:edfu:u~m:;,~...meeting minutes pope county planning advisory commission thursday, february 21 st,...

MEETING MINUTES POPE COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Members Present: Mike Holland, Darin Adolphsen, Daniel Jenniges, Judy Anderson,

Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director;

Chainnan Anderson called the meeting to order at 7: 18 p.m.

I) Election of Officers Anderson made a motion to nominate Holland as Chainnan and J enniges seconded it. Discussion was had to have Anderson stay on as chair. Holland made a motion that Anderson stay on as chainnan and Jenniges seconded it. Discussion was had about the chainnan and ifit should really be someone who is going to be here longer than a year. There were questions as to what each board member's responsibilities are. Discussion was had as to how to set up the rules for each meeting and what kind of rules you can set up. There was more discussion as to how the meeting can be run, what the board can and can't do and how to end the public hearing and when to close the meetings. Jenniges then withdrew his second to the motion for Holland to be chair so that motion failed. There is still the motion on the table to have Anderson remain the chainnan and this was seconded by Jenniges. All in favor, motion carried. Motion by Jenniges for Holland to be the vice-chair and this was seconded by Adolphsen. All in favor, motion carried:

2) Set Meeting Dates, Times, and Location Dave Rush supplied a sample of meeting dates and times. There were also questions if the meeting should be moved from 7pm to 6pm. A motion was made by Jenniges and seconded by Adolphsen to start the meetings at 6pm on third Thursday of the month. All in favor, motion carried. The staff will set the schedule as the sample shows.

3) Appoint Site Team Members Anderson suggested leaving the members ofthe site team the same as last year (J enniges, Vatthauer, and

Anderson). The board discussed this among themselves. The Chair appointed Jenniges, Vatthauer, and Anderson as the members of the site team. Rush clarified that the ordinance makes no provision for alternates members to the site team.

4) Rush had a few house keeping things such as per diem sheets and name plaquards that needed to be handed out and discussed. Mileage rate has also changed to 56 Y, cents a mile. Rush asked that ifthere is any contact information that changes to let Angie know in the office.

Motion by Adolphsen and seconded by Holland to adjourn the meeting at 7:55pm. All in favor, motion carried.

" :eDfu:u~m:;,~ David Rush, Interim Director


Thursday, February 21 st, 2013

Members Present: Mike Holland, Darin Adolphsen, Daniel Jenniges, Brian Jergenson, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director; Cody Roghan

Vice Chairman Holland called the meeting to order at 6: 11 p.m.

1.) Review Minutes from January 17th 2013 Motion by Larry Lindor and seconded by Dan J enniges to approve the January minutes. All: Yea Motion carried

2.) 6:12pm Application of Chad T & Lynne B Payne for a 40x42 (1680 square feet) Pole type building in shoreland area recreational development with two bedroom guest house (living quarters). On property described as: Lots 14 & 15 on Lake Linka Lots. Gilchrist Township. Zoning: Shoreland Recreational Development

Rush was asked to present the application and rational. He stated that any metal building that is over 1100 sq feet or has a second story it requires a conditional use permit. No variance would he required and there is no other dwelling on this property. Payne showed on the map where they are planning on building the structure. There were questions about the need for a septic system which they are plarming on putting in. Payne had a layout that he presented to the board. Questions and discussion was had on the building aspect and makeup of the building. Vice Chairman Holland asked for comments from the public for or against the application. There was questions as to ifthere was roof height limitations on a shoreline development. Staff found that Section 4.6.6 of county ordinance states no structure may be higher than 35 ft. Payne added thatthis accessory structure would not be over 33 ft in height. Jenniges reported that the site committee viewed the property. They observed that the new structure would not impede any future development or block the view ofthe lake, as there was wetland behind the property. Rush presented the staff recommendation to approve the application with the conditions proposed in the staff report. Rush also presented the staff findings that were included in the staff report. Motion by Larry Lindor and seconded by Dan J enuiges to approve the application based on the findings of fact and with the conditions proposed by staff. All: Yeas: Motion carried.

3.) Application of Mary E. Pehan for a two (2) lot plat from and existing platted lot on property described as CO AUD SUBD#19,RENO TOWNSHIP LOT 5.

