Loading...
11-19-97 PCN W^rm% NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Otsego Mayor and City Council Bob Kirmis / David Licht 10 November 1997 Otsego - Greninger Property Rezoning 176.02 - 97.20 Mr. Michael Emberton, on behalf of Allied Mortgage of Brooklyn Center Inc. has requested the rezoning of approximately 283 acres of land located north and south of County Road 39 between Kahler and Kadler Avenues (south of Island View Estates Subdivision). Specifically, the applicant wishes to rezone the described property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to an R-4, Residential -Urban Single Family. The application of the R-4 District designation is necessary to accommodate sewered lots of + 16,000 square feet in size. The present application differs from previous development proposals for the subject property (or portion thereof) in that prior submissions involved on-site private sewage treatment systems (upon 1 plus acre lots). The present development proposal includes urban sized lots which would be served by a private "package" sewage treatment plant. To accommodate the proposed rezoning, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to: a. Change the land use designation of the land south of County Road 39 from Agricultural to Low Density Residential. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 b. Include the subject property in the Immediate Urban Service Area. 2. Rezoning of the subject property from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to R-4, Residential Urban Single Family. At this point, the applicant is only seeking to determine the City's position regarding the acceptability of the proposed land use upon the subject property. Should the City determine that the proposed land use is appropriate for the area and approve the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, a formal subdivision application would be forthcoming. Considering that many of the same issues highlighted in our office's 19 December 1996 and 21 January 1997 planning report remain pertinent to the development application, this report will provide "condensed" discussion of previously highlighted development issues. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Urban Rural Service Map Exhibit D - Land Use Plan Exhibit E - Comprehensive Plan Policies Recommendation Regardless of whether the subject property is served by individual septic systems or a package treatment plant, it is the opinion of our office, based upon the directions established by the City's current Comprehensive Plan policies and plans, that development of the subject property is untimely and would set an undesirable precedent. Staff has requested that the applicant demonstrate the feasibility of providing a private "package" sewage treatment plant in this area of the City prior to formal City consideration of the rezoning request. Without such demonstration, we consider the development proposal to be highly premature. Matters of land use appropriateness, however, remain matters of City policy to be determined by City officials. Should the City find that the proposed low density residential use of the property is appropriate at this time, we would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning request contingent upon a MPCA approval of the proposed package treatment system. OK ISSUES ANALYSIS Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests, Section 20-3-21 of the Zoning Ordinance directs the City to consider the possible adverse effects of the amendment and/or rezoning. Generally speaking, a decision regarding the amendment and rezoning requests should be based upon, but not be limited to the following: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official Comprehensive Plan. As noted in our office's 19 December 1996 and 21 January 1997 planning reports, the City's land use plan currently suggests agricultural uses south of County Road 39. Thus, an amendment to the plan is necessary to accommodate the proposed use. The Comprehensive Plan includes numerous policies which tend to both encourage and discourage the proposed use (see Exhibit E). 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. As noted in previous planning reports, the introduction of residential uses to a predominately agricultural area raises concern in regard to the use's compatibility with typical characteristics of farm type uses (i.e., animal odors, machinery noise, dust, etc.). 3. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards. While the City has not received an application for subdivision, any development upon the subject site would be required to comply with applicable zoning and subdivision standards. 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Measurable effects of the proposed use cannot be determined until such time as a detailed development plan is submitted. According to Minnesota Rules (Part 4410.4300, Subp. 28.c) projects resulting in the permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural land to a more intensive land use (outside the Metropolitan Council's urban service area) are required to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). 3 S. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area. Based on comparable situations, a depreciation of area property values is not anticipated. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. The traffic generation by the proposed use and related impacts will be dependent on the number of residential dwelling units. As such, the criteria cannot be fully evaluated until such time as a formal development application is received. In this regard, the need for improvements to adjacent streets will be evaluated when a subdivision proposal has been formulated. It should be recognized, however, that the requested R-4 zoning designation accommodates significantly greater residential densities that the previously requested R-3 designation (12,000 square foot lots versus 1 acre lots). Thus, greater traffic volumes would be anticipated. In rough calculation, it is estimated that approximately 580 dwelling units would be proposed as part of a forthcoming request for subdivision (utilizing 16,000 square foot lots). According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, single family detached homes generate an average of 10 vehicle trip ends per day. Thus, the proposed development could be expected to generate + 5,800 vehicle trip ends per day. