Loading...
05-01-96 PCCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 1, 19% 8 P OTSEGO CITY HALL Chair Swenson called the May 1, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting to order at 8 PM. Roll Call: Carl Swenson, Ing Roskaft, Richard Nichols, Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner, Bruce Rask, Jim Kolles. Councilmember Representative Larry Fournier. Ken Olson, Sherburne County Extension Agent and Lee Raeth, Wright County Extension Agent. StafL Bob Kirmis, Assistant City Planner; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator; Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk, Councilmembers attending: Suzanne Ackerman, Vern Heidner Eugene Goenner noted corrections on last line of Page 5: Richard Nichols amended and not motioned and on the last page, should be 7:30 PM and not 8 PM. Eugene Goenner motioned to accept the April 17, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes as amended. Seconded by Richard Nichols. All in favor. Motion carried. Chair Swenson opened the Public Hearing at 8:08 PM. He explained the process Elaine Beatty stated the proper publications and postings were done. Staff Report Bob Kirmis stated Mr. Roden wishes to transfer development rights available from a 40 acre tract of land located north of 80th Street and east of Kadler Avenue to a 2.5 acre tract to be created which lies southeast of the density transfer source. It is the intent of the applicant to construct a new single family dwelling upon the 2.5 acre lot to be created. It was noted a survey has not been received but will be a condition of the approval. Another issue is of clustering. Mr. Kirmis recommended shifting the proposed site west. He didn't feel it was appropriate shifting to the east because then it would create an additional access to CSAH 19. NAC recommends approval subject to the ten (10) conditions listed in the NAC Report dated April 23, 1996. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 1996, cont'd. Page 2. Floyd Roden, applicant, noted he did not shift the site 1,300 feet to the west because that site has drainage problems. Chair Swenson opened the Hearing to the Public. No one wished to be heard. Chair Swenson closed the Public Hearing. Richard Nichols questioned if it would be possible moving the site to the east by CSAH 19 and retain access to 80th Street, feeling this location would ease problems with what is going on with the proposed feedlot ordinance. It is also the City's intent to keep homes together when possible. Floyd Roden responded that site is lower and would be concerned with septic issues. Bruce Rask motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit allowing the transfer of development rights from PID 118-800-233100 to PID 118-800-144203 subject to the ten (10) conditions outlined in the NAC Report dated April 23, 1996. Seconded by Ing Roskaft. Voting For the Motion: Bruce Rask, Richard Nichols, Carl Swenson, Ing Roskaft, Arleen Nagel Voting Against the Motion: Eugene Goenner, Jim Kolles. Motion carried five (5) to two (2). (Discussion occurred between the motion and amendment being made and the actual votes) Discussion: Eugene Goenner noted that according to the report the building site consists of Cordora and Webster silty clay loan soil and alternate site is Hayden loam soil, which is better draining soil for septic/drainfield. His concern was allowing a building site and the septic fails and they come back to the City and expect help. Richard Nichols suggested moving closer to the corner either west or east. Richard Nichols amended motion to move site to the corner of CSAH 19 and 80th Street as close as possible, subject to comments by the City Engineer. Seconded by Bruce Rask. Voting for the amendment: Bruce Rask, Ing Roskaft, Richard Nichols, Carl Swenson Voting against the amendment: Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner, Jim Kolles Amendment carried four (4) to three (3). Elaine Beatty noted this item will be the May 13, 1996 City Council Agenda at 6:30 PM. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 1996, contd. Page 3. Tony Berning objected to the decision being made at this time and should have been tabled until the feedlot ordinance is completed. He noted this house will be within 1,000 feet of a feedlot. Chair Swenson explained the City has to act on the Ordinance in effect at the time of request. Chair Swenson opened the Hearing at 8:21 PM. He explained the process and procedures. Elaine Beatty noted the proper publications and notices were done. Mr. Kirmis reported the Swanson's are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 1,200 square foot pole building within an A-1 Zoning District for total accessory storage space to exceed 2,000 square feet and more than one detached accessory building. The accessory building will be used as a home workshop. NAC recommends approval subject to the five (5) conditions listed in the April 22, 1996 NAC Report. Chair Swenson noted a letter received from Guillermo Gonzalez, Bellevue, Washington, who owns neighboring property to the subject site. He objects to approving the CUP. Exhibit A. There was no other public comment. Eugene Goenner was concerned with this building being used for a home workshop and that it could be a home occupation. The applicant, Jay Swanson, said he collects old tractors and rebuilds them. His wife owns horses and building will also be used to store hay and equipment for such. He stated he owns a business in Rogers and has no intentions of bringing his work home. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 1996, cont'd. Page 4. There was none. Chair Swenson closed the Public Hearing. Eugene Goenner motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Jay and Carol Swanson to allow the Pole Building with accessory space over 2,000 square feet and more than one detached accessory building subject to the five (5) conditions outlined in the NAC Report dated April 22, 1996. Seconded by Arleen Nagel. All in favor. Motion carried. Elaine Beatty noted this item will be on the May 13, 1996 City Council Agenda at 6.30 PM. 8:30 PM Chair Swenson stated that in order to try to start where the Planning Commission had left off he had requested Richard Nichols to mark on a copy of the proposed ordinance, the portions from MN Rules and MMPG. He requested the Planning Commission not discuss these items at this meeting. The goal for this meeting is to get through the rest of the ordinance. If this can be accomplished, staff can be directed to incorporate into an ordinance to go over at the next meeting. Page 10, Item 5. Public Parks_ Richard Nichols: Recommended using 1,000 ft to replace the 2,500 ft. in the draft. Bob Kirmis: Asked if PC wants to define a public park as a trail. Richard Nichols: It was previously decided no. Eugene Goenner: Trails were excluded. He asked about parks that would spring up next to a feedlot or expansion. Richard Nichols: This section being reviewed specifically addresses new feedlots. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 1996, cont'd. Page 5. Eugene Goenner: Should have the same setback to match the one on Page 5. Richard Nichols: He noted this is an error and the paragraph on Parks got dropped. Item 6. Drainage Ditches No Comment Item 7. Private Residences_ Previously addressed. Item 8. Church, School or Similar Facilities_ Eugene Goenner: Recommended one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) Richard Nichols: Recommended to leave at 2,500 feet. Item 9. Urban Service Area. Remove Item 9 off per discussion at Workshop to go with the three (3) different zones. Item 10. Increased Setbacks. Planning Commission agreed to remove Item 10. Richard Nichols asked the Planning Commission to keep in mind the way the chart is laid out came out of the Manure Management Guide. He tried to show where the numbers came from the Guide and where it was different. This covers both the stock piling and application. All follows the Guide except for the municipal well (200 feet) and residence other than landowner or operation 1007300' and 50' respectively. Eugene Goenner: Concern with Floodplain, if manure is prohibited than artificial fertilizer would be used. He recommended using a third column - stockpiling. Also recommended a double asterisk by Platted Subdivisions. Richard Nichols: Agreed with this * As measured from the outer boundary of the Right -of -Way ** These separation distances shall only apply if the occupants of the residence specifically request it in writing of the operator. Stockpiling Surface or Incorporated Irrigation or Injected Public Lake, river, or stream 300 feet 300 feet 100 feet -lake 50 ft-river/stream Public Streets * 25 feet 25 ft -surface 10 feet 300 ft -irrigation Platted 300 ft 300 ft -surface 300 feet Subdivision ** 1,000 ft-irrig. Municipal Wells 300 ft 300 feet 300 feet Private Wells 200 ft 200 ft 200 ft 100 Year Floodplain prohibited Public or Private ditch 300 feet 300 ft. 100 ft. * As measured from the outer boundary of the Right -of -Way ** These separation distances shall only apply if the occupants of the residence specifically request it in writing of the operator. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 1996, cont'd. Page 6. 