and scenic lot
size requirements:
a. Approve the proposed one acre lot sizes with the justification that such lot
sizes lessen an existing nonconforming lot size situation and that subdivision
approval would result in improved stormwater management.
b. Require all lots within the Wild and Scenic District to conform to the 2.5
minimum lot area requirement.
C. Approve the subdivision under condition that the property be removed from
the Wild and Scenic District.
3. The applicant demonstrate a manner in which the lots could possibly be
resubdivided in the future (upon the advent of public sewer service).
4. All streets are named in accordance with the City's street naming plan.
2
5. City officials determine the need to provide interior street access to Lot 2, Block 1
and Lot 3, Block 2 of the adjacent Bulow Estates First Addition. If such access is
to be required, the subdivision's street design should be reconfigured accordingly.
6. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to drainage and
utility easement establishment.
7. The driveway upon Lot 17, Block 3 is located proximate to the lot's southern
boundary.
8. Park and trail dedication requirements, as determined by the Park and Recreation
Committee, are satisfactorily met.
9. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to street lighting
requirements.
10. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to water supply and
sewage disposal issues.
11. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the
necessary securities required by it.
12. Comments from other City staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Rezoning
PUD Zoning Designation. To accommodate the applicant's development request and
avoid the creation of a non -conformity (density), a rezoning of the subject property is
necessary. The proposed development involves a number of unique features which
essentially make the application of a standard R-3 zoning designation (one acre lot size)
inappropriate. These features include:
1. The exclusion of the property from the City's Immediate Urban Service Area. To
accommodate an R-3 zoning, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to adjust the
Urban Service Area boundary would be necessary. The Immediate Urban Service
Area, among other things, is intended to identify areas which are within a sanitary
sewer service area. A westward expansion of the Immediate Urban Service Area
is, at this time, not considered appropriate.
3
2. Existence of development rights to existing Original Townsite lots which have
improved public street frontage.
3. The desire to make development upon the subject property consistent with long
term planning objectives of the area.
4. A standard residential zoning designation (i.e., R-3) may set a poor precedent in
regard to future development proposals in the area.
5. A conflict with the City's Land Use Plan (the plan proposes 4 per 40 density upon
the subject property).
Recognizing the uniqueness of the applicant's requests, a rezoning of the subject property
to a planned unit development (PUD) designation has been proposed. Such designation
may accommodate the proposed residential density.
Rezoning Judgement Criteria. According to Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance,
the City Council and Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the
proposed amendment. Judgement must be based upon (but not limited to) the following
factors:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions
of the official City Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property lies within the City's long range urban service area in which
a residential density of four dwelling units per forty acres of land is recommended.
While the proposed residential density is not, at this time, consistent with such
recommendation, the possible development rights currently afforded the subject
property and the issue of precedent cannot be ignored and must be dealt with.
Specific Comprehensive Plan policies which tend to support the subject request are
as follows:
Establish and maintain an advantageous property tax situation and pursue
a strengthened and sound tax base.
All development proposals shall be analyzed on an individual basis from a
physical, economic and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate
uses within the context of the community as a whole.
Once established, geographic land use designations and related zoning
classifications shall be changed only when it is in the best interest of the
0
community on a long term perspective and such changes will promote land
use compatibility and pre -determined goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Immediate, short range market potential and demands for activities which
are not suggested for a site or area by the Comprehensive Plan or allowed
by the Zoning Ordinance shall not be the sole justification for a change in
activity.
Also to be noted is that the subject site is bounded on three sides by development.
Thus, the proposed subdivision of the site constitutes "infill" development which is
encouraged by the plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the
area.
The City's Land Use Plan suggests long term low density residential use of the
subject property. Thus, the proposed development is compatible with intended
future land uses in the area. While the plan's immediate directive of a maximum
four per forty density is not being achieved, numerous single family residential uses
do exist in the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained
herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Generally speaking, all lots within the proposed subdivision will be required to meet
or exceed the standards imposed upon typical one acre lot single family
subdivisions.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Provided various conditions of subdivision approval are upheld, the proposed use
will not adversely impact the area in which it is proposed.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is
proposed.
The proposed use is not anticipated to negatively impact area property values.
6
6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets
serving the property.
The proposed subdivision is to be served from the north via the County Road 39
frontage road and from the west via 94th Street. Traffic generated by the proposed
subdivision (29 lots) is within the capabilities of streets serving the subject property.
7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities
including parks, schools, streets, utilities, and its potential to overburden the
City's service capacity.
Recognizing the possible development rights due the subject property (as part of
the Original Townsite Plan) and the issue of development precedent, a PUD zoning
designation has been requested. Such zoning will allow the applicant to develop
the property but only in a manner outlined within a PUD development agreement.
Via compliance with such provisions, an assurance will be made that the proposed
use will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Street Vacation
To accommodate the proposed subdivision (replat), the formal vacation of street rights-of-
way which underlie the subject property will be necessary. Specifically, portions of 5th,
7th, 8th, and A, B, and C Streets will need to be vacated.
The vacation of such streets is considered positive as they establish questionable
development rights and create parcels of land which are inconsistent with current design
standards.
Subdivision
Lot SizeiVNild and Scenic Provisions. While the PUD zoning application does allow for
some degree of lot size flexibility, it is staffs contention that lots within the subject
subdivision be of such a size sufficient to safely accommodate private sewage treatment.
In this regard a minimum one acre lot size requirement is considered appropriate.
As shown on Exhibit B, the northern ± 220 feet of the subject property lies within the Wild
and Scenic River District (sub -District C).
The wild and scenic provisions establish a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. While our office
strongly questions the rationale for including the subject property in the Wild and Scenic
District and the resulting imposition of a 2.5 acre lot size requirement, the wild and scenic
provisions must be recognized.
In discussing this matter with Mr. Dan Lais of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), it has been suggested that those lots which lie within the Wild and
Scenic District be increased to 2.5 acres in size. Alternatively, Mr. Lais indicated that the
applicant could petition the DNR for removal of the subject property from the Wild and
Scenic District.
In consideration of the wild and scenic lot size requirement, City officials should endorse
one of the following:
Option 1 Approve the proposed one acre lot size with the justification that such lot
size would lessen existing nonconforming lot sizes and that subdivision
approval would result in improved stormwater management. Currently, lots
within the original townsite blocks measure 10,725 square feet in area and
are provided widths of 65 feet.
Option 2 Require all lots within the Wild and Scenic District to be not less than 2.5
acres in size. Such design modification would likely result in the loss of
three lots.
Option 3 Approve the subdivision (and 1 acre lot sizes) under condition that the
property be removed from the Wild and Scenic District. In the interim, land
area within the Wild and Scenic District could either be platted as larger lots
(subject to future splitting) or as outlots.
The City Attorney has indicated that Option 1 as presented above, could be justified by the
City in consideration of the following:
1. Substandard Lots. According to Section 20-74-4 of the Zoning Ordinance (wild and
scenic provisions), any lot of record filed in the Office of the Wright County
Recorder on or before the effective day of enactment of this Ordinance, which does
not meet the dimensional requirements of this Chapter may be allowed as a
building site subject to the following:
a. Such use is permitted in the land use district(s).
b. The lot was in separate ownership on the date of enactment of this
Ordinance.
VA
2
C. All sewage disposal requirements are complied with and lot requirements
are complied with to the greatest extent practical.
d. The lot is at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in area.
e. 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.
In consideration of the lot size, Mr. Lais has indicated that because the substandard
lots in question are under common ownership, the minimum 2.5 lot acre
requirement should be upheld. To be noted in Item a above, however, is that the
combination of lots is required to meet only the lot width requirements of the Wild
and Scenic District (150 feet) and not area requirements.
Inconsistent Plats. Section 20-74-19 of the wild and scenic provisions relating to
inconsistent plats states the following:
Approval of a plat which is inconsistent with this section is permissible only
if the detrimental impact of the inconsistency is more than overcome by other
protective characteristics.
While proposed lots within the Wild and Scenic District are acknowledged to be
less than 2.5 acres in size, it is contended that approval of the proposed plat will,
through the approval of grading and drainage plans and acquisition of storm water
impact fees result in storm water drainage benefit not only to the site in question,
but the region as well.
Lot Width. All lots have been found to meet or exceed 150 feet in width (applicable R-3
District standard).
Setbacks. All lots demonstrate an ability to satisfy the following R-3 District setback
requirements.
Required Setback
Front Yard 35 feet
Side Yard - Corner* 35 feet
Side Yard - Interior 15 feet
Rear Yard 20 feet
" 65 foot side yard setback imposed upon Lot 17, Block 3 due to County
road adjacency.
Resubdivision. According to Section 21-6.2E of the Subdivision Ordinance, where
structures are to be on large or excessively deep lots which are subject to potential replat,
the preliminary plat must indicate a logical way the lots could possibly be resubdivided in
the future. While the proposed lots provide ample width for potential resubdivision, a
specific resubdivision plan should be superimposed on the preliminary plat.
Streets.
