Minutes of the Monday, March 11, 2013

MINUTES OF THE MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2013

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – 7:00 PM

The Kandiyohi County Planning Commission met on Monday, March 11, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the Commissioners Room at the Kandiyohi County Health & Human Services Building located at 2200 23rd St NE, Willmar MN. Members present were Harlan Madsen, John Dean, Doug Hanson, JohnHauge, and Ron Peterson. Also present was Zoning Administrator, Gary Geer, & Assistant Zoning Administrator Eric Van Dyken.

Chair Dean opened the meeting at 7:00 PM.

Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed.

A hearing was held on the application of Benjamin Godbee, Part NE ¼ of SE ¼, Section 1, Township 120, Range 36, Mamre Township11088 60th St NW Applicant requests an automobile sales, repair, and servicing business in an A-1 Agricultural Preservation District. Utilizing existing shed on property for office and repair shop, owner operated, hours 9AM – 4PM Monday – Friday with a maximum of ten (10) vehicles. Ben Godbeewas present and explainedhis proposal. He also states that he had visited with several of his neighbors, and they all indicated to him that they supported his proposal. Doug Hanson stated that he had viewed the property and felt that there is a nice existing shop to work in, and that the applicant intends to sell the vehicles on the internet. Ron Peterson asked it the request was for all year around? Geer replied yes the conditional use permit is valid all year. Harlan Madsen stated that the area available for the use is very adequate, and then asked the applicant if the maximum number of vehicles he can sell per year without a MN dealer license is two? Godbeeresponded yes. Madsen clarified that the purpose of the CUP is that it will enable the applicant to obtain the MN dealer license. Madsen also noted that with the CUP there is no change in zoning classification, and no effect on taxes. Geer read his staff report, and recommends approval with the draft conditions and findings. Peterson asked how a sign would be handled if the applicant wanted one in the future? Geer stated that the zoning ordinance has sign standards and the applicant would be able to obtain a land use permit by coming in to the office. Motion by Madsen to approve the request with the following conditions and findings as presented by staff,second by Hanson:

Conditions

No more than ten (10) motor vehicles, including salvage vehicles, at a time may be on the lot outside of an enclosed building regardless of whether or not they are being held for sale.
Parking of motor vehicles in the road right of way that are being held for sale or repair is prohibited.
No outside storage of unlicensed automobiles or automobile parts.
Motor vehicle repair and sales activities shall be confined to the defined area identified on the site plan.
Items for sale shall only be motor vehicles.

Findings

2.The Planning Commission finds that the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. The Commission notes that the surrounding area is predominantly agricultural land.

3.The Planning Commission finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, off-street parking, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The Commission notes that the site will not require facilities or infrastructure above normal levels for the area.

4.The Planning Commission finds that adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibrations, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs, and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The Commission notes that the lights, noise, dust, odors, fumes, and vibrations associated with the proposed business use will be minimal or non-existent.

5.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in the A-1 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, Section 5-4 entitled “conditional uses”.

6.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is in harmony with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission notes that the Comprehensive Plan identifies in Chapter 7 Goal 3 that the County should encourage the expansion, continuation and development of business.

7.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use has the ability to meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission notes that zoning staff review of the proposal found no violations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission notes that the proposed site can adequately serve the needs of the proposed use.

The Planning Commission unanimously recommends the County Board approve the request with conditions and findings as stated herein. Motion Carried.