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. The proposed development will clearly impact the City's service capacity. Future utility service, police/fire protection, snow plowing, etc. all must be considered and evaluated by the City. Of specific issue is the possible "dilution" of the City's sewered housing market and the impacts that the proposed development will have upon the City's ability to finance a public sanitary sewer system in the eastern area of the community. While residential development is acknowledged to exist north of the subject site, the site lies far removed from the City's immediate urban service area (area which could potentially be served by sanitary sewer). It is therefore the opinion of our office that the proposed development is, at this time, premature. Sewage Treatment. According to the applicant, the proposed development would be served by a package treatment plant. Such plant must be subject to review and approval by the MPCA It is the opinion of our office that positive action on the applicant's request should not be taken until such time as assurances are provided that the MPCA will support the proposed package treatment system. Additionally, information should also be provided as to an ability to serve adjacent developments (i.e., Riverwood Conference Center, Island View Estates, etc.) This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer and City Attorney. CONCLUSION Decisions relating to land use appropriateness are considered matters of City policy. In an objective review of the City's amendment criteria, it is the opinion of our office that development of the subject property is, at this time, premature. PC: Elaine Beatty Larry Koshak John Harwood Michael Emberton 5 Q 0 a x c� z 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCA EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCAs G Otsego, Minnesota 1 .5 0 1 SCALE IN MILES MAP GAR SEPTEMBER 1989 X NOR Tl7 YAlVnf'a ►Ow RwTw2F0 TA S— J 671A ST rawws� o•�r uo sNov1G NOT K W!D rIrlw rKCq! .•\\�'C Nt KNAM wt G�sR0. • BASE AIM smnm COUNTY �1•• • -:� SLFtVE YOftS OFFCE 7-21E9 SIFiVE 3 1 X - .; K::::... S— J 671A ST • �•':' >: ,, 35 T--.36� 3 1 32 33 0 34 135 6s11, ST b•' ; •• ,• zS 36 —622nd SZ C.T. Sr `5 62nd ST nom. O Ol 62nd ST .• ! •:^ f""�'1 6OLh ST C CV: 51 41. ecu. S! D Z CEj - 7J D' r' Immediate Urban Service Area cn M =Long Range Urban Service Area `Urban/Rural PREPARED BY: M El Rural Service Area > Service voncept FNc, M rn © = Specific Immediate Urban Service Area Boundary PthW@St ssociated ;�1r 1 1�" Rr r)fiY i in flci. 11 7(l, 1(1 January 1q0/I In I,h r1�tr rrnincri by rnrlinr•erinrl Sti,rly (`nnw1tnnt�;, In( Otsego, m oinnesota Iris : ::•: ..���ti�.. ''i97tb:SF :. 17 4 l h 13 18 < :. 15 Wit and conic bistrict Boun ar Y N ►:.•.. _ •. 1 .5 0 87th St v w #: '• .; 1�� < < '2}:: 24 x;19 0 ::;.`esin;fi;:::::•::::•:. 1:;' .y r ... • ::•:.::-- SCALE IN MILES 22 23 sTMAP CAtV t';t :.`t::: SEPTEMBER 1989 I 80th ST•.. GCm ST :..t .. MOTl: 7M! rU s ICn rLArrf 77th ST ::'.�:•': •'` rvWsef oar �+o LOtao v 77th ST •,`.::Y: .. ror k W" a x'Wc 4 •` •r frL �]lMl Y[Ir111 A+! KOIIl O. w < -yy 2g •.:. s 27 S75th sr 25 < 30 : zxx B" MAP SO�ACE- :''':;': wracr+t Ct_V9rr °' _ '- � : •�.•:::.•:: � - _ -- stRvErorTs C,<vlcE 7.2"9 < < �..•:.•.•:.•.: . 70th sr 70th ST : ' ' 70th sr :.•. — - 671h sr 31 32 3 34 "g a 35 6sth sT v\L RICE o1 36 65th Sl u .,\� l� •^•' < 62nd ST n o t_ 62nd ST < S4 c \� �•-./ lam: 60 Y P 3 N ST ' l - cC•r S c7tr :T ? 3 M x Q --1 0134 ac. • � - /lgricultural � -Highway Commercial ( ) D - Industrial 536 ac. Z Land Use - Low Density Residential ® ( ) o Park/Public Facility PREPARED BY: e ���n. medium/High Density Residential (229 ac.) Q - - M V.111 - Neighborhood Commercial mm un Land uses dependent upon Hwy. FN orthwest 101 upgrade and sewer availibilRy �SSOCiated (—nn,:i,lfnnt- Ince Goals/Policies which Discourage the Use: • Protect and preserve prime agricultural lands and the economic viability of farming operations. • Permit growth on a phased basis providing for a logical extension of urban growth and related community services. • Boundary limits for urban expansion shall be clearly delineated and non -farming type uses shall be prohibited fro encroaching into agricultural areas. • 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. • Land use development shall be related to and reflect transportation needs, desired development and community priorities. • Encourage continued but orderly growth in Otsego. • The spread of small scale, non-farm subdivision in agricultural areas shall be prohibited. Goals/Policies Which Encourage the Use: • Land use allocations are to be balanced with economic market demands and service availability. • All development proposals shall be analyzed on an individual basis from a physical, economic and social standpoint to determine the most appropriate uses with the context of the community as a whole. • Land use development shall be related to and reflect transportation needs, desired development and community priorities. • Once established, geographic land use designations and related zoning clarifications shall be changed only when it can be demonstrated that such modifications are in the best interest of the community on a long range perspective and such changes will promote land use compatibility and predetermined goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. • The housing needs of the entire community shall be addressed and responded to. • To the extent possible, a variety of housing types, styles and choices is to be created and maintained. EXHIBIT E - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Hakanson 3601 Thurston Avenue 103 Pine Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 Monticello, MN 55362 Anderson (612) 427-5860 (612) 295-5800 Assoc., Inc. (612) 427-0520 Fax (612) 295-4488 Fax To: AIAYW-V . Attn: Memorandum Date: /!,/ /yf;p Subject: 6NrC/-Irk /.(/`we -r ,.rY,Crf./VOW Oti/Jari�t c�td uin��e A. Ai�o��•rty File #: 6:;',4rAW.A /4'' Narrative: TyGAt AAd Ji�.v/�i�L�v/ G/•vc�11r/r/•uric f o"07 .�Y�(VIL ,W!//Ew IOadre 'Ovo rr wiXe peAwlfrio.y rsoM AACc ' Fax /f li//cI/.�i►�E �JG�e.Nir >a �,f it c�A�Nc �i/,f,T/.t%�/fi . LILT/ /xTEt / 7;YeJ-c I read r 6�d V Ty 144 /d0"e-rld.d . At ?�,If T/,^VG' XW O4eleOAfd *�F" UT/G.,Tk �G�(//GcI•J I,i eW,4e.t/66". .� Gc�ouc� ��/rG�E GcJslli /19/L �/�11T'�VEn T•i•�r T'�C �/rfT /lJuE /f /Gbr 7--4sd /-d1ryAvrc Oz- Adlfxi,13 /c 2f /7N0 Carr G/t�� /Till 7;+e I.r/cve' /,r /,Owp U,rc . 7X/4:rire Cop.v 1X oVe,� iy/!