Riot -of -Way Requirements. In accordance with City Subdivision Ordinance
requirements, a 60 foot street right-of-way has been provided.
Cul -de -Sac. As shown on Exhibit C, a cul-de-sac has been proposed to provide access
to 7 lots within the subdivision. At ± 420 feet in length such cul-de-sac complies with the
maximum 500 foot requirement stipulated within the Subdivision Ordinance.
Street Names. As a condition of subdivision approval, all streets must be named in
accordance with the City's street naming plan.
Service Road. As shown on Exhibit C, the subject property is to be accessed from the
north via a western extension of the County Road 39 service road. This issue should be
subject to further comment by the City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department.
Great River Acres. In what is considered a positive design feature, the subdivision's
interior street has been located so as to have the ability to access abutting lots within the
Great River Acres Subdivision. With such lots measuring ±3.5 acres in size and having
depths of approximately 600 feet, they must be considered conducive to resubdivision.
The developer will be held responsible for costs associated with construction of all streets
within the subdivision including that segment which abuts the Great River Acres
Subdivision.
Bulow Estates First Addition. Within the Bulow Estates (First Addition) Development
Agreement, the following condition is imposed:
Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 shall be allowed direct lot access to Nashua
Avenue only on an interim basis. At such time as easterly development occurs and
an alterative easterly street access is available, access to the said lots from Nashua
Avenue shall be prohibited.
9
While the 2nd Addition constitutes "easterly development", the proposed street design
does not provide for interior access to the said lots. To provide such interior access to
Lots 2 and 3, the subdivision's street "loop" could possibly be shifted + 300 feet to the
west. Such design modification would, however, remove possible resubdivision
opportunities provided to Great River Acres. In consideration of this matter, it is not
believed that a street configuration which provides both resubdivision opportunities to
Great River Acres and access to said Lots 2 and 3 is feasible due to the subject site's
dimensions. This issue should be subject to further discussion by City officials.
Easements. According to Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision Ordinance, drainage and
utility easements, a minimum of 10 feet in width must be centered on rear other lot lines.
The acceptability of proposed drainage and utility easement should be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer.
Park and Trail Dedication. Specific park and trail dedication requirements should be
subject to specific recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
Driveways. To ensure safe and efficient movement of traffic within the subdivision, the
driveway upon Lot 17, Block 3 should be located proximate to its southern boundary.
Street Lighting. For safety (and security) purposes, some consideration should be given
as to the need for street lights within the subdivision. According to the City's adopted
street lighting policies, any new residential development must have a street lighting plan
prepared by a developer and submitted as part of the development plan. Exceptions to
this submission requirement may be allowed at the Council's direction. This item and the
specific need for a street light should be subject to specific recommendation by the City
Engineer.
Water Supply/Sewage Disposal. According to the City's Subdivision Ordinance,
preliminary plat submissions must identify/illustrate the location and size of both water
supply and sewage disposal systems. As a condition of preliminary plat approval,
proposed well and drain field locations should be illustrated. This issue should be subject
to further comment by the City Engineer.
Development Agreement. As a condition of ultimate final plat approval, the developer
must enter into a development agreement with the City and post all necessary securities
required.
10
CONCLUSION
In consideration of possible development rights due the subject property and the property's
exclusion from the Immediate Urban Service Area, the application of a PUD zoning
designation upon the property is considered the most effective means of achieving the
City's development objectives in the area while maintaining the integrity of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Rezonings are, however, matters of City policy to be determined by
City officials.
Should the City approve the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the
Bulow Estates 2nd Addition preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed in the Executive
Summary of this report.
PC: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Dan Lais
Chris and Linda Bulow
11
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATIOI
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
9
/177400
9115 -JO
9,73-30
f:,{0 1314
18
1174300 fns so
NORTH
G 17 " C
= P +_"°
9020 -JO 1 " 400' 121 50 f:•
16
2 15 ,
4kn 1
%174301
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION
9 1011
12
85
8
4
83
-
/Q1,,,,141400
foaw, a
G
1 2
3 4
>;?
81
A
i
farm*
,700-30
3rd ST.
N.E.
I 96th
ST.
fes„ 75
(n
110
; s
9
8
7
8
►=
N
p7b,a
a
OF
7
7
OTSEGO
N
,or„a,a
`"'�°'
79
80
5
76
I 1
2
3�4
5
78
=
tarto�e
17764 -JO
w N.E.
95th ST.
No. 39
1 9
8
6
,pa10,0
Q I
wM fir. M
�.:. _ i
%00,,,0'
,
•
49
i !
v�
_ `
47
►_
V)
46
N
45
0.�. A
OTSE
1 2
3
4
aa,a
+,�
5
y
13:9 -30
#00,0,0
,777►-�0
1
,3&„-30
2
71LS7�0
CD
5th
_...�=
'` ` �'
ST.
WILD
EN
R
-
-
--------
I z
afu moon gHi�imi
►f►uff+un+eufu
►+*Fuu►u►+�uu�u
u►uH
O.L. B
f,a,a
u
,3.0•�
�++,
M44WN
14M14
j< wit
-
40
;'v `It
42
43
44
4
Q
f,«o
9
,3100-30
O
�,
,001010
a
,00,0,0
f,000
f,o10
,3N,
ok"do
1
,001010
8
O.L. C 5
"`
CT.
Q
cv
7
+00,0,0
0 1 6
„70
fit”
28
I
'
S
25
#001010
24
23
O.L. D 1 {J�J
W2 -.V10
,a
27
E .
,
.i
f ,o10
Q
�
�
cr-
7th
I
_._.
f,a7v
f,,,a
ST.
w
zfoo
a,0
_
;
_ _
"'
fmia,a
fa0,a,a
,00,0,0
�.L. E 7
Q
20
21
22
Y
17
18
,
/.. �+
TS EG
flow
f,, o
.3�3a 1
O.L. F ~
Z
12
I
�:
nP5
s
,00,0,0
,00,0,0
Lq
6
�,.
3,a
2
1
0YS 1, -JO
'10
Z
#
I
9
nu 3o t 3
.L G
I
I
I
------------------
-----
►r3�o
f,,.o
I
19 fz, w
13sn-W
14 f
9
/177400
9115 -JO
9,73-30
f:,{0 1314
18
1174300 fns so
NORTH
G 17 " C
= P +_"°
9020 -JO 1 " 400' 121 50 f:•
16
2 15 ,
4kn 1
%174301
EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION
1
■ pal
- 491— - - -
.a►a
j D';E1 nogLa A
14
j )
I
-Zl�r
\/ o
S _� w��/ i fl S
l r . I I tQi
r _ fm.s
zi
Z
rT
one •
i Le
� 2
1
f-- 11 -7-0
a P.
IIA
— — ff—j—
I .r..
It , , ---- ---'
-1 4 L-4- _� — -- " -E]
121 j ^� , ..
i ---- -_-- - i F arra
e F—f - - l � t s. IL— r- ` .1 - -
V
I 1
{/ ris
w w.
3
PI
1 I 1 j •�
--Ii i I 9 IL li f0 I I
j i ► I
E ' 4
� K ria
Y rtu
4= NORTH
f t �
• r 1 " 200'
I 2
\ 11 {/ 1 r L • J ` moi.
JI
JA L- - -- - sd --� JI L_ _ _ _ r I ■
� S2lfSdWE .tett _
Ma, _ EXHIBIT C - PRELIMINARY PLAT
Oak
\ � ,�� II ASO—If�'C11tP
. \ ) ��
„�"_ •ice — _ _ `� �P M
— ----.alp ---- - - '
8 ----- ---- —--------- -
I 17 /
Cl
r
Q, L�-�
3 o r
14
ol
12
-
oaas
2. i ------
O
v —. --�, ol
O
I J
low
•4
1 –
R CkA I/- J O
"• NORTH
so 1" = 200'
bL E M.56 /
� \ 1
EXHIBIT D GRADING & DRAINAGE PLA:
APR -02-19% 1526 NAC 612 595 9837 P.01i01
JJFN Northwest Associated Consultants 1
nor � nc.
AC COMMUNITY P L A N N I N 13 • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H
MEMORANDUM - Via Fax Transmission
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
N.T*Tkvjl=:.. .tru
DATE: 2 April 1996
RE: Otsego - Bulow Estates 2nd Addition
FILE NO: 176.02 - 96.03
Based on recent staff discussions and meetings with area residents, it is recommended
that the following additional conditions be added to those listed in our office's 7 March
1996 planning report which addresses the Bulow Estates 2nd Addition development
request.
13. Those outlots which lie adjacent to the subject property and owned by the applicant
shall either be:
a. Incorporated into the subject plat; or
b. Deeded to adjacent property owners within the Great River Acres
subdivision.
14. As agreed, the applicant shall provide owners of adjacent outlots with quit claim
deeds.
