MINUTES OF THE MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – 7:00 PM

The Kandiyohi County Planning Commission met on Monday, May 7, 2012 in the Commissioners Room at the Kandiyohi County Health & Human Services Building located at 2200 – 23rd St NE, Willmar MN. Members present were John Dean, Doug Hanson, Sherman Schueler, Gwynne Anderson, and Harlan Madsen. Also present was Zoning Administrator, Gary Geer & Assistant Zoning Administrator Eric VanDyken.

Vice-Chair Dean opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed.

A hearing was held on the application of Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., S ½ of NE ¼, Section 33, Township 122, Range 33, Roseville Township. (21882 160th St NE) Applicant proposes an increase in bird density in existing barns in an A-2 General Agricultural District. Requests an increase from 100,000 turkeys (500 animal units) in existing 3 brood barns to 120,000 turkeys (600 animal units) in the existing 3 barns. Steve Onnen was present representing Jennie-O. Onnen noted that Jennie-O will be marketing smaller birds and desires to add bird numbers to the barns. Madsen stated that he understands that the 5 CUP requests tonight are all the same. Geer noted that staff recommends approval with 2 conditions and findings. Geer also made note of a letter in the file from Russ Hilbert, County Feedlot Officer. Motion by Madsen, second by Schueler to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions and findings as presented by staff:

Conditions

1. Dead animals to be disposed of by rendering, composting, or other methods as approved by the 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.

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

1

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.

5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in the A-2 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 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 is supportive of agriculture as an important part of the county’s economic makeup. 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).

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.

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 conditions and findings as stated herein. Motion carried.

2

A hearing was held on the application of Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., SE ¼, Section 18, Township 122, Range 33, Roseville Township. (25730 130th St NE). Applicant proposes an increase in bird density in existing barns in an A-2 General Agricultural District. Requests an increase from 90,000 turkeys (1,620 animal units) in 5 grower barns to 114,000 turkeys (2,052 animal units) in existing 5 grower barns. Cathy Miller (city of Willmar resident) stated that she does not like the idea of crowding turkeys. Miller noted that public sentiment is changing animal care and housing. Miller suggested that the commission may want to see how animals are cared for. Dean noted to Miller that the Planning Commission is represented by a viewing committee that visits each site to observe prior to the hearing. Bill Benson stated that he lives to the northeast [Mr. Benson was likely referring to the upcoming hearing for the site in Kandiyohi Township] and draws from the same aquifer as the turkey barns. Benson was concerned about the possibility of running out of water. Geer noted that the file shows that with the increase in turkey numbers the barns have been equipped with improved ventilation. Madsen noted that water appropriation is controlled by the Department of Natural Resources. Motion by Madsen, second by Hanson to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions and findings as presented by staff:

Conditions

1. Dead animals to be disposed of by rendering, composting, or other methods as approved by the 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.

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

3

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.

5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in the A-2 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 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 is supportive of agriculture as an important part of the county’s economic makeup. 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).

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.

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 conditions and findings as stated herein. Motion carried.

A hearing was held on the application of Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., Part South ½ of South ½ , Section 25, Township 121, Range 36, Arctander Township. (7272 135th Ave NW). Applicant proposes an increase in bird density in existing barns in an RM Shoreland Resource Management District. Requests an increase from 17,300 turkeys (311 animal units) in 2 finish barns to 27,500 turkeys (495 animal units) in 2 finish barns. Geer stated that staff recommends approval. Madsen commented that all Jennie-O applications heard tonight meet and exceed all MPCA and EPA requirements. Motion by Schueler, second Anderson to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions and findings as presented by staff:

4

Conditions

1. Dead animals to be disposed of by rendering, composting, or other methods as approved by the 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.

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.

5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in the A-2 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 entitled “conditional uses”.

5

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 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).

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.

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 the County Board approve the request with conditions and findings as stated herein. Motion carried.

A hearing was held on the application of Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., Part of NE ¼ of NW ¼ and the NW ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 13, Township 119, Range 36, St Johns Township. (6623– 1st Ave W). Applicant proposes an increase in bird density in existing barns in an A-1 Agricultural Preservation District. Requests an increase from 76,000 turkeys (380 animal units) in 3 brood barns to 90,000 turkeys (450 animal units) in 3 brood barns. Motion by Madsen, second by Anderson to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions and findings as presented by staff:

Conditions

1. Dead animals to be disposed of by rendering, composting, or other methods as approved by the 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.