� /Y/Jl>/Z int aj 72? /, v'V 4�re 49411� o"J G�r�G�r�Es /9�✓.7 aT/iE2 �X TE AJl"iIJC V6r• ,14 J At? //' oe PfXle f dVe:LO10i4feN! Co.0 c e'/> r /f Ndl- // << �/�r� pG �' , 7",fl/-r /f i9 "f/r�rc// P4,#A) " &EU/6t1L) T//c` ,,c< V/7ri c cc: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH 31 October 1997 Mr. Michael Emberton Allied Mortgage of Brooklyn Center 19230 Evans Street Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Otsego - Greninger Property Rezoning FILE NO: 176.02 - 97.20 Dear Mike: Our office is in receipt of your comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning application involving the development of Don Greninger's property. It is our understanding that the request involves the establishment of + 16,000 square foot single family residential lots upon the subject property and that no multi -family or commercial components have been proposed (as previously indicated). It is further our understanding that the development would be served by a private package sewage treatment plant. As was mentioned to you at the 9 October Otsego staff meeting, some concern exists whether the package treatment system which you have proposed will be approved by the MPCA. Obviously, such approval is critical to the success of the development proposal. In considering applications for comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings and subdivisions, City decisions must be based upon an established set of evaluation criteria. In this regard, Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance (rezoning criteria) specifically references an ability to provide public services as a judgement factor. Evaluation of your ability to provide sewer service to the area may be a critical factor in reviewing your request. The City must also determine at a policy level the acceptability or unacceptability of any proposed private system. Without information regarding your proposed plant and plan of operation (whether you propose a private or public facility), it will be difficult for the City to determine whether or not adequate waste disposal can be provided. Additionally, Section 21-4-2.b of the Subdivision Ordinance establishes conditions which establish subdivisions as premature. Included as a listed condition is an inability to provide an adequate waste disposal system. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9637 Mr. Michael Emberton Page Two In consideration of the aforementioned evaluation criteria and the importance of MPCA approval, as well as additional material which will allow the City to determine whether or not the system is acceptable, we feel that City consideration of your request should minimally include a preliminary indication from the MPCA that the project can be accommodated and the submission of general information regarding the proposed treatment system (ability to serve other lands, i.e., Riverwood, Island View Estates, etc.). Obviously, it would be a great waste of time for all involved to proceed through the development process only to receive a negative response from the MPCA. While you certainly have the right to proceed with your application without such MPCA and other documentation, we feel such material is critical to development consideration and the lack thereof may have the result of application denial or lengthy continuance. It is our suggestion that you accompany your comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning application with documented support of the package treatment system by the MPCA. Additionally, any information regarding service limits (capacity, service to other lands) would be desirable. To meet report distribution deadlines, we would appreciate this information by 7 November. If submission of this information is not possible by such date, you may wish to request a continuance of the scheduled 19 November public hearing date. In this regard, contact should be made with Elaine Beatty. If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Robert W. Kirmis, AICP Senior Designer PC: Elaine Beatty Mike Robertson Andy MacArthur John Harwood Otsego Mayor and City Council Gartner Engineering, 11ce P.O. Box 409 21370 John Milless Dr., Suite 223, Rogers, MN 55374-0409 Phone 612-428-7780 Fax 612-428-3044 November 19, 1997 Mr. Michael Emberton Allied American Mortgage of Brooklyn Center, Inc. 6500 Brooklyn Blvd.O � \�/ Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 �J RE: Proposed Development of Greninger Property Otsego, MN Dear Mr. Emberton: As requested, I have contacted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to determine what their position would be concern- ing a proposed development in Otsego, Minnesota. On November 19, 1997, 1 spoke with Mr. Dave Sahli of the MPCA, who indicated that the MPCA would be willing to review a plan subject to the Envi- ronmental Review Process, which the MPCA requires for any project with wastewater impacts. During my discussion with Mr. Sahli, I indicated that a letter was sent by Ms. Carol Sinden on January 11, 1996, outlining effluent limitations for various discharge points on a joint project proposed for this property by the Riverwood Conference Center and Mr. Neal Perlich. Mr. Sahli indicated that, typically, if the MPCA provides limits for a given area, they would be willing to review the project during its normal review process. Mr. Sahli indicated that the first step in proceeding would be to send a letter to Ms. Sinden which outlines the scope of your development, including the potential number of units, the volume of discharge that is anticipated from the wastewater facility, and the proposed discharge point. This would provide a basis to start the planning process for the development's wastewater treatment system. At no time during my discussion with Mr. Sahli did he indicate that the MPCA would refuse to review a properly submitted appli- cation. I therefore feel that your current course of obtaining the necessary rezonings and comprehensive plan use amendments for the property is a good place to start the project. For if the City of Otsego is not agreeable to the land use change, then there is no use proceeding with the development process or the MPCA process which could be done concurrently with each other. CIVIL ENGINEERING - MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING - LAND DEVELOPMENT If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, GARTNER ENGINEERING, LLC Norman Gartner Professional Engineer cc: File 9726.1 