Both the City Attomey and I will be available to answer any questions regarding this matter
at the forthcoming 3 April Planning Commission meeting and 8 April City Council meeting.
pc: Elaine Beatty
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Chris Bulow (241-1771)
i Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
TOTAL P.01
William S. Radzwill
Andrew J. MacAfthur
lichael C. Couri
March 7, 1996
RADZWILL & CO URI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Bob Kirmis
Senior Planner
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Suite 555
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Proposed Plat of Bulow Estates Second Addition
Dear Bob:
�U w
Pursuant to our telephone conversations it is my understanding that
a portion of the -above proposed -plat `(the northerly lots) lies
within the boundaries of -the Wild and Scenic, - even though it is
north of CSAH 39, since the designated boundary follows the section
line. DNR has been notified of the plat and you have had
conversations with Dan Lais of DNR regarding said lots regarding
whether or not DNR will approve them as platted or will require
that they be 2 1/2 acres as per the Wild and Scenic Ordinance.
Upon review of the City ordinance I find that sections 20-74-4 and
20-74-19 are pertinent to the proposed plat. 20-74-4 states that
lots with common ownership must be combined to meet the lot width
requirements of the local ordinance. It is my understanding that
the proposed lots will meet the applicable City lot width
requirements.
Section 20-74-19 states that plats inconsistent with the local
ordinance are permissible only if "the detrimental impact of the
inconsistency is more than overcome by other protective
characteristics." As we discussed, the fact that the plat will help
to deal with drainage issues in the area by addressing on-site
drainage and providing outlet to the South, as well as paying a
drainage fee for effect on trunk drainage facilities may constitute
adequate protective measures to justify any inconsistency. This is
a decision that the City Council must make.,
Letter to Bob Kirmis
March 7, 1995
Page 2
It should be noted that the final plat is arguably subject to DNR
approval. The combination of these two sections would allow me to
support approval of the plat, subject to the understanding that the
applicant would be solely responsible for any appeal, petition, or
other proceeding required by the actions of the DNR.
Thus, if there is approval of the proposed plat it should be
subject to any DNR response regarding the northerly lots.
If DNR were to disapprove the plat based upon a different
interpretation of local or State regulations it will be the
applicant's responsibility to initiate and prosecute any appeal of
that determination. If DNR will not allow approval, but will
support a petition to remove the area from the Wild and Scenic said
petition would be solely a cost of the Developer. I would not
oppose City support by letter of such a petition but would not be
in favor of the City expending any money in support thereof due to
past experiences with the DNR.
You -also inquired about the proposed roadway north and south along
the easterly boundary of the proposed plat. There appears to be an
approximate 30 foot strip of land platted as outlots as a result of
a previous surveying area. Thus, the lots within the plat to the
east do not immediately abut the proposed road. It is my
understanding that some of these outlots are owned by those owning
the abutting platted lot and that others are in separate ownership.
Due to this situation, the City has questionable authority to
assess the lots for future improvements to the road and obviously
should not get into any agreement to construct the road and attempt
to assess the easterly property. The proposed road should be
constructed entirely at the Developer's expense.
This situation could lead to future complications regarding access
and assessments.
The proposed plat will also require vacation of the underlying
original town plat. This vacation is also to be paid entirely by
the Developer.
If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
drew MacA,ur
RADZWILL & COURI
cc:,City of Otsego
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
Chris Bulow
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
March 20, 1996
Elaine Beatty, Clerk
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue
Otsego, MN 55330
RE: Bulow Estates 2nd Addition
Preliminary Plat
Dear Elaine:
LC�11z,OMC
2 1 G5 vo
222 onroe Street
Anok
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. has reviewed the above referenced preliminary
plat with respect to Engineering related issues. Our March 15, 1996 letter regarding
an earlier version (February 28, 1996) of this preliminary plat recommended not
approving the plat. The reasons for that recommendation were documented in the
March 15 letter. Our review indicates that several items listed in our March 15 letter
are still deficient in the current version of the plat:
1. The ROW dimensions along CSAH39 have been revised.
2. The County Engineer's review letter has not been received. All county
requirements must be incorporated into the preliminary plat plans.
3. Culverts along CSAH39 (cross -culverts) and drainage arrows need to be
shown. Drainage from the proposed roadway has been redirected to the
plat as requested.
4. The roadway has been revised from a rural to an urban section as
requested.
5. Although revisions to the grading and drainage plan have been
accomplished, many concerns still exist:
a. Naughtor Avenue is graded at 0.5% for 1,400 LF with a catch
basin at the low point. This will cause an excessive spread of
water on the roadway during the design storm (10 year event).
Drainage must be intercepted to reduce this depth of water in the
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
Elaine Beatty
Page 2
March 20, 1996
roadway. Catch basins could be placed near roadway station
10+50 with discharge along the south lot line of Lot 12. A
discharge configuration similar to that shown along the south lot
line of Lot 4 would be acceptable.
b. The manual on Best Management Practices (BMP's) requires dead
storage be provided in a drainage pond for stormwater cleaning.
The proposed pond will serve more as a ditch than a drainage
pond. Little, if any, dead storage is provided for. Dead storage
required is equivalent to a 2" rainfall over the entire development
area. This dead storage must be demonstrated by drainage
calculations.
C. The proposed outlet structure is inconsistent with the BMP's, as
short circuiting of the drainage pond will occur. During the peak
flows, stormwater will discharge directly to the south and not
enter the pond. A separate inlet and outlet to the pond must be
provided at the southerly end of the pond. The inlet and outlet
should be separated to minimize the short-circuiting effect.
d. Riprap must be provided at all RCP outlets.
e. Drainage easements must be extended around all drainage ponds
and drainage swales to provide for future maintenance.
f. Drainage calculations must be prepared and submitted to
demonstrate that the pond is adequately sized and that drainage
structures and pipes meet design requirements.
g. A NPDES permit must be filed as grading exceeds five acres. This
means the erosion control portion of the plan must meet BMP
recommendations.
6. The required 20' drainage easements are not shown.
7. Percolation tests and the evaluator's report are still required per our
March 15 letter.
8. Street lights are required per our March 15 letter.
9. Wetlands must be delineated per our March 15 letter.
Elaine Beatty
Page 3
March 20, 1996
10. Because curve data is still not shown on the plan, we used a scale to
determine the proposed curve radius. The scaled dimension indicates
that a 130 foot radius curve is proposed. Even at a 6% super, this
would not meet a 25 mph curve. Full curve data must be submitted
along with any proposed super elevation data. Thirty mph curves are
required.
11. The wild and scenic issues must be resolved per our March 15 letter.
12. This issue needs to be resolved per our March 15 letter.
13. The Storm Sewer Trunk Impact fees are per our March 15 letter.
14. Naughtor Avenue NE must intersect CSAH39 at a 900 angle of
intersection.
15. A roadway plan and profile sheet must be prepared.
Based upon the number of issues left unresolved at this time, we cannot recommend
approval of the preliminary plat.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
X-�✓)A /y�db
Kevin P. Kielb, PE
E
cc: Lawrence G. Koshak, PE
Chris Bulow
John Oliver & Associates
Bob Kirmis, NAC
Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office
OT214a.eb4
APR 03 '96 12:16 HWANSON ANDERSON
Hakanson
Anderson
Assoc., Inc.
April 3, 1996
Elaine Beatty
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Re: Bulow Estates 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat
P.1
222 Monroe Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612/427-5860
Fax 612/427-3401
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. has reviewed the above referenced preliminary
plat and related submittals. We offer the following comments:
Drainage Calculations
The SCS Curve Number (CN) utilized for existing conditions are high. A
CN for row crops was utilized for existing conditions. Crop rotation must
be considered in determining historic CN. The area has been seeded in
row crops and alfalfa in recent years. Typical curve numbers for historic
conditions would be 69 for Type B soils and 55 for Type A soils. This
will significantly lower the historic runoff rate.
• Curve Numbers utilized for proposed conditions are too low. Curve
numbers listed for impervious areas are at 98, which is fairly typical.
Typical values for lawns would be 49 for Type A soils and 69 for Type
B soils. This will Increase the developed runoff rate.
• By adjusting the Curve Numbers to more typical values, the size of
ponding will increase. The calculations should be revised to reflect the
proper CN's, and the grading plan should subsequently be revised to
show the proper pond size.
• Area #1 flows should be directed to the swale in the center of the
development. If there will be less runoff from this area in the developed
condition, it must be adequately demonstrated utilizing proper CN values.
• Ponds must be designed for 2" runoff on frozen (impervious) grounds.
Engineers Landscape Architects Surveyors
APR 03 '96 12:17 HAKANSON ANDERSON P.2
Elaine Beatty
April 3, 1996
Page 2
• The ROW dimension of 55 feet from centerline of CSAH39 is shown.
This is in accordance with Wright County requirements.
• The frontage road issue has been addressed. The existing frontage road
access is shown to be removed and the frontage road connected to
Naughtor Avenue.
• The drainage along CSAH39 needs to be addressed utilizing typical CN
values as described above.
• The street has been revised to an urban design.
• Drainage calculations, pond sizing, etc., needs to be revised as discussed
above.
