Loading...
04-24-96 WSCITY OF OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP APRIL 24, 1996 7:30 PM 1. Chair will call to order Chair Carl Swenson opened the Workshop Meeting at 7:35 PM. Chair Swenson reminded the Planning Commission Members about the Open Meeting Law and to avoid appearance of impropriety, urged everyone to leave after the meeting. This Workshop Meeting will involve no participation by the public. Chair Swenson introduced Lee Raeth, Wright County Extension Agent and Ken Olson, Sherburne County Extension Agent who were in attendance and are to be used as resources. Roll Call: Ing Ro3kaft, Richard Nichols, Arleen Nagel, Carl Swenson, Eugene Goenner, b}uee C%K Jim Kolles, Lee Raeth, Wright County Extension Agent, Ken Olson Sherburne County Extension Agent, Larry Fournier, City Councilmember. Staff: Bob Kirmis, Assistant Planner; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator; Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk. Councilmembers attending: Vern Heidner and Suzanne Ackerman Chair Swenson explained the responsibility for the Planning Commission is to bring this issue into focus and come up with a recommendation for the City Council. He requested the Commission to start with the following two issues: 1. Maximum Number of Animal Units 2. Setbacks There was discussion as to what is currently in the City for number of AU (Animal Units). Mr. Goenner said that to his knowledge the largest in the City has 550 AU on one location with liquid manure storage. Another one has 249 AU. These consist of dairy, livestock and swine. He thought one has a PCA Permit and the other one is in the process. There are a number of other ones in the City close to the 300 AU according to Mr. Goenner. Richard Nichols stated that there are localities that have not set an AU Number but control in other ways, by setbacks and CUP. Ing Roskaft suggested to go with the Wright County Ordinance as Otsego's Ordinance, stating he wants equalization in the County and not just in Otsego. Mr. Nichols said he feels the problem with the Wright County Ordinance is that they don't have one. It just states that a CUP is required for over 300 AU and feels it would be less of a Ordinance than what the City has now. Planning Commission Workshop of April 24, 1996, cont'd. Page 2. CM Fournier suggested the following: There are three (3) land use areas in the City and to address each one. 1. Immediate Service Area: No expansion 2. Long Range Service Area: Allow some expansion 3. Rural Service Area: Take the approach to use what is proposed with a few definitions being addressed. Bruce Rask endorsed using the three (3) different zones but suggested: 1. Immediate Service Area: Current farming operations in this area should be allowed to expand to 300 AU without a CUP and after that must apply for a CUP. But he also noted farms in this area have the option to sell for devtlopment. 2. Long Range Service Area: Must abide by zoning which will be in place until 2010 and therefor let this area expand by 60% by what they have right now for the next ten years. 3. Rural Service Area: Comp Plan says to preserve and enhance farming until 2020, and he feels 1500 AU isn't unreasonable, allowing up to 120% expansion. He also stated that traditional farming should be promoted but a feedlot operating 24 hours a day is no longer traditional and should be rezoned to Industrial for over 1500 AU. Mr. Goenner agreed but saw a problem in using percentages and would like to see flat numbers. Mr. Nichols was concerning with using the current zoning since the City has no idea of impact if sewer and water comes in, also annexations. There is pressure to move the Immediate Service Area Line. Elaine Beatty asked the Commission to keep in mind that the Immediate Service Area Line was set with the idea the City was going to receive service from Elk River. That has changed and the City is looking in a different location. Mr. Kirmis stated where the line is now is not important. It is what degree and density would be allowed in the three (3) districts. He has a concern allowing any significant amount in the Immediate Service Area. This is the area the City wants the homes and the City is giving them the right to do this. Mr. Ken Olson advised the Commission there is danger in using percentages and encouraged using numbers. Planning Commission Workshop of April 24, 1996, cont'd. Page 3. Addressing Bruce Rask's suggestion for the Immediate Service Area: Richard Nichols: Set some reasonable limits Bruce Rask: Set a limit for the top. Allow to expand until Sewer and Water Eugene Goenner: Need to allow to expand to some point in this area Jim Kolles: Supports Bruce Rask suggestion. Arleen Nagel: Supports Bruce Rask suggestion. Ing Roskaft: Supports Bruce Rask suggestion. Chair Swenson asked Commission to set the number. Richard Nichols: Wants more discussion on other issues first. Eugene Goenner: 300 AU as Max. for either new or expansion. Bruce Risk: No new feedlots and just for existing. All Planning Commission Members agreed. Long Range Service Area. Eugene Goenner: This is the buffer zone and there aren't that many in this area now. Eugene Goenner: Doesn't want to set a top number. Ing Roskaft: Agreed with Mr. Goenner Richard Nichols: Wants a Maximum Number set. Jim Kolles: Not comfortable setting a number at this point. Arleen Nagel: Would like more input. Chair Swenson: Feels there should be a maximum number. Bruce Rask: Need a upper limit for the City to review, a maximum number for a family farm and beyond that would be industrial. Arleen Nagel: Asked about breaking down so many AU per acre. Chair Swenson noted there was not consensus of agreement if there should be a maximum number, therefore it would be hard to set setbacks without this. Bob Kirmis suggested relating to a CUP Process. If a large scale application comes in, it