Ms. Elaine Beatty, City of Otsego NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / David Licht DATE: 10 November 1997 RE: Otsego - Riverbend Residential Park: Conditional Use Permit FILE NO: 176.02 - 97.21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Darkenwald's Riverbend Company has requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow the reconstruction of a pole building associated with the sewage treatment plant of the Riverbend Residential Park. The Riverbend Residential Park is located south of County Road 42 and east of Highway 101. Specifically, the applicants wish to replace a 120 foot by 14 foot pole structure which was used to house the park's treatment plant. The structure was destroyed as a result of the 1 July 1997 storm. According to the Zoning Ordinance, pole buildings are not allowed within the City except in association with farming operations or in highly unique or special cases by conditional use permit. The Riverbend Residential Park is zoned R-3, Residential -Immediate Urban Service. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Site Photographs Exhibit E - 29 October 1997 Purestream Letter 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 Recommendation It is the opinion of our office that a decision regarding the acceptability of the proposed pole building construction is a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Should the City determine that the request is in fact a highly unique or special case and find the building type to be acceptable, we would recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The pole building be of earth tone color to ensure compatibility. 2. The structure's height not exceed that of the previously existing building. 3. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Legal Non -Conformity. The Riverbend Residential Park was established in 1972 and was subject to applicable Wright County zoning and building material requirements which were in place at that time. While the pole type building in question was previously allowed under Wright County ordinances, such building type is not allowed by the City ordinances, except in association with agricultural activities or in highly unique or special cases by conditional use permit. According to Section 20-15-3.J of the Ordinance, any time a non -conforming building or structure is destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its fair market value (as determined by the City), the structure from and after the date of destruction must comply with applicable ordinance requirements. In this regard, the treatment plant's legal grandfather rights (regarding building materials) were terminated upon the building's destruction. To accommodate the proposed "pole building" reconstruction, the processing of a conditional use permit is necessary. Structure Purpose. Based upon available information, the 120 foot by 14 foot structure in question is basically a covering of the Riverbend Residential Park's sewage treatment facility. Due to innate humidity and aeration features of the plant, the plant manufacturer has indicated that a pole type structure, without obstruction to the perimeter of the in - ground tank, is the most appropriate building type to house the treatment facility (as it presently exists). Attached as Exhibit E is a letter from the plant manufacturer which addresses this issue further. 2 CUP Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of conditional use permit requests, Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the possible adverse impacts of the proposed conditional use. Their judgement must be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not include any specific policies which relate to building material requirements of privately owned utility structures. The plan does, however, clearly encourage high quality residential, commercial and industrial buildings which contribute to the City's tax base. While the treatment plant is not a public structure per se, it does have physical characteristics of a public utility structure. As in the case of residential, commercial and industrial uses, the Comprehensive Plan encourages high quality standards and design to be applied to public facilities. Compatibility. As a condition of CUP approval, a finding should be made that the structure in question is compatible with existing and anticipated land uses in the area. Considering the structure's isolation of the residential park's dwelling units, adjacency to the "treatment pond", mature vegetation in the area (which screens the structure), and the structure's relatively low profile (i.e., eight feet in height), the proposed pole building is considered compatible with surrounding uses. To ensure compatibility, it is recommended that the structure height not exceed that of the structure which previously existed (± 8 feet) and that the building be finished in an "earth tone" color. �3 Property Values. Replacement of the previously existing structure should result in little or no change in property values. Obviously, a higher quality building (i.e., concrete block or precast concrete) would be of higher cost than pole building construction and may escalate the value of the site in question. While no detailed study has been conducted, a higher quality replacement structure would not be expected to significantly affect area property values. Public Service Capacity. Service capacities of the sewage treatment facility will not change as a result of the possible pole building reconstruction. Setbacks. The treatment facility lies ± 75 feet from the County Road 42 right-of-way and complies with the minimum 65 foot setback requirements. Precedent. As noted previously, the Ordinance allows non-agricultural pole buildings only in highly unique or special cases by conditional use permit. In this regard, a finding must be made that the applicants' request is in fact unique and will not establish a undesired precedent which may be universally applied throughout the City. It is the opinion of our office that findings can be both for and against the uniqueness of the request. Findings which would establish the structure as unique may include the following - 1 . ollowing: 1. A sewage treatment facility is a unique use not intended for human occupancy. 2. The plant may be considered interim in nature which may be subject to future expansion and/or ultimate City takeover. Thus, significant financial investment in the building may not be practical. 