• 20' drainage and utility easements must be shown along all unplatted
land.
• Percolation tests and a septic drainfield report must be submitted.
• Street light locations must be shown on the final plat.
• Wetlands must be delineated.
• The curve radii have been revised to 150' with 3 percent superelevated
curves. This allows for a 25 mph design speed. The curves should be
signed to note the reduced design.
Wild and scenic issues must be resolved by the Developer.
• Impact fees for Storm Sewer Trunk facilities must be paid at $1000 per
gross acre.
• The requirements received from Wright County Highway Department in
a letter dated 3/20/96 must be met.
APR 03 '96 12:18 HAKANSON ANDERSON
Elaine Beatty
April 3, 1996
Page 3
P.3
• Relocate drainfield on Lot 12 Block 3 so that it is not Impacted by site
grading.
Based upon our review, we feel we can recommend Preliminary Plat approval based
upon the following conditions:
1. Drainage calculations, utilizing typical Curve Numbers, are resubmitted
for review.
2. Adequate drainage structures and ponds are provided based upon the
revised drainage calculations.
3. The drainage pond is redesigned for 2" runoff on frozen (impervious)
ground.
4. 20' drainage and utility easements are provided along all unplatted land.
5. The drainfieid on Lot 12, Block 3 is relocated to avoid impact caused by
site grading.
6. Percolation test results and a septic drainfield report is provided.
7. Wetland delineation Is provided and a report submitted.
8. 25 mph warning signs are placed on the curves.
9. Street light locations are shown.
10. Wild and scenic issues are resolved by the Developer.
11. Impact fees for Storm Sewer Trunk facilities are paid.
12. The requirements of the Wright County Highway Department are adhered
to.
APR 03 '96 12 19 HAKAMSON ANDERSON
Elaine Beatty
April 3, 1996
Page 4
P.4 '
Please review the above referenced items. We will be available at the 4/3/96 Planning
Commission meeting to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
2�1 -
Lqeetx
os ak, PE
kas
cc: Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office
Bob Kirmis, NAC
Chris Buiow
John Oliver & Associates
OT2148.ab6
OTSEGO FEEDLOT ORDINANCE
PROCESS-
@
--N
Feedlot moratorium to 6/1196
• Committee members appointed by City Council
• Tuesday meetings 12/26/95-3/5196
• Reference materials included
Report, Manure Management
7020 8► misc. articles.
other ordinances, Blandin
Guides, Minnesota Rules
• NAC draft ordinance (Redwood Cty model)
• Committee discussed draft 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.
• Goal is final ordinance published by 6/01196.
CITY OF OTSEGO
DRAFT FEEDLOT REGULATIONS
SUMMARY OUTLINE
I. PURPOSE
Revised 4/3!86
A. Establish a procedure for the permitting of feedlots.
B. Regulate the location, development, and expansion of feedlots.
C. Promote best farm management practices.
D. Protect valuable groundwater and surface water resources.
E. Protect human and animal health.
F. Promote compatibility of uses.
G. Coordinate and assist state agencies in the administration of state-wide
statutes and regulations governing livestock operations.
II. ANIMAL. FEEDLOT DEFINITIONS
Animal Feedlot: A lot or building or combination of lots and buildings intended for
the confined feeding, breeding, raising, or holding of animals and specifically
designed as a confinement area in which manure may accumulate, or where the
concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained
within the enclosure. For purposes of these parts, open lots used for feeding and
rearing of poultry (poultry ranges) and barns, dairy farms, swine facilities, beef lots
and bams, horse stalls, mink ranches and zoos, shall be considered to be animal
feedlots. Pastures shall not be considered animal feedlots under these parts.
Animal Feedlot Permit: A permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) when the potential pollution hazard will not be corrected within ten
(10) months of the date of permit issuance or when manure is not used as a
domestic fertilizer. This permit shall contain such conditions and requirements as
the agency deems necessary in order to insure compliance with applicable state
rules.
IV.
PROHIBITED FEEDLOTS
Feedlots exceeding 1,500 animal units.
FEEDLOT SETBACKS
A. Existing feedlots , exempt from setback requirements
B. New feedlots
1.
Shoreland Districts
Prohibited
2.
100 year Floodplain
Prohibited
3.
Private Well
1,000 feet
4.
Steep Slopes
300 feet
5.
Public Parks
2,500 feet
6.
Drainage Ditches
300 feet
7.
Private Residences
Less than 300 A. U.
1,000 feet
Greater than 300 A. U.
2,500 feet
8.
Church, School, Similar
Facility
2,500 feet
9.
Immediate Urban Service Area
2,500 feet
10.
Increased Setbacks
Per City Council
V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
A Qualification
1. Expansion of existing feedlots within shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic districts.
2. New feedlot exceeding 300 A.U.
3. Expansion of existing feedlot over 300 A. U.
4. Lagoon/earthen storage basins proposed
5. Modification of existing feedlot within '/ mile of immediate urban
service area.
B. Standards
1. Notification to adjacent property owners of application, injection,
incorporation activities.
2. Compliance with manure utilization plan.
3. Compliance with pollution control measures/PCA requirements
4. Screening as determined by City Council.
5. Financial security required
6. Setback compliance
VI. FACILITY CLOSURE
A. Feedlot landowner, owner, operator responsibility.
B. Financlal security required
C. Closure plan requirement
VII. ABANDONMENT
1. Clean-up, closure responsibility of feedlot owner and operator.
TOTAL P.03
To Whom it May Concern:
The Wright County Pork Producers support the MPCA guidelines
and are working with the Wright County Extension Office and RSCS to
continue to make the environment safe for all citizens living in Wright
County.
Otsego's proposed feedlot ordinance states no city agency or
person to regulate this ordinance, nor does it state what specific
restrictive regulations the city wants to coordinate or implement.
If a feedlot operator needs help to get into compliance with city
pollution standards, what certified city employee or agency will they
be able to turn to for information and help?
The other issues of concern in the proposed feedlot ordinance
are setbacks and conditional use permits. Very few, if any, areas
in Wright County could abide by these setbacks and obtain conditional
use permits. Section 20-38-9 B.6. would prevent many existing feedlots
in your city to expand or survive. Setbacks should also be given to
new residences from existing feedlots. This would protect existing
feedlots and new development.
The Wright County Pork Producers can not support this proposed
feedlot ordinance for the reasons stated above. The WCPP wish Otsego
would work to find a better solution to protect the survival of
producers in Otsego and its urban development.
Loretta Paetow,secretary
iright County Pork Producers
360 Pierce Ave., Suite 106
North Mankato, MN 56003
March 27, 1996
P.ORKi:s
To Whom It May Concern:
Ex. 3
Phone 507-345-8814
FAX 507-345-8681
The Minnesota Pork Producers Association has passed resolutions at its annual meeting
addressing permitting of feedlots in Minnesota. It is our contention that local ordinances
that have designated land as zoned agriculture should allow livestock agriculture as a
permittee use. Arbitrary limits on size based on animal units are of little value when
protecting the environment. Therefore, if environmental hazards cannot be identified there
should not be limits on animal units.
Some local governments have used arbitrary setback distances to help mitigate concerns
over possible odors associated with feedlots. This appears to be sound on the surface, but
when connected to the fact that odors are not measurable under current technology and
that management of facilities has more bearing on possible odor than size, it is not sound
reasoning.
An issue of great importance to feedlot owners in Minnesota is the fact that setback
requirements are in most cases being established only for feedlots away from neighboring
residences. There is no protection in your ordinance in regards to how far a new residence
should be from an existing feedlot.
In summary, these issues, and along with many other provisions in the proposed ordinance,
make for poor public policy and most certainly are arbitrary and capricious.
In the interim, I suggest that the City utilize guidelines developed by the MPCA and follow
the workings of the MPCA Odor Task Force to develop a plan that is both livable for
residents and farmers and can stand legal challenge.
Recent court rulings have found that counties can address some of the issues you are
pursuing, but townships and cities cannot. Feedlot regulatory authority has been granted to
counties on a limited basis, but no such authority has been granted to townships or cities.
For these reasons, the Minnesota Pork Producers Association supports the efforts of
producers in your city to find a more workable alternative to the proposed ordinance.
Sincerely,
David Preisler
Executive Director
To Otsego City:
I have many concerns with this proposed feedlot ordinance.
Sections 20-38-1, 20-38-5, and 20-38-9 B.7. states that Otsego
wants to regulate, and impose more restrictive pollution control
standards that exceed the state requirements. According to a
court ruling "Crooks Township, Renville County v. ValAdCo", I
question Otsego's ability to enforce such pollution standards.
Crooks Township wanted to control the pollution from manure
produced by feedlots. The court ruled that the MPCA had control
of pollution from manure. It also determined that the state has
set up a statutory structure for issuing feedlot permits. It
allows for local imput, but retains ultimate control. Local
government can determine the best "type of use" for land, not
control over construction and operation of animal feedlots. The
Court also stated specificly to state statute, "A joint county --
state program is desirable because it will insure local -
involvement, minimal disruption to agricultural operations, and
protect the environment from further degradation" stated the
word "local" had been referred to county action- not township.