Rush described the proposed preliminary plat approval to subdivide this property into two lots. Brad Nyberg (surveyor) and Mary Pehan were present. Nyberg described the plat: The North lot would be 1.3 acres and the south lot would be 1.7 acres. The septic system is in compliance and an easement will be granted to keep it in the present location. Pehan stated she is not looking to sell but just wants to put this property into a trust for her children. Pehan explained the map of the property and why it was named the way it was. She had a concern about the shed located on the northwest comer of the property. The shed would not meet the setback to the proposed lot lines, but Pehan did not want to move the shed at this time. Rush stated that staff recommendations are to approve the preliminary with the conditions that all structures not meeting setback requirements be moved or removed and the certification of wetlands in compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act provided by the Pope County Soil and Water Conservation District Prior to final plat approval. Staff is recommending giving the option for Pehan to apply for a variance for the shed and come to the board of adjustment to rule on the variance. Discussion was had on how to deal with the placement of the shed. Motion by Vic Vatthauer and seconded by Dan J enuiges that preliminary plat be approved with the conditions proposed by staff including the option that the shed be removed, moved 10' from the line or a variance be granted. Rush reviewed the proposed findings listed in the staff report. All: Yeas. Motion carried.

4.) Discussion of tabled business - There was no tabled business.

5.) Adjourn

Motion by Vic Vatthauer and seconded by Dan Jenuiges to adjourn at 6:57pm. All: Yeas Motion carried.

Respectfully Submitted,

~""-' :(5~ David B. Rush, Interim Director


Thursday, March 21st, 2013

Members Present: Judy Anderson, Mike Holland, Darin Adolphsen, Daniel J enniges, Brian Jergenson, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director;

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

1.) Review Minutes from February 21 st 2013. Motion by Holland and seconded by Jenniges to approve the February minutes. Motion carries

2.) 7:06pm Conditional Use Permit on application of Kevin Anderson to allow a 12 unit Commercial Planned Unit Development for seasonal recreational park model sites. On property described as Pt Gil as Rec on doc # T000732 ex pts on & lying S of docs # T000762, T00767 & T000788 and property as described GL 2; SE )4 NW )4 ; Pt NE )4 as rec on doc # T000732 ex pts on doc # T000767, T00077 I , T000783, T000803 & expt to CSAH 17 on doc # T001260.

Anderson asked staff to review the application. Rush stated what the PUD will consist of and that the county considers this as a new application even though there is a history of this recreation park. Holland questions what these park models are. Anderson explained what the models looked like and what the size of these would be. It is considered a mini-mobile home. They would be owned by the customer. They have a covenant of 8 people per site and are very strict on who can own. It will also be gated with the main access being off of co rd 17 and a road will loop through the development. Adolphsen asked what the plans are for the pad in each lot. Anderson explained that each lot will be 50'x50' and have crushed granite with grass around it. The road will be either granite or crushed tar. He does have some trees and vegetation moved in already and will be cleaning up what is there and possibly adding to it. Holland has a concern about the rules and covenants restricting the type and color of the units. Anderson assured they have these in place and will continue to monitor this; it will be the same as at the park. Vatthauer questions the space between each unit. There will be around 50 ft between each model. The model will be moved off to one side so each will have its own parking. They will only allow 2 cars per site but there will be excess parking off around the hedge. Lindor questioned about if there would be decks and how far away from each mobile. Eldevik clarified why they made the sites 50x50. Holland questioned who takes care of the commons area and Anderson stated they do. Jeuniges questioned about the placement of trees and keeping the spruce trees and trimming them. Anderson is willing to work with the board on how they want it trimmed. Adolphsen questioned about walkways down to the creek. Anderson would like to rough mow it several times annually.

The chair opened the public portion of the hearing. Brad Lang was present to speak against this development. He stated that they enjoy the quietness of their location but have been upset since Anderson's have proposed this development. He stated that it was unfair that he and others are subjected to the change when they have done nothing to encourage it. He stated that there was a previous agreement between Anderson's and MSSHA. Lang read over the previous agreement. Jim Aydt spoke against the application saying that the land should be developed to its highest and best use, and that would be homes, condos. He stated his concerned about the runoff. He felt that if a secondary access is proposed on Monte Beach Rd, then Anderson's need to maintain the road. Thomas Smith was upset about the labeling of seasonal cabins. He stated that most of the homes on the lake could be occupied year round. Kevin Perrizo asked questions regarding the conditional use pennits and the monitoring of the sites. He stated what he thought should be conditions on this development. Andy Abner questioned if the board was aware of the previous agreement.