3. The plant manufacturer has indicated that due to the plant's aeration process, a building without a poured foundation (along the perimeter of the underground tank) is desirable from a plant operation standpoint. In contrast, an argument could be made that the proposed structure is not unique. This opinion could be based upon the following findings: 1. The treatment plant is a permanent structure with value. The allowance of building type flexibility would grant a privilege to the applicants which is not granted to other properties in the City. 2. The purpose of the City's non -conforming use provision is to achieve ultimate compliance with the City's current development standards. Because the reconstruction of the entire building (as opposed to incidental repair) is necessary, the City should uphold its building type requirements. El CONCLUSION A decision regarding the acceptability of the proposed building type is considered a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Should the City find the proposed building type to be appropriate, we would recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Mike Robertson Elaine Beatty Jerry Olson Andy MacArthur John Harwood Darkenwalds Riverbend Company I.1 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION 49oe4 s, Gas ►�ar�- B-1 W K/OOG� i / 1 Holding Pond \ r �s \ / S / d Treatment Plant fC, / \ / W X94 EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION 1p \ °\r llp ° ° r �\ \o ref \ •�Cs / 1 .. � C � a s \ e,; or ° Cp. C: lb 0 CP el Ile a i a 0 ' I \ EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN Yettk ff ow W96 JAM 1.1fl. T?ji -it A fit' 1� 1-41191MIN f, VS "t 7 Ta: George W. Yankoupe, P.E. From., Michael o. Vesio Fax (e0e)371-3577 Date/Tirne: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 Subject: Replacement of Package Plant Housing Pages: 1, InGuding this Dear George, I am sorry for the delay in getting you the information you requested with regards to the type of housings that are suitable for our treatment plants in your particular climate. We at Purestream, Inc. feel that in order for the treatment plant and housing to work for many years the type of housing becomes an integral part of the system. Due to the high amount of moisture generated from the aeration process used in our particular type of extended aeration treatment plant it is best to use a treated lumber style of pole bam without a poured foundation. This application literally places no obstruction along the perimeter of the in -ground tank. Do not use a metal building nor place a foundation around the plant. Additionally, the estimate you received for the structure seems to be in-line. The flowmeter that you ordered should be on its way any day now and we will see to it that it is delivered to you ASAP. Finally, you must get the treatment plant inclosed before the cold weather sets in, otherwise, there is a strong possibility that the treatment that you are currently receiving will drop. For that reason we do not consider the housing to be merely a separate building, it is as much a part of the equipment as the plant itself. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Michael G. Vesio Sales Manager tO"d EXHIBIT E - 10/29/97 PURESTREAM LETTER CITY of OTSEGO Council Approved 8/28/95 PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Amended: July 1995 ORGANIZATION: 1. The Planning Commission officers shall be: Chair Vice Chair Secretary 2. Duties of the officers: A. Chair: The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Chair shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide all questions of order. The Chair shall appoint any necessary committees and shall appoint any committees requested by a majority of the members. The Chair may call special or emergency meetings, providing notice pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. 471.705, Subd. lc. B. Vice Chair: The Vice Chair shall preside at all meetings in the absence of the Chair and perform such duties as requested by the Chair. C. Secretary: The Secretary shall be responsible for insuring that detailed minutes of all Commission meetings shall be taken by the staff secretary and distributed to the members at least a week before the next commission meeting. The Secretary shall also maintain records of site inspection attendance and attendance of Commission members at meetings and shall submit these records to the staff upon a regular basis. WORK RULES: Page 2 There shall be two regularly scheduled meetings the first and third Wednesday of each month, unless an alternative is scheduled due to an unforeseen conflict. Notice of the change must be given in writing to members at least four days prior to the meeting date. 2. At the first meeting in January, the Commission shall elect from it's membership a Chair, a Vice Chair, and a Secretary. 3. The membership of the Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by the City Council, one alternate member appointed by the City Council, and a non-voting Council representative appointed by the Mayor. 4. The alternate member shall sit at the planning commission table during any scheduled meeting and participate in all sessions, but the alternate shall only vote if a member of the commission is absent. 5. A quorum shall consist of four members. 6. A member may be excused from an individual meeting for reasons of illness, work or out of town trips. Notice of the members absence must be communicated to the staff before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting. 7. The order of business shall be as listed in the meeting agenda to be prepared by the Zoning Administrator before each meeting. 8. All Commission recommendations shall be sent to the City Council in written meeting minutes and shall include a record of the division of votes on each recommendation. 9. All meetings shall be open to the public. 10. Any site inspection involving 4 members or more as a group, shall be noticed as a special Planning Commission meeting. 11. Any resolution or motion, except the motion to adjourn, postpone, reconsider, table, or force the previous question shall be written and included in the meeting minutes. 12. Any resolution or motion may be withdrawn at any time before action is taken on it. Page 3 13. When a question is under debate, no other motion shall be entertained except to table or call for the question, act on the question, postpone, refer to committee, or amend. Motions shall take precedence in that order and the first two shall be without debate. 