Otsego has no one trained and qualified to enforce any
pollution control standards that are more restrictive than the
state. Otsego has no one that is qualified to assist feedlot
owners to meet the more restrictive requirements, and the
ordinance is very vague in what these requirements are. These
more restrictive requirements should be clearly stated before —
not after feedlots are in place and operating.
I would like to address a problem with 20-38-9 B.2. I
would like to present this situation. Assume that I would like
to expand 10 animal units. I apply for a conditional use permit
because I am over 300 animal units. My neighbors do not object,
setbacks are changed and by some miracle, I am granted a CUP. I
have an existing manure storage area that lasts about 35 days.
I must now contact city hall one week before removal. I must
contact city hall once every 35 days, however, I currently and
will continue to consider my schedule, field conditions,
weather, and wind direction - away from my neighbors' homes.
So, I will call city hall every day for two weeks stating that I
may hall manure sometime next week. Each time I call will give
me one more day. In return, someone at city hall will need to
call 26 of my neighbors stating that I may be applying manure
each time I call. Do you believe all my neighbors will be home
during the day? Will the city have funds to hire a phone caller
and be willing to pay overtime for the evening calling to those
neighbors that work during the day? This section is foolish and
should be changed. My neighbors know that I apply manure, and
at times have asked me to change my manure application so they
could enjoy and outdoor gathering.
The next concern I have is with the setbacks! First of all
with the setbacks in this ordinance, there are no places in
Otsego that a 300 animal feedlot can be built! The setbacks are
too excessive! At section 20-38-9 B.10. it states that Otsego
may increase setbacks at city council's discretion. Was this
put in because the committee may have missed a spot when looking
at the maps before establishing these setbacks? In 20-38-9 B.6.
it states that all expansion over 300 animal units will need a
conditional use permit, and must meet the setbacks of new
facilities.
Common sense says, if this feedlot ordinance is approved,
agriculture in this community will be crippled and die!
Reasonable setbacks that will not prohibit growth in
agricultural areas may be needed. Setbacks should also protect
feedlots with the same setback requirements toward new
residential homes and public developments. If a feedlot is of
"concern'' than why allow someone to build closer to a feedlot?
Otsego has allowed new residences and public buildings near
feedlots within these presented setbacks in the recent past.
Why the change now?
Otsego developed a long—term comprehensive plan when it
first became a city; in that plan it stated its residential,
industrial, agricultural ,transitional areas, and city land.
From the onset, Otsego rezoned agricultural land for city use,
industrial use and residential use, while at the same time
denying the expansion of a state approved animal feedlot in an
Al zone. What good is a comprehensive plan when it is changed
and modified every time an idea is presented? A comprehensive
plan is a long—range vision of the city. The leaders of this
city have never had a vision (at least not in writing) that they
have followed. Otsego only deals with problems and looks to
create more with this ordinance. If Otsego passes this feedlot
ordinance, you can redraft your comprehensive plan. In that
plan it should change agricultural land to transitional land,
set up city sewer and water, and allow farmers to leave this
city when they want and with dignity. Anyone who is in favor of
this ordinance will never get any support from me. As a life--
long resident and consistant voter of Otsego township/city, I
ask that this feedlot ordinance be turned down.
Thank You,
Mark Berning
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
OF 1500 COWS TO OTSEGO
Based upon a study of the "Economic Impact of Dairying in Minnesota Counties"
performed February,1995 by AG-NOMiCS Research Inc., we can estimate the economic
impact of 1500 cows on the local economy.
The total industry economic impact is divided into farm -level, processor level and all -
industry impact. The all -industry includes secondary and tertiary industries along with
the direct dairy impact:
AD -Industry Impact $S,289,000
Other economic indicators positively impacted by the dairy enterprises:
• industry Payroll $1,578,500
• All -Industry Employees 217
(Excluding Owner/Operators)
• Feed Value Consumed $1,453,500
No model or estimate of this type can precisely duplicate the local community but
estimates such as these can be a useful measure of the economic contribution to the
community. General economic and statistical parameters and relationships that hold for
a large area (such as the state of MN) are presumed to hold for a smaller area like Otsego.
Therefore, you should recognize that the "uniqueness" of Otsego is lost in this analysis and
it is assumed to be "average", or like the dairy business across the state. With these
precautions, you can indicate the overall economic impact as indicated.
We the undersigned Businesses have reviewed
addressing Animal Feedlot Operations within
and feel it is too restrictive and will have
our businesses because it will not allow our
to prosper.
Business Name
�een;nS'S',�zI%
Address
Soo So �/to►�
Ntw civ,, M�j
Be e
�N 1
the Draft ordinances
the City of Otsego
a negative affect on
current farm clients
Signat�
' .0
4_
LD C(-,ew
(=
We the undersigned Businesses have reviewed the Draft ordinances addressing
Animal Feedlot Operations within the city of Otsego and feel it is too restrictive
and will have a negative affect on our businesses because it will not allow our
current farm clients to`;prosper.
�Q"�vvCJ
ture
� � �rIYE l�a6E7Q�
of
/A L) t
' J3-�3
1171 q � t� sT- m 0 1,94- �rw .
We the undersigned Businesses have reviewed the Draft ordinances addressing
Animal Feedlot Operations within the city of Otsego and feel it is too restrictive
and will have a negative affect on our businesses because it will not allow our
current farm clients to prosper.
Businesses Name Address
Z, ea ✓ 5r3I3
G�� 5 X37
IS-�� �*4 137-,-J6-
we the undersigned Businesses have reviewed
addressing Animal Feedlot Operations within
and feel it is too restrictive and will have
our businesses because it will not allow our
to prosper.
Business Name
f1BS 6lo6a/
Address
�X Z� % Averr,I�s 3/0
the Draft ordinances
the City of Otsego
a negative affect on
current farm clients
Signature
7,,,� 7o4 ---
CENTRAL RIVERS CO-OPS
BOX 122 - 60TH STREET
ALBERTVILLE, MN 55301
We the undersigned Businesses have reviewed the Draft ordinances
addressing Animal Feedlot Operations within the City of Otsego
and feel it is too restrictive and will have a negative affect on
our businesses because it will not allow our current farm clients
to prosper.
Business Namp Address
r
r
J
We the undersigned Businesses have reviewed the Draft ordinances
addressing Animal Feedlot Operations within the City of Otsego
and feel it is too restrictive and will have a negative affect on
our businesses because it will not allow our current farm clients
to prosper.
Business Name
�c ar-A -e V oyrs
C'Rav �i ✓6� I/n � s
0 rd,js �NWt w r�c�arin�,
Address
-57-7/f /2 ��i4� S. /s
/3 ;> IVOfh S
/-1-,9 D,' /X*� sr. Rg66e5-
1 66 1-70 W F AFA R,:,63.-
SS $ S err: fiv & £,R,
We the undersi!ned Businesses have reviewed
addressing Animal Feedlot Operations within
and feel it is too restrictive and will have
our businesses because it will not allow our
to prosper.
Business Name Address
6-eao�Jvy011 =3.554 Lowe
lU o r4- rho i� :�� � e -4 4 4 g'a l 4 a "'Afvt-
a
�
2
the Draft ordinances
the City of Otsego
a negative affect on
current farm clients
Signature
.Y
0
April 3, 1996
TO: Otsego Planning Committee With Attention To City Council
The goal of the city council, in the appointment of the Feedlot
Committee was to have an equal balance of agriculture related people and
residence. The balance ended being 6 of the 8 committee members, plus
the facilitator, having animals or agriculture related and only 2
residence. The residence was clearly in the minority.
The draft you have in front of you came from our city consultant and
it was used as a guideline for a new ordinance. Keep in mind the
ordinance was taken from other counties. These rules were put into
place after the counties had major problems. The City of Otsego has an
opportunity to set some guidelines and learn from other communities
mistakes. Most of us that were on the feedlot committee took the J,
very seriously and spent many hours coming to the agreements of this
proposal. There are some questions that still need to be addressed or
more thorough explanation or understanding of how it is interrupted.
Some of my concerns and questions would be:
1. We are placing to much faith in the MPCA: We know they are
understaffed and unwilling to take on many of the tough issues:
setbacks, odors, etc.
2. I don't believe we are protecting our shorelands and smaller
ponds, as these are used for water run-offs and help prevent
flooding and protect wildlife.
3. One doesn't TOTALLY comprehend the amount of ground water that
would be used for 1500 A.U.
4. One doesn't TOTALLY comprehend how much manure will be generaLed
from 1500 A.U.
5. One doesn't TOTALLY comprehend how much land is needed for
disposal of manure from 1500 A.U.
6. The city needs to rezone the commercial feedlots, and tax them
accordingly, because they will no longer be a 'family farm', but
doing intensified commercial production.