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.

6

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.

5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in the A-2 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 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 is supportive of agriculture as an important part of the county’s economic makeup. 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).

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.

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 conditions and findings as stated herein. Motion carried.

7

A hearing was held on the application of Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., SE ¼ of SW ¼, Section 3, Township 119, Range 34, Kandiyohi Township. (1570 Co Rd 8 NE & 1860 Co Rd 8 NE). Applicant proposes an increase in bird density in existing barns in an A-1 Agricultural Preservation District. Requests an increase from 41,700 turkeys (623 animal units) in 3 confinement barns to 54,000 turkeys (972 animal units) in 3 finish barns. Motion by Madsen, second by Schueler to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions and findings as presented by staff:

Conditions

1. Dead animals to be disposed of by rendering, composting, or other methods as approved by the 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.

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

8

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.

5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in the A-2 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 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 is supportive of agriculture as an important part of the county’s economic makeup. 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).

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.

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 the County Board approve the request with conditions and findings as stated herein. Motion carried.

A hearing was held on the application of Living Word Lutheran Church Part of N ½ of NW ¼, Section 21, Township 121, Range 34, New London Township. (16245 Co Rd 9 NE). Propose construction of church and accessory building in an R-2 Community Residential District. Jamie Iverson, Living Word Lutheran Church Building Committee Chair, was present and explained the proposal. Iverson noted that the proposed building is a 52’ x 80’ slab-on-grade building. Geer noted that the applicants were granted a permit in 2008, but were unable to build at that time. Geer recommended approval. Motion by Hanson, second by Schueler to recommend approval of the request with the following condition and findings as presented by staff:

Condition

1. That an easement be granted for sixty (60) feet of right-of-way on Co. Rd. 9.

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, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity.

9

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 production 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 R-2 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 14, Section 14-3 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.

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 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 Duininck, Inc., NE ¼, Section 31, Township 122, Range 33, excepting therefrom the Railroad Right of Way and State Hwy No. 23 Right of Way and excepting the part thereof lying Southerly of State Highway No. 23, Roseville Township. Thomas Johnson, Landowner. (Hwy 23 NE & 130th St NE) Applicant proposes mining and processing of gravel and granular materials and operation of a portable hot-mix asphalt plant, including related stockpiling in an A-2 General Agricultural District and RM Shoreland Resource Management District. Jason Ver Steeg was present representing Duininck Inc. Ver Steeg noted that the proposed site is adjacent to the Duininck Concrete site. Ver Steeg described the topography of the site and illustrated the proposed mine layout with a site plan. Ver Steeg stated that the adjacent operation is running low on good coarse material, causing the need to open this new area. Ver Steeg explained that they plan to construct a berm along the state trail and that the proposal has been reviewed by the