14. All motions shall be carried by a majority vote of the members and Chair present, except call for the "question". Any members or the Chair may call for a roll call vote on any issue. 15. Motions shall be made only by persons recognized by the Chair. 16. Call for the question is not a motion, but an indication to the Chair that the person making this statement is ready to have the motion or question acted upon without further discussion. 17. Any Commission member having a financial interest, or a family member with a financial interest in any individual action to be considered 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. 18. In the event that a member is contacted prior to a Commission Meeting by a citizen with a concern regarding a pending issue, the member must: a. refrain from discussing any pending Planning Commission business with any individual outside of a Planning Commission meeting. This includes indicating his/her stand on the pending issue. b. refrain from speculating on other Commission member's stand on the pending issue. 19. Any Commission member who conducts himself/herself in a manner conflicting with the above By -Laws, provides grounds for removal by the City Council. Page 4 20. These rules shall not be repealed or amended except by a five member vote of the Commission and after notice has been given at a previous meeting. Changes in these By -Laws will become active upon approval by the City Council. 21. Any rule not covered by these Work Rules shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. 97-13 I ORDINANCE CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA CODE OF ETHICS Section 1. Policy and Purpose. It is imperative that all persons acting in the public service not only maintain the highest possible standards d ethical conduct o theire public asction of well as public business, and that such standards be clearly to the persons acting in public service. The proper operation of a democratic government requires that public officials be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people. Governmental decisions and policies must be made in the proper channels of the governmental structure. Public office may not be used for personal gain. Citizens must have confidence in the integrity of their government officials. Employees and contracted staff of the City must also be held to the highest ethical standards, but the standards established for them should be contained within the City's employee manual and/or individual contracts. In recognition of these goals, there is hereby established a Code of Ethics for the City's elected and appointed public officials. The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for such persons by prohibiting acts which are incompatible with the City's best interests, and to demonstrate to the public the City's commitment to hold said public officials to the highest possible standard of conduct. The provisions and purpose of this Code are declared to be in the best interests of the City of Otsego. Section 2. Responsibilities of Public Office. Public officials hold office on behalf of the public. They are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. Public officials must carry out impartially the laws of the nation, state, and City in fostering respect for all government. They are bound in their official acts to the highest standards of morality, and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office. Public officials shall be dedicated to fulfilling the responsibilities of their office. They shall be dedicated to the public purpose and all programs developed by them shall be in the community interest. Public officials shall not exceed their authority or breach the law or ask others to do so. They shall work in full cooperation with other public officials and employees unless prohibited from doing so by law. 11 Section 3. Scope of Persons Covered. Subdivision 1. The provisions of this Code of Ethics are applicable to the Mayor, all members of the City Council, and all appointed City Officials. It shall not include City employees who are not otherwise appointed officials, contracted City staff, nor citizen volunteers. Subdivision 2. The Disclosure provisions of Section 5 are applicable only to elected public officials, and members of the following Boards and Commissions: Planning and Zoning Commission, Economic Development Authority Advisory Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission, and Park and Recreation Commission. Section 4. Conflict of Interest. Subdivision 1. No person covered by this Code shall knowingly engage in any conflict of interest, or knowingly engage in any business or transaction, or shall have a direct or indirect financial or other personal interest which is incompatible with the proper discharge of the person's official duties or would tend to impair the person's independent judgment or action in the performance of his official duties. In determining whether or not a conflict of interest exists, factors to be considered include, the nature of the matter before the City, the affect or potential affect of the actions taken by the public officials, and the need for action on the matter in question. While a conflict of interest could conceivably exist in many instances, a conflict only falls within the scope of this policy when it arises to the level of a disqualifying conflict of interest. A disqualifying conflict of interest is a conflict which rises to such a level that a reasonable person viewing the matter in an objective fashion would conclude that the apparent or real conflict would not allow the involved official to make an unbiased decision in the matter. In the case of a proposal of general application throughout the City, the issue as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists is not as closely scrutinized as when a conflict of interest exists regarding an application for action regarding a defined specific parcel of property, or in a case where the action affects a particular individual or a narrowly defined class of individuals rather than the public in general. In the case of a specific application, a disqualifying conflict of interest exists when their is a reasonable perception (whether it actually exists or not) of a conflict of interest. In the case of an ordinance or decision of general application, the standard shall be an actual conflict of