7. 1500 A.U. a 1,070 dairy cows 15,000 sheep
1,500
steers/heifers
30,000
swine.,N1e,55#'s
1,500
horses
83,330
turkeys
3,750
swine ov&55#'s
150,000
chickens
7,500 ducks
*** EXAMPLE OF MANURE MANAGEMENT WORKSHEET:
# A.U.
DAYS GAL.MANURE
NITRIGEN
PHOSPHORUS
POTASH
1,500
365 5,420,250
224,475#'S
90,885#'S
177,945#'S
CORN @
150 bushels/acre
728 acres
1,136 acres
827 acres
Alfalfa
@ 6 ton/acre
847 acres
1,515 acres
539 acres
The phosphorus and potash becomes the problem because of carryover.
I believe we need setbacks from residence, with a starting point of
the greatest amount of A.U. because that's what they could potentially
Increase too. I believe we need regulations on feedlots. I believe we
need fewer A.U.'s. When you discuss and vote on this ordinance - please
read page # 6: 20-38-1: PURPOSE: When you read and understand it's
meaning it should make your job much easier.
hn R. Holland, 6419 Packard Ave N.E., Otsego, MN
*** Source: Enivronmental Assurance Program
Manure Management Worksheet/ MN Extension Service
Manure Management
Worksheet
Bill Crawford
Rich Fisher
Wayne Hansen
Bob Koehler
Jeff Lopez
Jim Nesseth
Dave Pfarr
Jerrold Tessmer
Kent Thiesse
RNNE m EXTENSION SERVICE
UMVE a Y OF MINNESOTA
•
�ro en.AssuranceProgram
Manure Management
Worksheet
Bill Crawford
Rich Fisher
Wayne Hansen
Bob Koehler
Jeff Lopez
Jim Nesseth
Dave Pfarr
Jerrold Tessmer
Kent Thiesse
RNNE m EXTENSION SERVICE
UMVE a Y OF MINNESOTA
ssurance Program Page 1
emilaare Mesepinent Worksheet
For Use With NPPC Environmental Assurance Program
4Developed by Minnesota Extension Service
Introduction
Livestock manure is a good source of Nitrogen, Phosphorus (P2O5), and Potash (K2O), which are necessary
for plant growth. However, soil applications of Nitrogen and Phosphorus can pose threats to water quality if
not properly managed.
Pollution of groundwater by Nitrogen can occur when A various forms are converted to Nitrate (NOD and
leached down through the soil before being taken up by crop roots. Runoff from the soil surface to lakes and
streams is also possible. Many factors affect the rate of conversion and potential leaching and runoff.
The predominant form of Phosphorus attaches itself to soil particles. These particles can be transported to
lakes and streams via erosion, where the additional Phosphorus becomes a problem. If erosion is controlled,
risk from Phosphorus is limited.
steps in Making Alanare Utilisation Decisions
Decisions on responsible and economic manure management can be made with the process outlined in this
worksheet. Those steps are:
1. Determine the amount of manure volume and Nitrogen, P2O5, and K2O by direct measurement (volume
and manure test) or with estimates based on table 1.
2. Subtract nutrient losses in collection and storage if using estimates from Table 1. (Skip & go directly to
Step 3 if using volume and manure test data.)
3. Adjust for Nitrogen losses in application and for available Nitrogen based on the amount of Ammonium
Nitrogen (available) and the amount of organic Nitrogen mineralized (made available). These factors are
dealt with collectively in Table 3.
4. Use the calculated available Nitrogen, P2O5, and K2O, determine per acre application rates based on an
appropriate system (crop removal, agronomic rates, rates based on soil test). Information for these
calculations are found in tables 5-10.
4. Determination of Use. Any landowner may request a
determination of the use classification (permitted, not permitted,
conditional or accessory) for a use not expressly listed as
permitted, conditional or accessory or which involves a
combination of uses. An application for a determination shall be
submitted to the Zoning and Building Administrator and referred to
the Planning Commission for recommendation and the Council for
decision. Use determinations shall be based on substantial
similarity to existing use classifications, become of future
binding force and effect and be maintained on file by the City
Clerk.
900.12 PERMITTED ACCESSORY AND CONDITIONAL USES BY DISTRICT
1. FP - Floodylain Overlay District
Special standards and criteria for the Floodplain Overlay District
shall be as set forth in Section 902 of the Code.
2. SL - Shoreland Overlay District
Special standards and criteria for the Shoreland Overlay District
shall be as set forth in Section 904 of the Code.
3. WSR -_Wild and Scenic River Overlay District
Special standards and criteria for the Wild and Scenic River
Overlay District shall be as set forth in Section 906 of the Code.
l --
4. A-1 - Agricultural Conservation District j
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The Agricultural Conservation District is
established for the purpose of preserving, promoting, maintaining,
and enhancing the use of land for commercial agricultural
purposes, to prevent scattered and leap -frog nonfarm growth, to
protect expenditures for such public services as roads and road
Qaintenance, and police and fire protection. /
A. Permitted Uses
i. Agricultural uses (5 acre minimum on unplatted
property)
ii. Public parks, playgrounds and open space
iii. Facilities for flood and erosion contrc;
iv. Horticultural uses
9.17
CHAPTER 5
Whoever by act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally
does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public
nuisance, which is a misdemeanor:
1. Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoNs
injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or
repose of any considerable number of members of the public./
2. Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage
any public highway or right-of-way or waters used by the public.
3. Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law to be
a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically
provided.
4. Permits real property under his control to be used to
maintain a public nuisance or leases the same knowing it will be
so used.
The following are declared to be nuisances affecting public
health:
1. All ponds or pools of stagnant water.
2. All decayed or unwholesome food offered for sale to the
public.
3. Privy vaults and garbage cans which are not fly -tight and
trash receptacles of insufficient size so as to not eliminate the
storage of trash outside the covered receptacle.
4. The effluence from any cesspool, septic tank, or sewage
disposal system discharging upon the surface of the ground.
S. Accumulations of manure, rubbish, tin cans or other debris.
41
z-- 'S j�
,�:x
During the past few months, a citizens committee has worked
very hard on writing and updating the Otsego feedlot ordinance.
They had to go through lots of written material in an attempt
to come up with a suitable and workable ordinance. It must be
noted that this whole process was political in nature since
many of decisions that were concluded reflected the wishes
of whatever side had a majority of their members present at
any particular meeting. At other times a concensus by both sides
was reached reflecting the acceptance of a decision.
The writing of this new feedlot ordinance at the request
of the city council was not meant to be used by this committee
as a way and means to usurp their decision on the expansion
of Lef-Co Farms last year, but rather as a way to update an
out -dated ordinance and bring it up to date in such a way that
it could apply to the current development of Otsego in a fair
manner.
I have attended a few of the meetings that this committee
held and was absolutely outraged at the contemptuous behavior
displayed by some of the committee members toward other
committee members. I had hoped to see more compromising and
reasoning at the meetings and it was a great disappointment
to me that some committee members continued to act
unprofessionally.
Despite all this, overall, the new ordinance does have
some good points as well as areas that could be improved upon.
I don't know how many of the Planning Committee Members had
the chance to attend any of these meetings, but by missing
them, I feel you missed out on seeing how some of the decisions
were reached.
Reading the new ordinance does not reveal the very difficult
process the members on the committee went through to reach the
setback requirements that they finally ended up with. It must
be remembered that a lot of what was put in the new ordinance
came from other cities and counties who updated their ordinances
to correct the problems that theyencountered with the feedlots
in their areas, because like Otsego, their ordinances were out
dated and did not address the massive modern feedlots which
are currently targeting Wright County for expansion due to its
antiquated rules.
Even after reading the new ordinance there are several
questions that I have for the Planning Commission that the new
ordinance does not address and that I have listed on the
following sheets. I have also listed several changes and
additions to the ordinance which I would like to see addressed.
I also have some other issues that I would like to see the
Planning Commission address. They are the following:
1) How does the present Planning Commission avoid a conflict
of interest in this matter if they were to discuss and vote
on the Feedlot Committee recommendations since several of the
Commission members reside in Al zoned areas?
2) Does anyone on the present Planning Commission in regard
to this matter fall under the amended bylaws of the City of
Otsego Planning Commission dated July 1995 section 17. "Any
Commission member having a personal interest, a financial
interest, or a family member with a financial interest in any
individual action to be considerd by the Commission, shall:
a. notify the Chair of the conflict in advance of meeting.
b. allow the Chair to explain the potential conflict to the
Commission
c. at the request of the Chair, the member shall excuse
himself/herself from the Commission meeting room in advance
of the discussion and voting on this item.
3) Does the Resolution No. 92-94 section 3 and 4 apply to anyone
on the Planning Commission in regards to the new feedlot
ordinance?
I would be interested in how the Planning Commission would
respond to the following questions:
1) Who will count the cows that each feedlot has so that the
city knows exactly when any herd is increased and that a farm
is not being expanded illegally?
2) Why aren't all feedlots old and new required to be permitted
by the MPCA under this ordinance?
3) Who in the city will check for compliance of this ordinance
and what are the penalties if any?
4) What about rodent and fly control?