10

DNR. Ver Steeg stated that they plan to reclaim the site over time as it is mined out. Ver Steeg highlighted the completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project which found no need for completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. Claire Mathers-McLouth noted that she owns property within ½ mile of the proposed pit and has concerns about noise, dust, and groundwater supply. Notes presence of many other pits in the area. None of area mines have been reclaimed. Mathers-McLouth also had questions about setbacks, size of the proposed berm, entrance location, CUP expiration date, reclamation pan, and water. Mathers-McLouth additionally noted that she would like operations to start in the center of the site and noted that she wondered about the proposed depth of mining, hours of operation, dust control, MPCA permits, months in which mining and hot mix will operate, bond requirements, number of trucks, and whether or not crushing operations meet federal standards. Ver Steeg noted that many of the concerns raised by Mathers-McLouth are addressed by existing regulations. Ver Steeg commented that dust will be controlled and that berms will be on site for sound control and aesthetic purposes, noting additionally that the walls of the pit act as sound barriers. Ver Steeg stated that the proposed months of operation are March through December, but May through November are the busy months. Ver Steeg stated that the proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Ver Steeg noted a proposed 20 year term of permit. Ver Steeg stated that they intend progressive reclamation and noted that the proposed mining depth is approximately 40 to 50 feet from the highest point. Ver Steeg indicated that some mining would likely require dewatering under a DNR water appropriation permit, making note that if there is a problem with water quantity; DNR assures mitigation of the concerns. Ver Steeg stated that the operation of an asphalt plant would be periodic and project-specific. Madsen asked Ver Steeg to address the questions about ingress/egress location and if there is a berm proposed along the road to the east of the site. Ver Steeg responded by noting that ingress/egress will be mainly through the existing pit and that as mining progresses to the east, overburden will be available for a berm on the east side of the property. Ver Steeg stated that Duininck Inc. wants to be good neighbors. Mathers-McLouth noted that there are well depths in the area that are shallower than 40 feet. VerSteeg noted that under a water appropriation permit they would be permitted to temporarily lower the water table in the pit. Madsen questioned if there would be a wash plant in this pit. VerSteeg responded that there is potential, but not great, since washing currently occurs in the adjacent pit. Bill Buffington noted that he lives to the south on Long Lake and that he feels that there are enough gravel pits in the area. Buffington stated that he feels property valuation in the area will go down. Jay Mork stated that he recently bought property in the area because it is peaceful and quiet. Mork stated that he would like to see the berm extended outside of the new pit to the adjacent pit. Mork further commented that 20 years seems like a long time for the life of a permit and that the proposed hours of operation seem long. Ron Hanson stated that he owns property on Long Lake where he intended to build a home, but now he does not know if they will build due to all of the gravel pits. Hanson also stated that he is concerned about property valuation. Geer noted that many of the current ordinance standards for mining and current proposed mining conditions arose from the work of the gravel task force in 2001. Geer read the staff-proposed conditions. Madsen noted that there is a discrepancy in the proposed hours of operation and the proposed condition for hours of operation and additionally noted that a 30-year permit is allowable, but the applicant is requesting 20. Schueler asked about the concerns that many mines are not reclaimed. Dean noted that many gravel pits are grandfathered from reclamation requirements and that is why reclamation requirements were added to the ordinance. Madsen agreed with Dean. Madsen commented that many gravel pits are needed because all gravel is not equal and there are many current requirements for road and public projects requiring different grades of gravel. Madsen noted that noxious weeds must be controlled under state law and that the Township is the official weed inspector. VerSteeg noted that Duininck Inc. has been reclaiming pits that have been permitted under this ordinance. Madsen stated that despite the request of the applicant, the hours of operation

11

called for in the ordinance and reflected in the proposed condition are best, especially given the work of the gravel task force. Dean concurs. Motion by Madsen, second by Schueler to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions and findings as proposed by staff, except the permit shall run for 20 years and not 30:

Conditions

1. The site shall be progressively reclaimed such that no more than 40 acres is open and un-reclaimed at any given time. This allowable area shall include all extraction, processing, and stockpiling areas.

2. All existing wetlands on the property shall remain intact and shall not be altered in any manner.

3. Upon project commencement in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼, the operator shall construct a screening berm for the purposes of screening the property located at 22600 130th St. NE (PID# 30-031-0060) from the dust, noise and sights of the operation. The berm shall be constructed as follows:

a. The berm shall be constructed of the first available overburden that is stripped when mining is begun in the NE ¼ of the NE ¼.

b. The berm shall run half of the length of the boundary between the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of section 31 and the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of section 30 beginning at the NE corner of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ of section 31.

c. The berm shall be a minimum of _10_ feet in height from original grade, shall be sloped no steeper than 3:1, and shall be completely vegetated with grass or other appropriate ground cover.

d. The berm shall remain in place until final project completion.

4. Hours of operation shall be limited to M-F 6:00am - 8:00pm and Sat. 6:00am – 6:00pm.5. The applicant shall provide a bond or irrevocable letter of credit to Kandiyohi County in the

amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per acre to assure proper reclamation of the site after completion of the project.

6. The applicant shall observe all setback regulations as contained in Chapter 32, section 32-5-6 of the Kandiyohi County Zoning Regulations.

7. This conditional use permit shall be valid for 20 years from the date of issuance.8. Kandiyohi County Environmental Services staff shall be granted access upon reasonable

notification for reasons of determining compliance will all conditions of this permit and Zoning Ordinance Performance Standards.

9. Prior to commencement of mining activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the site that clearly states the date of the permit issuance, hours of operation, duration of the permit, the operator’s phone number, and the Zoning Office phone number. The sign and lettering shall be of sufficient size and shall be located such that it can reasonably be read without trespassing on the property. The sign shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in surface area.