Anderson closed the public hearing. Rush went over the questions. The secondary access point will be off of the dedicated road. The drive within the park will be between units 6 & 7. Rush clarified the characterization of the homes and cabins. He stated that he was referring to them according to the tax status, which for the most-part is seasonal-recreational and apologized for offending anyone. Rush went over what a park model is, the status of it and the history of how the county has begun regulating them. There was also a question regarding the conditional use pennit, there were conditions placed on this by the county but it really is irrelevant unless the board makes those conditions part of their approval of this application. Restrictive covenant is the agreement between a property owner and renters. If this is violated the property owner would enforce this. Rush answered the question about a previous settlement agreement between Andersons and MSSHA. There was a previous agreement and no it was not provided because this needs to be about this request and not based on a previous decision. This has to be an unbiased decision. The board asked Anderson if there were any more clarifications. Anderson agrees that the runoff does go across their road but that is the natural waterway. Anderson is willing to add a culvert. Lindor questioned about dedicated road. Rush explained how the road got dedicated and who owns it and since no public entity agreed to take over the road is owned and maintained by the property owners.

Anderson asked Rush to review the staff recommendations as follows:

Staff recommended approving the application with the following conditions:

1.) The campground must remain a commercial planned unit development. Sale of individual units, spaces, or shares is prohibited under this penni!. Any such sale or ownership change would constitute a change in use and require application for a new conditional use pennit.

2.) Use of all units shall be limited to sununer seasonal use, not to exceed 7-months (AprilOctober).

3.) Sites/recreational equipment shall be limited to park model units that do not exceed 400 square feet in area as measured on the main level when collapsible components are fully extended.

4.) Construction and/or placement of storage structures exceeding 80 sq ft and/or garages for the individual units shall be prohibited. Common storage may be pennitted with a land use pennit if all impervious surface limits, density and open space requirements are being met.

5.) The primary access point shall be from the existing access to County State Aid Highway (CSAR) 17. A secondary access shall be constructed to connect with the public right-of-

way bordering the parcel on the south-west. The access road shall have at least a 5-ton capacity with a 16-foot wide driving surface.

6.) Screening shall be installed between the proposed park model sites and the residential properties to the northwest of the sites with the following specifications: a. Screening shall consist two rows of conifer trees staggered in their placement such

that they create a continuous visual barrier. b. The trees must be at least 6 feet in height when planted. c. The planting shall be of a width and length as shown on the scaled drawing of the

proposed PUD and approved by the Land & Resource Director. 7.) All park model units shall be earth-tone in color with matte finish paint or coating so as

not to reflect sunlight. 8.) An NPDES permit and SWPPP will be required if more than 1 acre ofland is being

disturbed. 9.) No additional watercraft mooring sites shall be permitted beyond the thirty (30) permitted

by conditional use permit #08-005, amended on May 4, 2010 by the County Board of Commissioners.

1O.)Expansion of either area or number of units will require approval from the County Board.

Rush asked that a condition be added to the list. The County Sanitarian must review the site plan prior to licensing the park. Rush recommended that this be added as condition # II as follows: The site plan be submitted and approved by the County Sanitarian prior to beginning any development ofthe proposed PUD.

Anderson asked Rush to review the proposed findings of fact. He presented the following:

1. The project is in compliance with the setback and other provisions of this ordinance unless a variance has been granted: The project proposes to place 9 sites within 100 ft of a tributary watercourse for which a variance application is pending. All other aspects of the proposed PUD are compliance with the land use regulations.

2. The use is not in conflict with the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The proposed seasonal commercial PUD conforms to the 1998 Comprehensive Land use Plan which supports the development of recreational vehicle parks for seasonal use, particularly in shoreland areas.

3. That the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish or impair neighborhood property values in the area, and will not interfere with the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole: The proposed use is not expected to impact the enjoyment or value or neighboring residential properties or interfere with the best interest of the surrounding area and community. The proposed development of a seasonal commercial PUD with park model-type units is compatible with other uses in the shoreland area which include year-round residences, seasonal cabins, commercial resorts, and limited agriculture.

4. The use will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, water supply, public drainage systems and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve in the area: The proposed use is not expected to be a burden on public facilities as it will not be year-round residential, limiting the need for and impact on public infrastructure. The PUD will use private roads within the property and the

units will be served by a private well and private septic system, both to be maintained by the owner or association.