requires a CUP. Through a CUP, provision to make various findings will help to make a determination. He said there are two issues: 1. Maximum number of AU 2. Maximum number of AU that prompts a CUP Arleen Nagel asked now many acres is needed to spread manure on and maybe use this to determined a number. Lee Raeth said the rough figure is one acre per AU. Planning Commission Workshop of April 24, 1996, cont'd. Page 4. Richard Nichols suggested the following: Number of Animals Unks Immediate Service Area: 300 AU Long Range Service Area: 500 AU Rural Service Area: 750 AU The Planning Commission agreed to use these number for discussion purposes. Immediate Service Area (For existing only) Chair Swenson: 300 AU with no setbacks. Eugene Goenner: Did not agree, currently have a 200 ft. setback, need a setback to maintairisome type of distance. Ing Roskaft: Agreed with 200 ft. Eugene Goenner asked if a farmer wants to relocate his feedlot to different part of farm (same Family) would this be considered existing or new? After discussion and reading the MPCA definition of a feedlot it was decided that it would be considered new. Mr. Kirmis suggested to use a common acceptable definition that most farmers abide by. Mr. Goenner said like the definition that is in the Ordinance, #9, Page 3. Richard Nichols: Suggested 500 ft. Eugene Goenner: 500 ft. is too restrictive It was decided to leave at 200 feet for the Immediate Service Area. Long Range Service Area (This zone allows new feedlots) Eugene Goenner: Suggested 350 feet (designed as a buffer zoned) Eugene Goenner displayed his map he had prepared. He used the 1,000 ft setback as proposed in the proposed ordinance, indicating where in the City a feedlot could go using the 1,000 ft. setback. Eugene Goenner would like to see setbacks for existing feedlots. Mr. Kirmis read on Page 144. Eugene Goenner: Proposed 300 ft for new feedlots. Proposed 350 ft for existing feedlots. Eugene Goenner withdrew his proposed Richard Nichols read the Mower County Ordinance, may not expand closer than 500 ft. Planning Commission Workshop of April 24, 1996, cont'd. Page 5. Bruce Rask said the mission is to preserve and protect in the rural. Immediate Service Area should have setback from the farm and not residences. There are a lot of homes in the rural area that are not zoned R 1. He wants setbacks in place for the one per forty. Should be as far as away from the farms as possible and he would want them rezoned. This would be setback for future development. Chair Swenson said there are two (2) issues: Setback for feedlots Setback should also be from new residences. Richard Nichols: Proposed 500 ft. for existing. Eugene Goenner: Disagreed, stating it is too restrictive. Arleen Nagel: 500 ft, where there are homes right across the street. State the 500 ft. unless there is existing but then must expand away from residences. Mr. Kirmis suggested to allow the expansion but not increase the degree of nonconformity, like add to the rear of the building and not towards the residence. The Planning Commission agreed with this. Bruce Rask asked about residences adding on. Eugene Goenner: The same should apply for houses. He also agreed with the restriction for new construction from feedlots with the same setback at 500 ft, but need 1,000 ft. exception for cluster of homes. The Planning Commission agreed with this. Eugene Goenner asked about setback for non -conformity. Everyone agreed it was 500 ft. Distance from new feedlots Eugene Goenner: Wetlands - All pollution issues are under the guidance and control of MPCA and they would decide. MPCA states 1,000 ft, and they cover the wells, slopes, manure handling etc. For simplicity, he recommends having Otsego's Ordinance mirror MPGA. He requested the addition to 20-38-7.B.1. at the end of sentence. unless permitted by MPCA. Planning Commission Workshop of April 24, 1996, cont'd. Page 6. Mr. Kirmis said it is his understanding that the MPCA will allow feedlots up to 300 ft. from a lake provided there is no negative impact on the water body. Richard Nichols: agreed but with the provision that MPCA makes a site visit Bruce Rask: agreed Chair Swenson: Did not agree Eugene Goenner: Agrees if the MPCA are willing to come out. Flood Plains: All Planning Commission members agreed to leave as written. Wells: Eugene Goenner: Suggested to go by setbacks All Planning Commission members agreed to be consistent with setbacks. Public Wells: The Sherburne County Extension Agent discussed the definition of Public Wells. Chair Swenson directed for this definition to be checked into. Steell Slopes Eugene Goenner: Suggested to delete the word within three hundred (300) feet. He doesn't want to see a feedlot located on a steep slope. Richard Nichols: Suggested adding: located at top of steep slope and leave the rest of language as is. Bob Kirmis asked what if it is contiguous, 300 ft. from the top - that included, could continue for a long ways. Suggested using when leveling out to 12% or less, that is where setback is derived. Ing Roskaft: suggested using bluff line Chair Swenson suggested to take this up at the next meeting. 3_ Any other Business - Elaine isin ss_Elaine Beatty asked the Planning Commission Members to let her know if they will be attending the Urban -Rural Clash Planning Seminar on May 9. Planning Commission Workshop of April 24, 1996, cont'd. Page 7. 4. Adjourn Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Bruce Rask seconded. Voting for the Motion: Arleen Nagel, Jim Kolles, Richard Nichols, Ing Roskaft, Bruce Rask and Carl Swenson. Voting Against the Motion: Eugene Goenner Discussion: Mr. Goenner objected to the adjournment motion for the reason he wanted to continue on with reviewing the proposed Feedlot Ordinance. Motion Carried six (6) to one (1). Meeting adjourned at 10:35 PM. Bruce Rask, Secretary Recorded by: Judy Hudson jeh