10. This conditional use permit shall authorize the extraction, processing, and storage of sand, gravel, & rock, and the storage and processing of recycled concrete and asphalt, and an asphalt mixing plant.

12

11. The owner and/or operator shall be responsible for maintenance and restoration of all county and township roads used as haul roads for the operation. In the event that haul roads are damaged or suffer more than ordinary wear or deterioration due to the applicant’s use, the applicant, upon written notification by the Zoning Administrator, shall immediately suspend operations under the CUP until all required maintenance is completed, at the applicant’s expense, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.

12. The operator shall be responsible to maintain dust control measures on site and on haul roads at levels adequate to insure normal rural dust conditions are not exceeded. Such dust control may include required application of chloride treatment at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.

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, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity.

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 other gravel pits, and CRP 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 minimize 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.

5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in the A-2 district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 entitled “conditional uses” and in the RM district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 11, Section 11-3 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 4 that the County should make land use decisions that help protect aggregate resources and mining activities with an emphasis on minimizing or avoiding potential residential and environmental conflicts.

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.

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

13

Federal, State, and County regulations, including the conditions placed on the permit. The Planning Commission also notes that no potential for significant environmental effects were found through the completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet.

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 David Nelson, S 660 feet of E 660 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 8, Township 120, Range 34, Green Lake Township. Clifford Wig, Landowner. (5020 97th Ave NE) Applicant requests a multi-genre music festival in an A-2 General Agricultural District. Proposes a music festival, to be held annually, over the course of Memorial Day Weekend with food, merchandise, venders, as well as games for attendees. David Nelson was present and began his explanation of the proposal by noting that the proposed event will not be an annual event at this location, as he realizes that the event has outgrown this site. Pam Melander noted that she lives on East Twin Lake and wondered if the event is proposed for the whole weekend. Melander noted that she is concerned about noise disturbance from the event. Nelson reiterated that this will be the last time for the event at this location. Nelson further noted that there will be 30 security staff, there will likely be alcohol on site, but not sold at the event. Nelson stated that he would like bands to be able to play until 2:00 am. Nelson commented the he proposes for the event to be on Friday and Saturday, with Sunday available for additional playing time if needed. Nelson stated that there will be camping with porta-potties water and security. Nelson noted that he is working with the county sanitarian. Geer noted that the county sanitarian issues permit for temporary camping and food vending. Madsen asked Nelson to make note of the hours that bands would be playing. Nelson stated that on Friday they would start at 2:00 to 3:00 in afternoon and play until midnight or 2:00 a.m., whichever is allowed. Nelson noted that on Saturday they would start at noon and Sunday they would start at noon and play until the bands are done. Madsen stated that Sheriff Dan Hartog recommends that all stage performances be done by midnight and that he intends to defer to the Sherriff’s recommendations. Madsen noted that there will be no liquor license granted for the event. Nelson stated that all proceeds from the event will go to a veterans organization. Marilee Dorn stated that she lives on the north side of East Twin Lake and that she is concerned about noise from this site, noting that she is opposed to the proposal. Dorn commented that this area is rural residential in nature and that there are at least 4 dozen homes within one mile. Dorn stated that she is concerned about the size of the site, feeling that it is too small and further noting that the road leading to the site is narrow. Dorn stated that private security in MN must be licensed and ambulance access at the site would be problematic. Dorn stated that the organization Veterans on the Home Front is not a registered charity. Robert Moller stated that he lives to the west of the site and noted that he is concerned about dust control and would like chloride treatment required. Moller noted that he is also concerned about noise. Moller questioned how many people will be attending this even and wondered if law enforcement will be patrolling the area. Jon Melander noted that there are 62 homes in Oakwood Manor (a development across the lake to the north). Jon Melander asked about the number of people that would attend, and noted that this property has a history of hosting loud parties. Ann Dobmeier noted that she lives on the south side of road from the proposed site and stated that she is concerned about parking along the road and about garbage from the event that may end up on her property. Claire Mathers-McLouth asked when people will come to the site prior to event starting time. Nelson noted that the proposed start time will be 3:00 on Friday and that people would not likely arrive long before the start time. Nelson illustrated the proposed on-site parking area and noted that there will be no parking on the street. Nelson estimated the number of people that might attend to be 300 to 500 people, noting that he realizes that this site is too small to continue to hold the event here