5) Why isn't above ground manure storage addressed in this
ordinance?
THE FOLLOWING ARE ITEMS IN THE NEW FEEDLOT ORDINANCE THAT NEED
TO BE LOOKED AT UNDER THE DEFINITIONS SECTION:
1) Page 2 number 4. How does this section effect feedlots that
have a change in operation that now carry a MPCA permit or one
that obtains a MPCA permit to be in compliance? What benefit
is there to only make this section apply to unpermitted feedlots?
Is a change in ownership considered a change in operation? Is
splitting of a section of land on the existing feedlot considered
a change in operation? Why not include feedlots with permits
under this section?
2) Page 3 number 10. How does this apply to farm where there
are now 2 heifers and the owners now want to place 200 milkable
dairy cows? Is this a new feedlot, existing feedlot or a change
in operation? Perhaps this section should include wording to
say "where there are no animals physically located on the site".
3) Page 3 number 14. Perhaps this should have wording that
01D
says " currently having animals physically located on the site"
4) Why isn't there a definition of a "EXISTING FEEDLOT" included
under this section?
THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED
UNDER THE FEEDLOT REGULATIONS SECTIONSTARTING WITH PAGE 6
1) 20-38-1 page 6 - add H. Protect property values
One consideration of getting a CUP is to look at the effect
of anything requiring a CUP has on property values
2) 20-38-4 page 7 - 1500 animal units = 1071 cows.
Change to 420 animal units = 406 cows.
300
Any feedlot or farming operation that goes above this number
is no longer a family farm but rather becomes a commercial
operation. Secondly, 1500 animal units is excessive and noone
in the city of Otsego has that many animal units now.
3) 20-38-5 C page 8 - there is nothing stating that hoses used
for injection be prohibited from being placed on public
roads, ditches, culverts or right of ways. Furthermore,
there should be a written agreement with any landowner
accepting responsibility for any pollution that the
hose creates if it breaks or leaks while being placed
on his property for both injection or while it is
placed on his property to reach areas that would not
have been accessible
4) 20-38-6 A page 8 - include the words streams, creeks, springs
and flowages.
This will help describe the area more clearly. Some of the
aerial maps have been hard to read and don't clearly show these
(D
items.
5) 20-38-6 F page 9 - to be provided to the city annually and
the city is to be notified anytime there are any changes
on the agreements
This will help the city know if the feedlot operator has enough
land to manage the manure. People do move, rescind agreements
and change their minds about renting their land for the spreading
of manure.
6) 20-38-7 A page 9 - add "except when any changes in feedlot
operation occurs"
This allows the existing feedlot to immediately fall under the
rules of new feedlot ordinance.
This section should have setbacks for existing feedlots
that allows an existing feedlot located next to existing
residential other than feedlot owner to expand to a certain
point and then also allows for the feedlot to apply for a CUP.
Perhaps a incremental table would work. For example:
Animal Units
Cows
Setback from Residential
50
36
100 feet
100
71
200 feet
150
107
300 feet
200
143
400 feet
250
178
500 feet
300
214
600 feet
The other thing that could be done is that a 1 cow per acre
rule be adopted. Anything above that would require a CUP to
be issued.
6b
7) 20-38-7 B page 10 - change to: "Private Residences. No new
or existing feedlot shall be located within one thousand (1,000)
feet of any residence other than the feedlot landowner or
operator."
This will place existing feedlots that contain only small herds
of under heifers under the new feedlot ordinance.
8) 20-38-8 page 11 the last line in the table should say "with
a registered letter to both the city and operator.
Both the city and feedlot owner would be required
by certified mail to notify the resident that his
request has been noted."
This protects the resident from a feedlot owner saying that
he wasn't aware of the request.
9) 20-38-9 B page 12
add 11) all earthen storage basins, lagoons that
are excavated shall require a liner.
The reason for a liner is that the MPCA already allows these
pits to leak up to 500 gallons per day. The city of Otsego
should do everything it can to protect its current and future
residents and their environment far more than the current
regulations of the MPCA do.
add 12) all earthen storage basins, lagoons are
required to be surrounded by a 6 foot fence with
warning signs.
The reason for fence comes from a letter dated July 17, 1995
from the Interim Permit that the MPCA sent to Greg Lefebvre.
It states under the Operation and Maintenance section number
10) Fencing shall be constructed and maintained around the
perimeter of the basins to prevent accidental or unauthorized
0
access to the area by children or livestock
If the MPCA feels that a fence is important, then the city should
at least recognize some sign of common sense on behalf of the
MPCA.
�N/-s7ys
SZCTION 38
!XIMLOT RZGFUX LTIOM
am= ON:
20-38-1 Purpose
20-38-2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (DPCA) Feedlot Permit
Requirements
20-38-3 Permitted Feedlots
20-38-4 Prohibited Feedlots
20-38-5 Pollution Control Requirements
20-38-6 Information Requirement
20-38-7 Feedlot Setbacks
10-38-8 Manure Stockpile/Application Setbacks
20-38-9 Conditional Use Permits
20-38-10 Standards for Earthen Storage Basins and Concrete Pits
20-38-11 Facility Closure
20-38-12 Abandonment
20-38-13 Coamtissioner Review
20-38-1: PURP08ai The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to
?c�jia,,A-c-regulate Feedlot operations within the City of Otsego in
a manner that is at least as restrictive an existing
State regulations, and in many instances exceeding those
State requirements, including those regulations related
�1.
to pollution. Theme additional controls are needed due
to'the unique location of the municipality in relation to
Qom, the Metropolitan Area, and in order to promote the
planning process and protect the health, safety and
welfare of the residents of the City, as well as to:
A. 9t sh a,pro� dura or he perms i g of feedlots.
d B. R late the
'procedure
dove opment, and expansion of
1
feedlots.
,6-x. ��-,+-�o-v+�•^�-cu.tbQ-�l�.o w-� •Loac. z�',,�. o.�,�.c7r,`'"��i 0�`,sG��.
0 38$ Promote est farm management practices . ,�,.,r �„,, y,-c�.,•�
'- ,
D. Pro tec valuable groundwater and surface water resources.
a0,39Y
B. Protect human and animal health.
,20,39-8 — d -0,35r7 63 z"_) 9.9
F. Promote compatibility a uses. 7
G. Coordinate and asi4ist tate agencies in the
administration of state-wide statutes and regulations
governing livestock operations.
6
20-38-21 11 n GO•a VOLLUTIOK CONTROL ASC? (]RCW Fj3DLOT VZMUT
UZ=MWS: The owner of a proposed or existing animal
feedlot of greater than fifty (50) animal units or
greater than ten (10) animal units in a shoreland
district shall make an application to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MDCA) for a permit when any of
the following conditions exist:
A. A nes► feedlot is proposed where a feedlot did not
previously exist.
B. A change in operation of an existing animal feedlot is
proposed.
C. A change of ownership, family members included.
D. A pre-existing animal feedlot is to be restocked after
being abandoned or unused for five ( ) yearq or more.
- y� .
8.
An in'bpection by Minnesota Poll tion tontrol Ag cy
WPM staff reveals that the feedlot is creating a
potential pollution hazard.
20-38-3: r&xmxTTiD FScLOTs: Those feedlots which do not
constitute a potential pollution hazard and meet the
minim requirements of this ordinance shall be allowed
within the City on the condition that they obtain a
certificate of compliance by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPGA), if required.
20-3 -4: PROHIHITZD FZZDLOTS:, No feedlot in excess of one
thousand five hundred (1,500) animal units shall be
QZj &6 O established within the City nor shall any existing
.20 3 �,,a 8, feedlot be expanded so that the cumulative number of
animal units exceeds one thousand five hundr (1, 500)
0 6l0 •;..�_ &,A.�e- lo rve�4{� c� Salo Q q
20-38-31 POLLDT IOST C4940L
�oni
A.Puzpose: The purpose of this cto provide
restrictions on feedlot operations as restrictive as, or
re so, than existing state regulations regardin
�p oll do or pot gntial pollution hazards. i7�
t`( s . Geaeral
� �quiraoeat: No animal fe of or manure�torag
tt�/
area shall be constructed, located, or operated so as to
create or maintain a potential pollution hazard unless a
certificate of compliance or an agency permit has been
issued.
6Po/Z� Z
7
C.
Vehicles and 8preadera: All vehicles used to transport
animal manure on City, County, State, and interstate
highways shall be leak -proof. Manure spreaders with end
-
gates shall be in compliance with this provision provided
the end gate works effectively to restrict leakage and
the manure spreader is leak -proof. This shall not apply
to animal manure being hauled to fields adjacent to
feedlot operations or fields divided by roadways provided
the nimal manure is or use as dMes� ertilizer.
-rtt a Wim.
D.
-�-,•.J o � c c. - -d
Manure
Storage: Animal manure, a ut'3lized as
domestic fertilizer, shall not be stored for longer than
.01
one (1) year and shall be applied at rates not exceeding
local agricultural crop nutrient requirements except
where allowed by permit. Local agricultural crop
nutrient requirements can be obtained at the Wright
County Soil Conservation Service office or local
Agricultural Extension Service office.