5. The structure and sites shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties: The appearance of the commercial PUD is expected to be neat and orderly. The sites for housing units are to be placed away from the lake front and well-back from neighboriog first-tier residential structures. Additionally, the proposed location for the units is screened by existing trees and vegetation to the east and west, and proposed conditions require added screening to the northwest.

6. The road on which the project is proposed is adequate to handle increased traffic during construction and operation, and that the use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion: The primary access to the PUD will be from CSAH 17. The road was recently resurfaced, and widened to accommodate the projected traffIc load. The driving surface is 24-feet wide, with 6-ft wide paved shoulders. The additional traffIc from the proposed 12 units is not expected to cause hazards or congestion on this road.

7. Existing bnsinesses nearby will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of cnstomer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare, odor, or general unsightliness: There are no existing nearby businesses.

8. That the establishment of the nse will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property uses predominant to the area: Use of the land for a seasonal commercial resort park is an anticipated use in the shoreland areas of Lake Minnewaska. The proposed use requires minimal infrastructure and because of the temporary nature of the housing units, has greater potential for redevelopment to residential or other allowable uses.

9. That adeqnate utility, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided: The developer has proposed to install utilities including potable water and septic treatment that meet all State standards. The County has also proposed conditions to address the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff generated by new and altered impervious surfaces on the property.

10. That adeqnate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control rodents, insects, offensive odors, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration in order that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and that adequate measnres have been or will be taken to prevent negative impacts on surface water, groundwater, and air quality, and that measures have been taken to control lighted signs and other lights in snch a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will resnlt: The proposed use as a commercial PUD is not expected to generate any pests, odors, dust, noise or vibration, as these issues would render the park undesirable for habitation and would conflict with State health codes for resorts. Potential negative impacts arising from stormwater runoff are expected to be mitigated by conditions proposed by the county to control stormwater quality and quantity prior to it being discharged to Hackberry Creek or Lk Minnewaska.

Anderson stated that the water across the private road is not something they have created, but he would be willing to work on resolving the issue. Smith (public) spoke up that a fire lock box be placed on the gate for emergency equipment access. Aydt spoke up that he felt it is necessary that Anderson must maintain the private drive if the park residents will have access to it.

Jenniges moved to approve the application based on the [mdings of fact and with the conditions recommended by staff, including the added condition, and with condition five being revised to read: The primary access point shall be from the existing access to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17. A secondary access shall be constructed to connect with the public right-oi-way bordering the parcel on the south-west. The access shall be as basic as possible but meet the minimum standards for access of emergency equipment as determined by County public safety officials.

Seconded by Holland. Motion carries.

Perizzo asked about adding additional conditions. Rush stated that the Planning Commission recommendation was complete at this time and could not be amended without reopening the hearing. Rush instructed the public that the County Board would now be asked to decided on the application and they could add, change or delete any of the conditions.

3.) Discussion of tabled business - none

4.) Adjourn Motion by Lindor and seconded by Jenniges to adjourn the meeting at 8:19pm. Motion carries.

Respectfully Submitted

yee <?~ David B. Rush, Interim Director


Thursday, May 161h, 2013

Members Present: Mike Holland, Darin Adolphsen, Daniel J enniges, Brian Jergenson, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director; Barry Bouwman, Feedlot Officer.

Vice Chairman Holland called the meeting to order at 6: 15 p.m. The introduction and ground rules were read.

1.) Review Minutes from March 21 sl 2013. Motion by Lindor and seconded by Vatthauer to accept the minutes as presented. Motion carried 6-0.

2.) 6: 18pm Conditional Use Permit on application ofBakko Land LLC, to allow an agricultural machinery sales, service, and repair business. On Property described as: E Y, NE 14; E y, SE 14; Section 08, Township 123, Range 37. Dave Rush provided a brief summary of the permit. The applicant was present and provided some additional input on the proposed business. The board asked questions to staff regarding the ordinance regarding the purpose of this application. Rush reminded them that the permit is for the use of the building and not the building. Vatthauer requested the applicant to show, according to the map, where the building and lot would be located. The public hearing portion was opened. There was no one speaking in favor. Barry Hegg was questioning the safety as to where the approach would be to enter and exit the site. The applicant pointed out on the map as to where the approach would be. Rush spoke to the county engineer who felt that the approach would not propose any problem with the traffic on CSAH 8. Public hearing was closed. The site inspection said the site and location of the building looked good. Staff provided their recommendation to approve and listed proposed conditions to be considered by the board. The board asked Rush to review the findings in support ofthe application that were listed in the Staff Report. Discussion was had by the board. Motion by J enniges and seconded by Vatthauer to approve the conditional use permit based on the findings of fact and with the recommended conditions as listed below:

a. An NPDES permit with a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction storm water and permanent stormwater collection and treatment for at least the 2 year - 24 hour storm event must be acquired and

submitted to the Land & Resource Management Director prior to issuance of a land use permit.