14

and the he will be moving the event to a different location after this year. Mary Jo Gabbert noted that she lives on East Twin Lake and noted that after the music is done there will still be partying. Virgil Valentine stated that he is concerned the project will be a disaster. Cifford Wig, property owner of the proposed event site, noted that concerns about traffic accidents near the site have nothing to do with partying, but rather are due to the design of the road. Sandy Laingen stated that she is concerned about the noise level and concerned about possible trespassing onto her property. Valentine noted that he is also concerned about garbage from the event being picked up properly. Bill Gabbert noted that he lives in the area and stated that the music carries well across the water. Lori Moller stated that she is concerned about safety and concerned about partying after the bands are done playing. Lori Moller questioned how traffic would flow. Pam Melander wondered what type of authority the security guards have. Madsen noted that private security guards would have no authority to arrest. Madsen commented that there has obviously been some activity on this property previously that has left people uncomfortable. Madsen stated that there will be no parking allowed on road right- of-way. Madsen stated that the noise created by such an event is maybe not compatible with the area. Nelson stated that he believes that security can handle what happens on site. Schueler stated that the site does not seem big enough. Geer commented that there is adequate space on site for parking based on an expectation of 200 vehicles and an ordinance standard of 300 square feet per parking space. Jon Melander questioned where the event is proposed to be held in the future. Dean stated that the future location is beyond the scope of consideration at this hearing. Dorn stated that the event is coming up in 2 ½ weeks and she feels this hearing should have occurred some time ago. Jason C. noted that he is a friend of Nelson who has been sober for 8 years and enjoys attending the event. Jason C. noted that some of the concerns expressed about partying at the site are attributable to the neighboring property. Geer noted that Lisa Groff phoned the office with comments of concern. Geer referenced the staff report and stated that staff recommends approval. Schueler stated that he was skeptical, but will support the proposal. Motion by Schueler, second by Madsen to recommend approval of the request with the following conditions and findings as presented by staff:

Conditions

1. Law enforcement details shall be approved by the Sheriff (all overtime pay for deputies and additional deputies will be paid by the applicant).

2. All traffic control, security and safety on ingress and egress shall be provided by licensed peace officers approved by the Sheriff.

3. All music and/or stage performances shall be completed by midnight.4. Must submit proposals and meet regulations with the Kandiyohi County Sanitarian.5. No parking allowed on road right of way.6. This conditional use permit is valid for the Stitchfest music festival on May 25- May 26, 2012

only, and shall expire on May 28, 2012.7. Any use which violates, deviates from or exceeds the conditional use request, or any of the

above conditions, may be prosecuted as a Misdemeanor as provided by the Kandiyohi County Zoning Ordinance, and may be cause for revocation of the conditional use permit. Upon notice of a violation by the Zoning Administrator, the conditional use permit may be suspended until the applicant appears before the Board of Commissioners, which shall be within 30 days of notification. At the violation hearing, evidence of the violation shall be presented to the Board of Commissioners, and the applicant may present any further evidence or argument relevant to the violation. The Board of Commissioners, after hearing all relevant evidence, may either, reinstate the conditional use permit, impose additional conditions, or terminate the permit entirely.

15

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, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity.

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 rural residential, and CRP 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 use will be minimal.

5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in the A-2 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 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 4 Objective E, that the County should support providing open space and recreational opportunities.

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.

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 Planning Commission recommends approval of the request based on conditions and findings as stated herein. Motion Carried with Madsen opposing.

In Other Business: Discussion of the motion passed by the County Board on April 17th, 2012. A motion by Peterson 2nd Madsen to initiate the amendment procedure to amend the zoning ordinance by requesting the Planning Commission review several items including but not limited to addressing story height for accessory buildings in the A-1, A-2, RM, R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones, review the lot depth standard in the R-1 zone, and to review the existing road setbacks was on vote

16

unanimously adopted. Geer explained the areas of proposed change. Geer noted that the road setbacks that exist are able to be altered as needed in developed residential zones where the setbacks in ordinance sometimes do not fit the nature of the developed area. Geer noted that staff can draft proposed language and that the Commission could set a hearing for the next meeting if they desire. Motion by Madsen, second by Hanson to set a public hearing on proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance for June 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried.

There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

17