20-38-9.A. Eugene Goenner recommended removal of Item A.5. through previous discussion Planning Commission agreed. Eugene Goenner: requested addition regarding the approval of a CUP contingent upon obtain a MPCA Permit rather than first getting the MPCA Permit. This is due to the expense. Bob Kirmis suggested for this to go under 20-38-9.B. Standards for Conditional Use Permits. Richard Nichols: Referred to Page 7, Permitted Feedlots, recommended including it here. He also recommended under this Item 20-38-3 to change the wording by the MPCA, if required to by the MPCA,-as required. Andy MacArthur: Approves the language but suggests to put under 20-38-9.B. Bob Kirmis: Suggested to include as Item 11 under 20-38-9.B. 11. Any approval is contingent upon approval of acquisition of MPCA Permits. The Planning Commission agreed to this. 20-38-9.A. Items 1, 2, 3, 4 are all okay. 20-38-9.B. Item 1. Richard Nichols: There was a concern in the Feedlot Committee that buildings are designed a certain way for ventilation. Eugene Goenner: Recommended to add to sentence , but not to interfere with design of the building. The Planning Commission agreed with this addition. 20-38-9.B. Item 2. Eugene Goenner: Just for his operation would involve several calls. Bruce Rask: If residents want to be notified, they should provide the postcards and no phone calls. Richard Nichols: The main concern is the agitation of liquid, where the smell comes from and suggested to refer back to chart (20-38-8) to the double asterisks and that answers this. Jim Kolles: Recommended deleting Item 2 due to problems of enforcing this. Andy MacArthur: He sees a problem with the City Hall being responsible and they don't do it, there is potential liability. Arleen Nagel: Asked Eugene Goenner and Jim Kolles if the residents provides the stamped postcards, would they feel it would be too much for them to do. Eugene Goenner: The problem would be if the residents claims they didn't get it. There were three Planning Commission Members supporting to remove Item 2. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 19%, cont'd. Page 7. 20-38-9.B. Item 3" Eugene Goenner requested for Extension Agent to explain the Manure Utilization Plan. Lee Raeth, Wright County Extension Agent, explained what the Manure Application Plan software does is to work with farmers to get a handle on how and where to best apply manure and he handled out a brochure on this called MAP. The Planning Commission agreed to leave Item 3 as in draft ordinance. Item 4. Refers to 20-38-5 Pollution Control Requirements Richard Nichols: Certain ones comes from the MN rules, and G is the only one different than the MN rules. The Planning Commission did not have a problem with G. Eugene Goenner: Didn't have a problem with this but he noted it would be hard to enforce. Planning Commission agreed to leave these as written. 20-38-10 Richard Nichols: For consistency, delete the word storage in 20-38-10 and on Page 3, Item 8. Planning Commission agreed. Item A_ Responsible Parties Eugene Goenner: Asked the City Attorney if the operation is sold to a different party, wouldn't that party become responsible and assume all liability. Andy MacArthur: Previously discussed this with Richard Nichols. The intention is to leave owner, operator in there to protect transfer of facility to someone to escape liability (joint and several liability), having no resources for closure. Richard Nichols: This is the same for any other pollution issue. Mr. MacArthur: Agreed, also go back to the owner. Item B. Environmental Financial Assurance. Eugene Goenner: Recommended to be consistent throughout the ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 1996, contd. Page 8. Page 14, -u C. Closure Play-.. Planning Commission agreed to leave as written. Page 7. 20-38-4. Prohibited Feedlots Eugene Goenner: Questioned if a variance can be applied for. Richard Nichols: Thought it could be. Andy MacArthur: Referred to Page 8, Item H. Variance. Eugene Goenner: Recommended to change language under 20-38-4 for people to be able to apply for a variance. Richard Nichols: If changed and took prohibited out, that would make variances allowable. Mr. MacArthur: Variances are not allowed for financial reasons, must be based on a unique situation. Eugene Goenner: If the applicant wants to spend money to apply that should be up to the applicant. Bob Kirmis: Suggested a CUP instead of a variance if the City wants to accommodate them. Eugene Goenner: He would go along with Mr. Kirmis' suggestion. He recommended to eliminate the word prohibited in both places. Bruce Rask: Supports Mr. Kirmis' suggestion