A hearing was held on the application of Donald Schueler, Part of Government Lots 1 & 2, and the NE ¼ and that part ofGovernment Lots 3 & 4, and that part of the NW 1/4, all in Section 18, Township 118, Range 35, Whitefield Township. (9142 Co Road 5 SW). Proposes to increase their animal unit numbers from 497 animal units to 976.2 animal units (419 head to 775 head) at their existing feedlot facility located in an A-1 Agricultural Preservation District.Don and Chris Schueler were present and explained their proposal. Richard Nelson, neighboring landowner was present and stated that he is not opposed to the proposal. He also stated that the Schueler’s have been good neighbors, that he encourages the family to remain in agreement and urges them to consider future generations. Nelson questioned what will happen to the operation if ended, and that we need to be thoughtful of groundwater and odor. Madsen stated that if the operation ends, the feedlot officer has rules to follow regarding abandonment, and that the groundwater and odor concerns are addressed in Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyRules. Haugestated that he raises livestock and that as producers we must use common sense to avoid conflicts with manure application timing. Geer notes the letter in the file from feedlot officer Russ Hilbert, which states that the site has the ability to meet MPCA standards, but has a few areas that he is working with the applicant on to become a compliant feedlot. Geer then read his recommended conditions, and recommends approval with draft conditions and findings. Haugequestioned, how long do they have to use the permit. Geer replied the ordinance allows for one year to initiate the use. Madsen stated that the goal is to look at the use, and not to look at the feedlot pollution control regulations, which will be handled by the feedlot officer. Peterson asked about the timing of the CUP and the feedlot permit. Madsen replied yes, it is best that they run concurrently. Motion by Peterson, to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions and findings as presented by staff,second by Madsen.

Conditions

1. Dead animals to be disposed of by rendering, composting, or other methods as approved bythe Minnesota Board of Animal Health, and be kept out of sight.

2.The owner shall follow all MPCA requirements regarding proper manure management planning,manure application, and record keeping.

3.All applications of liquid manure shall be injected or incorporated into the soil within thirty seconds of application unless applied on forage crops during the growing season.

4.The applicant shall meet the permitting requirements of the Kandiyohi County Feedlot Officer.

Findings

1.The Planning Commission finds that the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted and will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. The Planning Commission bases this finding on the information and testimony submitted by the applicant concerning the nature of the operation, and the written review of the County Feedlot Officer. The Planning Commission finds that there has been no testimony or evidence entered into the record that leads them to conclude there will be a significant impact on property enjoyment or valuation.

2.The Planning Commission finds that establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding vacant land for uses predominant in the area. The Planning Commission bases this finding on the fact that the surrounding vacant land is agricultural in nature and the feedlot will not impede continuing agricultural uses.

3.The Planning Commission finds that adequate utilities, access roads drainage, off street parking and loading space and other necessary facilities have been provided or will be provided. The Planning Commission notes that the site is open in nature and has more than adequate space to serve the parking and loading needs of the use without impacting traffic or safety.

4.The Planning Commission finds that adequate measures have been taken or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The Planning Commission notes that the dust, noise, and lights associated with the use will not be unlike normally encountered in agricultural areas for uses allowed in agricultural areas, and therefore cannot be considered to constitute a nuisance or disturbance. The Planning Commission notes that the proposed feedlot meets the required setback from neighboring residences. The Planning Commission notes that nothing in the letter from the County Feedlot Officer indicates a concern that the feedlot will not be able to meet state nuisance or hydrogen sulfide standards. The Planning Commission asserts that no studies or evidential statements were introduced into the record that lead them to believe that the proposed use will by its very nature constitute a nuisance.

6.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is in harmony with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission notes that the Comprehensive Plan is supportive of agriculture as an important part of the county’s economic makeup. The Comprehensive Plan states that land in the A-1 (Agricultural Preservation) District “needs to be preserved and protected for agricultural activities (including high-intensity livestock production) from completing non-agricultural uses” (ref. Chapter 3, Page 1). The Comprehensive Plan also states “agricultural activities are an important part of Kandiyohi County’s economy” (ref. Chapter 6, Page 4) and “feedlots are a necessary and important component to the agriculture economy” (ref. Chapter 6, Page 10).

8.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will not have significant negative impacts on groundwater, surface water, or air quality if operated according to all applicable Federal, State, and County regulations, including the conditions placed on the permit. The Commission notes that the letter of review from the County Feedlot Officer identifies no environmental hazards. The Commission also notes that the framework of Federal, State, and County regulations for feedlots provides comprehensive environmental protection.

The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the County Board approve the request with the conditions and findings as stated herein. Motion Carried

There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:25 PM.