interest, since it is in the nature of the system of City government that various conflicting views and interests be represented in any vote on an ordinance or Pa policy of general application. Conflict of interest shall include both personal and financial conflicts. A "personal interest is an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships, or from close business or political association. A "financial interest" means any monetary interest in a contract before the City, or a direct financial interest in the matter through the ownership of stocks, bonds, notes, or other securities. Subdivision 2. If a public official determines that they have a disqualifying conflict of interest, they shall bring it to the attention of the Council, Board, or Commission at the time that consideration of the matter is before that body. The public official shall then recuse themselves from any further discussion or action regarding that matter. If they so choose, they may leave the table and be seated in the audience, where they have the same rights as any other citizen. In the event that the chair, or any other member of the Council, Board, or Commission, reasonably believes that another member has a disqualifying conflict of interest, they may raise the matter with the member who has a perceived conflict of interest. In the event that the member does not believe that a conflict exists, and will not voluntarily recuse themselves, the matter may be called to a vote of the affected body. Notwithstanding that vote, it will still be up to the affected member to voluntarily recuse themselves or not recuse themselves. With the understanding that a failure to recuse may have legal implications in a matter where the vote directly affects the rights of an individual in a matter before the City Council, in such a case, the Council may request that the City Attorney render an opinion as to whether or not the conflict of interest alleged exists, and whether or not it is a disqualifying conflict of interest. Subdivision I A conflict of interest shall include, but shall not be necessarily limited to the following: A. Holding a private or other public position in addition to the person's primary public position which interferes with the proper discharge of public duty. B. Use of confidential information, obtained as a result of public position, for personal gain. C. Soliciting of personal gifts and favors. D. Use of official position for personal gain. 3 E. Holding investments which will interfere with the proper discharge of public duty. F. Representation for profit of private interests before City governmental agencies. G. Participation as a public representative in a business transaction in which the person has a direct or indirect financial or other personal interest, without full disclosure. H. Personal interest in any matter which prevents the person from properly fulfilling their public duty. Subdivision 4. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, no person subject to this chapter shall directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift of substance whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form, under circumstance in which it could reasonably be expected to influence him or her in the performance of his or her official duties or was intended as a reward for any official action on his or her part. Section 5. Disclosure. Any Council member, Board member, or Commission member, prior to consideration of any matter affected by this section, shall disclose to the body on which he serves any fact or circumstance constituting a conflict of interest as set forth in this Ordinance. If the matter is of such a nature that the member does not wish to specifically state the facts or circumstances of the conflict, they may state simply that they have a conflict. In the event that the conflict of interest is a disqualifying conflict of interest, the member shall recuse themselves from any discussion or action regarding the issue in front of the body. All Council members, board members, or commission members are encouraged to recuse themselves in any situation where facts and circumstances would lead an objective observer to the reasonable conclusion that a conflict of interest may exist. Section 6. City Council Enforcement. Failure of any Commission or Board member to properly recuse themselves in a conflict of interest situation, may result in City Council initiated removal from the public body. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE OTSEGO CITY COUNCIL this 13TH day of october, 1997. IN FAVOR: Mayor Larry Fournier, Council Members Vern Heidner, Suzanne Ackerman, Virginia Wendel and Mark Berning OPPOSED: No One lain Beatty, City Clerk CITY OF OTSEGO 4arryFourni or 5 CITY of OTSEGO Council Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS Amended: November 19,1997 ORGANIZATION: 1. The Planning Commission officers shall be: Chair Vice Chair Secretary 2. Duties of the officers: A. Chair: The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Chair shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide all questions of order. The Chair shall appoint any necessary committees and shall appoint any committees requested by a majority of the members. The Chair may call special or emergency meetings, providing notice pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. 471.705, Subd. lc. B. Vice Chair: The Vice Chair shall preside at all meetings in the absence of the Chair and perform such duties as requested by the Chair. C. Secretary: The Secretary shall be responsible for insuring that detailed minutes of all Commission meetings shall be taken by the staff secretary and distributed to the members at least a week before the next commission meeting. The Secretary shall also maintain records of site inspection attendance and attendance of Commission members at meetings and shall submit these records to the staff upon a regular basis. WORK RULES: Page 2 There shall be two regularly scheduled meetings the first and third Wednesday of each month, unless an alternative is scheduled due to an unforeseen conflict. Notice of the change must be given in writing to members at least four days prior to the meeting date. 2. At the first meeting in February, the Commission shall elect from it's membership a Chair, a Vice Chair, and a Secretary. The membership of the Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by the City Council, one alternate member appointed by the City Council, and a non-voting Council representative appointed by the Mayor. 