B.
Aninal Manure: Any animal manure not utilized as
domestic fertilizer shall be treated or disposed of in
accordance with applicable State rules.
F.
OMaer's Duties: The owner of any animal feedlot shall
be responsible for the storage, transportation, and
disposal of all animal manure generated in a manner
consistent with the provisions herein.
G.
Odors: Feedlot operations shall take responsible
measures to minimize odors which have the effect of
creating an adverse impact on the environment and qualit
of 1 fe tor th res dent of the City. iJ
14*1�
arisaoe: Any feedlot, other than those which are
prohibited, may request a variance in accordance with
Section 20-5 of this Chapter where rules may not apply or
create a unique hardship due to conditions not created by
Q
the feedlot operator or owner.
20-38-6t
nMoyjcLTIcui RzgQSRmUNT:
6
A.
A map or aerial photograph indicating dimensions of
a,
feedlot, showing all existing homes, buildings, lakes,
ponds, water courses, wetlands, dry runs, rock
outcroppings, roads, wells, contour and surface water
0
drainage encompassing the maximum setback distances of
Chapter 20-38-7. �,fu;,.c,o �a��, J C,,4 -
B.
A description 60 the geological condition, soil types and
seasonal high water table.
U
8
C. A plan indicating operational procedure, the location and
y'r f ea.. specifics of proposed animal waste facilities. 7b&
tity and type of effluent to be discharged from the
D. Method/plan for disposal of dead animals shall be
consistent with the Minnesota. Board of Animal Health
/9 Com— regulations.
B. Manure Utilization Plan which Will include the location
Of all manure application sites, crop types, application
Mf ZL, rate in gallon /acre or tons/acre, and the resulting
application rate of N, P and R in pound /acre. Manure
application shall not exceed agronomic rates or to build
N, P and R levels beyond the soil capability of holding
and utilizing them for crop use, for the prevention of
leaching and potential non -point pollution problems, as
determined by the Wright County Extension Educator and
the Minnesota Extension Service.
F. Land spreading agreements shall be provided if the
)riptea, appl i cant does not own the minimum m acreage to apply
to OCAy animal waste and the land application agreement must bei
Mimled by all owners of , he roperty.�.�
%ocJ G. thuds ed to control o mitigate odor impact u
44,v, neighboring properties. Jr► p c- u, b
Ham• Any other additional information as contained in the
application pp and requested by the City or Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (1PCA).
I. A plan for proper closure of the facility including an
estimated cost of the same.
060
o__
20-3$-7 ORTDACK8:
A. $xisting Fee4lots: Existing feedlots are exempt from
he setback r quirements of this subdivisi .
do-de-9U.'4Za Cyp w
7ze_"
H. M*w Feedlots All new feedlots sharl
comply with each
and every one of the following setback requirements:
Shorelande. No new feedlot shall be located within
the Shoreland Districts of the City of Otsego as
defined by Section 20-71 of this Chapter.
0
'M,p C. 0-1
2. Floodplain . No new feedlot shall be located
within the one hundred (100) year floodplain area
based on flood insurance rate maps and the flood
insurance study for the City of Otsego.
3. Wells. No new feedlot shall be located within one
thousand (1,000) feet of any private well, other
than the feedlot owner or operator, without written
permission of the private well Ia owner. No new
feedlot in excess of three hundred (300) animal
unite shall be located within two thousand five
hundred (2,500) feet of any public well.
�. Steep Slopes. No new feedlot involving open lots
or partial confinement buildings shall be located
within three hundred (300) feet of a steep slope as
defined by this Chapter.
5. Public Parks. No new feedlot shall be located
within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of a
public park.
6. Drainage Ditches. No new feedlot shall be located
within three hundred (300) feet of a County, City
or private drainage ditch. ')77.4c -c-(,
r7. Private Residences. No new feedlot shall be
located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any
residence other than the feedlot landowner or
operator. No new feedlot in excess of three
hundred (300) Animal Units shall be located within
two thousand Live hundred (2, 500) feet of any
residence other than the feedlot landowner or
operator. These setbacks may be reduced with
written permission of the resident's owner.
8. Church, School or Similar Facilities. No new
feedlot shall be located within two thousand five
hundred (2,500) feet of any church, school or
similar public facility.
Urban Service Area. No new feedlot shall be
located within two thousand five hundred (2,500)
feet of the City's designated immediate urban
service area.
Increased Setbacks. Any or all of these setback
requirements may be increased at the discretion of
the City Council in particular instances upon a
factual determination that such an increase is
appropriate to further the public health, safety,
MO
and welfare. Factors to be considered by the City
Council when making such a determination shall
include, but are not limited to:
a. The size of the proposed feedlot or expansion.
b. The nature of the manure handling or storage
facilities.
C. The type of animal to be house at the 01a
factlity. r7' tea, tt4Q a,l.�-
ltation of theaG e,prwision9 require a �jpublic
hearing.
10-38-8: MWN=Z STOCKPILEAPPLICATION SSTBACZS: The following
manure stockpile and application setbacks are required
for all new and existing feedlots:
Category
Surface or
Incorporated
Irrigation Applied
or Injected
Public lake,
300 feet
100 feet -lake
river, or stream
i
50 feet-river/stream
Public streets*
25 feet -surface
10 Peet
300 feet -irrigation
Platted
300 feet -surface
300 feet
Subdivisions
1,000 feet -
irrigation
municipal wells
300 feet
300 feet
Private wells
200 feet
200 feet
100 Year
Prohibited
Prohibited
Floodplain
Public or
300 feet
100 feet
private ditch
Residence other
300 feet -surface**
300 feet**
than landowner
1,000 feet -
or operator
irrigation
* As measured from the outer boundary of the right-of-way
** These separation distances only apply it the occupants
or the residence specifically request it in writing of
the operator.
C4 - �: l
!i/� Iw
10-39-9e CMWITIOKLL USX psnKXTSs
A. R*quiseeents A conditional use permit shall be obtained
in a manner described in Section 20-4 of this Chapter
whenever:
1. The proposed expansion, or modification of an
existing feedlot is located within a Shoreland,
Floodplain, or Wild and Scenic District.
2. A new feedlot exceeding three hundred (300) animal
units is proposed.
3. The expansion of an existing feedlot is proposed
where the cumulative total exceeds three hundred
(300) animal units.
4. A lagoon system, an earthen storage basin or any
other outdoor liquid storage structure is proposed
for the storage or treatment of animal waste.
S. The proposed expansion or modification of an
existing feedlot is within one-half (34) mile of the
City's designated iacmuediate urban service area.
B. 8tAzubLZAX for Candition&I Use Permitas To protect
public health, safety and welfare, the City shall impose
(but not be limited to the following conditions:
1. Trees and/or shrubs are planted, as determined
necess wry bV the City Council, for use as a -wivW
2. Notification to City Hall is required no less than
one week prior to agitation, transfer, application,
injection or incorporation of all manure products
=4., W • stored for more than four weeks. - City Hall is
responsible to notify all residences within a 3L
mile radius of this feedlot.
�•ua �u✓3. The condM11
tona4llause p zmit s 11 be in effect only
as long An the Manure Utilization plan in Section
20-38-65 of this Chapter is,being followed.
4. All pollution control measures outlined in Section
20-38-5 of this Chapter are satisfactorily met.
S. As required by State regulations, the applicant
shall provide adequate security to ensure
compliance with any or all conditions of the
12
permit, proper handling and storage of manure, and
proper closure of the facility. The amount of said
security shall be contained is a written agreement
between the permittee and the City.
6. All applicable setback requirements of Sections 20-
38-7 and 20-38-8 of this Chapter are satisfactorily
met.
' : All feedlots shall be operated in a nuisance -free
Co-At.4t 0-Y'_ manner consistent with the regulations of the city
and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
8. The use is consistent with applicable provisions of
Section 26, 27 and 51 of this Chapter.
9. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.F of this Chapter
are considered and detexmined to be satisfied.
10. All conditions of approval of the conditional use
permit sha11 be recorded against the property.
20-38-101 9'P- XMINDA W= WilTZ BTORAQZ DAMS, LAGOONS AND OTWM
KAXMM STOP= ARW Bs $arthen storage basins, lagoons
and other manure storage areas shall be constructed in
. '
compliance
with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA)
� r
IPACILITr CLOamtNt
A. sD— sible Parties: The landowner, owner and operator
of any animal feedlot shall be responsible for the
ongoing management of manure and the final closure of the
facility include the cleaning of buildings and the
emptying and proper disposal of manure from all manure
holding facilities.
H. Ruviron wntal Financial Assurance: Financial security
shall be posted with the City in the form of escrow or
Letter of Credit in an amount to be determined by State
regulations in order to assure proper closure of the
facility.
C. Closure Plan: If a permitted feedlot operation using a
manure storage system ceases operation, the owner shall
subunit to the City and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) a closure plan.
13