and not refer to variance but CUP. Richard Nichols: Recommended to leave 20-38-4 as is without the word prohibited and address the number. Chair Swenson: Strike out the words other than those which are prohibited 20-38-6 Item F. Eugene Goenner: To avoid conflict and just to get signed by one owner, he recommended to remove the word all. Mr. MacArthur: He advised against this. The Planning Commission decided to leave the word all in. Eugene Goenner: Wanted to address what is a family farm and wants to address the Animal Unit number. Chair Swenson said he wants an ordinance on the table the Planning Commission can review, then go over it. Richard Nichols agreed with the Chair. Eugene Goenner: Recommended 1,500 AU or let the CUP process control it for the minimum number in the Rural Range Area. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 1996, cont'd. Page 9. Ing Roskaft agreed with Chair Swenson and Mr. Nichols that before proceeding have the staff do a final draft to review. Bob Kirmis: Raised a question about the Shoreland setback. He had stated that he thought MPCA would allow setbacks within 1,000 ft. He talked to the City Attorney about this and this is correct. Mr. MacArthur: The MPCA Rules are there are no setbacks but potential pollution hazard, it triggers within 1,000 ft. By MPCA Rules you could arguably have something 30 ft. MPCA just makes a determination if its a ground water hazard. Mr. Kirmis: Asked the PC if they want the 1,000 ft or MPGA which potentially allows the setback much less than the 1,000 feet. Eugene Goenner: If the MPCA judges according to a pollution hazard., so your saying if we have it at 30 ft their judging it is not a ground water pollution hazard or they wouldn't be allowing it at that point. Mr. MacArthur: There are other reason for having setbacks other than pollution hazards. The other ordinance took the 1000 ft and made it into a setback. Eugene Goenner: Recommended it leave to the MPGA. Chair Swenson: Write it up as what is there and will address it the next time. Mr. MacArthur: He and Mr. Kirmis are concerned with what they should come back with the draft ordinance regarding the language pertaining to the Shoreland. Mr. Nichols: It was a understanding from previous discussions that the 1000 ft was a MPCA requirement. When the language was taken out of the current ordinance that talked about the Floodplain area and 300 ft from one and 1000 ft from the other that was predicated on that being an MPCA rule. Personally, he would not be in favor of changing that setback. Andy MacArthur: Confusion comes from what the MCPA Rule is and what was adopted by the City. Chair Swenson: This will be reviewed at the next meeting. Andy MacArthur: One other issue - there is a moratorium established and it will take Council Action. They will need guidance if you will be able to come up with a recommendation. He is concerned with the time schedule. Since the ordinance coming back will have several changes, there will be a need for another hearing. This issue will have to be bought up at the next Council Meeting. CM Fournier believes the Planning Commission won't have enough time and the moratorium will have to be extended. Chair Swenson advised that the Council will have to do whatever it takes to extend the moratorium. Mr. MacArthur advised the Commission not to close this Public Hearing until they come back again and review this ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 1996, cont'd. Page 10. CM Heidner also thought a new hearing will have to be done and the moratorium will have to be extended. Eugene Goenner questioned if the moratorium was extendible. Andrew MacArthur: A new moratorium would have to be established and technically doesn't need a Public Hearing. Chair Swenson directed staff to prepare a Ordinance with changes. Ken Olson handed out informatioin regarding number of acres needed per AU since this was asked about at the last meeting. He went on to say that he and Lee Raith have been observing the discussions and they have put down some thoughts in relation to making a decision. He suggested to have this distributed prior to the next meeting. He said the issues regarding AU and setbacks - there are several variabls that effect these things with mangement being more of an issue than actual size. Chair Swenson questioned if he should accept this information as there was no public input at this meeting he will review this. Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Seconced by Bruce Rask. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 PM. Bruce Rask, Secretary Recorded by: Judy Hudson jeh