4. The alternate member shall sit at the planning commission table during any scheduled meeting and participate in all sessions, but the alternate shall only vote if a member of the commission is absent. 5. A quorum shall consist of four members. 6. A member may be excused from an individual meeting for reasons of illness, work or out of town trips. Notice of the members absence must be communicated to the staff before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting. 7. The order of business shall be as listed in the meeting agenda to be prepared by the Zoning Administrator before each meeting. All Commission recommendations shall be sent to the City Council in written meeting minutes and shall include a record of the division of votes on each recommendation. 9. All meetings shall be open to the public. 10. Any site inspection involving 4 members or more as a group, shall be noticed as a special Planning Commission meeting. 11. Any resolution or motion, except the motion to adjourn, postpone, reconsider, table, or force the previous question shall be written and included in the meeting minutes. 12. Any resolution or motion may be withdrawn at any time before action is taken on it. Page 3 13. When a question is under debate, no other motion shall be entertained except to table or call for the question, act on the question, postpone, refer to committee, or amend. Motions shall take precedence in that order and the first two shall be without debate. 14. All motions shall be carried by a majority vote of the members and Chair present, except call for the "question". Any members or the Chair may call for a roll call vote on any issue. 15. Motions shall be made only by persons recognized by the Chair. 16. Call for the question is not a motion, but an indication to the Chair that the person making this statement is ready to have the motion or question acted upon without further discussion. 17. These rules shall not be repealed or amended except by a five member vote of the Commission and after notice has been given at a previous meeting. Changes in these By -Laws will become active upon approval by the City Council. 18. Any rule not covered by these Work Rules shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. 19. Ordinance # 97-13, CODE OF ETHICS, as amended. co/pcbylaws.wps CITY of OTSEGO Council Approved PLANNING COMMISSION December 8, 1997 BYLAWS Amended: December 3, 1997 ORGANIZATION: 1. The Planning Commission officers shall be: Chair Vice Chair Secretary 2. Duties of the officers: A. Chair: The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The Chair shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide all questions of order. The Chair shall appoint any necessary committees and shall appoint any committees requested by a majority of the members. The Chair may call special or emergency meetings, providing notice pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. 471.705, Subd. lc. B. Vice Chair: The Vice Chair shall preside at all meetings in the absence of the Chair and perform such duties as requested by the Chair. C. Secretary: The Secretary shall be responsible for insuring that detailed minutes of all Commission meetings shall be taken by the staff secretary and distributed to the members at least a week before the next commission meeting. The Secretary shall also maintain records of site inspection attendance and attendance of Commission members at meetings and shall submit these records to the staff upon a regular basis. WORK RULES: Page 2 1. There shall be two regularly scheduled meetings the first and third Wednesday of each month, unless an alternative is scheduled due to an unforeseen conflict. Notice of the change must be given in writing to members at least four days prior to the meeting date. 2. At the first meeting in February, the Commission shall elect from it's membership a Chair, a Vice Chair, and a Secretary. 3. The membership of the Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by the City Council, one alternate member appointed by the City Council, and a non-voting Council representative appointed by the Mayor. 4. The alternate member shall sit at the planning commission table during any scheduled meeting and participate in all sessions, but the alternate shall only vote if a member of the commission is absent. 5. A quorum shall consist of four members. 6. A member may be excused from an individual meeting for reasons of illness, work or out of town trips. Notice of the members absence should be communicated to the staff on the date of the meeting. 7. The order of business shall be as listed in the meeting agenda to be prepared by the Zoning Administrator before each meeting. 8. All Commission recommendations shall be sent to the City Council in written meeting minutes and shall include a record of the division of votes on each recommendation. 9. All meetings shall be open to the public. 10. Any site inspection involving 4 members or more as a group, shall be noticed as a special Planning Commission meeting. 11. Any resolution or motion, except the motion to adjourn, postpone, reconsider, table, or force the previous question shall be written and included in the meeting minutes. 12. Any resolution or motion may be withdrawn at any time before action is taken on it. Page 3 13. When a question is under debate, no other motion shall be entertained except to table or call for the question, act on the question, postpone, refer to committee, or amend. Motions shall take precedence in that order and the first two shall be without debate. 14. All motions shall be carried by a majority vote of the members and Chair present, except call for the "question". Any members or the Chair may call for a roll call vote on any issue. 15. Motions shall be made only by persons recognized by the Chair. 16. Call for the question is not a motion, but an indication to the Chair that the person making this statement is ready to have the motion or question acted upon without further discussion. 17. These rules shall not be repealed or amended except by a five member vote of the Commission and after notice has been given at a previous meeting. Changes in these By -Laws will become active upon approval by the City Council. 18. Ordinance # 97-13, CODE OF ETHICS, as amended. 19. Any rule not covered by these Work Rules shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. co/pcbylaws.wps