b. An MPCA Waste Audit must be completed and submitted to Land & Resource Management prior to issuance of a land use permit.

c. A natural visual buffer of trees and shrubs shal1 be instal1edlmaintained along the east, south, and west sides of the developed site (building and parking). The buffer shaH be at least 20 ft in width and contain at least 2 rows of trees or shrubs, of which one row shaH be an evergreen species. The evergreen trees must be at least 6 feet in height when planted. The buffer shaH be no closer than 100 ft to the centerline of CSAH 8. The tree/shrub buffer must be instal1ed no later than I year after the granting of the land use permit for construction. A plan showing the location of the buffer and species to be planted shal1 be submitted to the land & Resource Director prior to issuance of a land use permit.

d. Al1 outside lighting may be hung no higher than 35 ft above the ground and must be hooded and directed straight down.

e. Any sign advertising the business must be located outside ofthe right-of-way, may be no larger than 48 sq ft on each side, and may be no more than 15 ft in total height. The sign may not be lighted.

f. Any change in the use (other than the permitted uses in the zoning district or what is included in this permit) or expansion ofthe business (including construction of additional buildings) shall require a conditional use permit.

Motion carried 6-0.

3.) 6: 35pm Conditional Use Permit on application of Rodger L. & Patricia Mattson to allow continued operation of a 485 animal unit feedlot with modifications to eliminate pol1ution on property described as: GLS 3 & 4; W Y, NW \4; Section II, Township 126, Range 40. Rush referred to Barry Bouwman, Feedlot Officer, to give the background on this application. Bouwman explained the application. Matt and Kerri Mattson were present for any questions. They are willing to get into compliance with the [mdings. Rush explained the ordinance and why a conditional use permit is being required for an existing feedlot. Jared Anez, Anez Consulting, is the Mattson's consultant. They are working with the Mattson's for compliance and how they are changing things. Anez explained the steps they are taking to do this and the timeline. The public hearing was opened. There was no one here speaking for the project and no one here opposed to the project. Public hearing was closed. Hol1and cal1ed for the site team report. The site team agreed that it will be a big job but no matter what they do it will only improve the site. Hol1and asked Rush to review the staff recommendations and proposed conditions. After the review of the proposed conditions, Anez asked for clarification on condition I c. Bouwman clarified as to why this was placed as a condition. There was a worry about the 6 month timeline for developing a plan when cost-share funding will not be known for 12 months. The applicant is asking for either to changing this to 12 months or stating that there could be a 6 month extension. Staff has no issues with changing this to 9 months. Rush recommended a change to Condition 2 to read as follows: Final plans to address the pol1ution hazards identified in condition #1 must be submitted to the Land & Resource Management office for review and approval by the Director and Feedlot Officer

within 9 months of the granting of this permit. Condition 3b is being changed to read as follows: Manure may not be stockpiled within in 1000 ft of the ordinary high watermark of Lake Christopherson unless it is within an engineered manure storage facility or approved lot. Rush presented condition 3.c. Discussion was had. Staff recommended that condition 3.c be changed to read as follows: All open lots located within 200 ft of the ordinary high watermark of Lake Christopherson must be abandoned and the ground restored to perennial cover, except for any lot engineered and constructed as a zerodischarge lot. Anez pointed out an error with Condition 3 that it should read: " ... and approved by the Director and Feedlot Officer, except for the following which may not be changed:" Rush agreed and supported the correction. Mattsons questioned growing the size of the barn and if they would need another application. Rush explained that they would need to amend the CUP or apply for a new CUP if they expanded the number of animal units. Bauman added that they could only add 50 AU in their current location. Lindor asked about the cost share and when they will know about that. Anez explained the time line of when they will find out about the funding. All parties believed that Mattsons would get their cost-share. Motion by Jenniges to approve the application based on the findings of fact and with the conditions as discussed in the meeting. Motion was seconded by Adolphsen. Conditions are as follows:

1.) The facility must comply with MN Rules Chapter 7020 and the Pope County Ordinance by implementing planned changes to the facility that will eliminate the following pollution hazards:

a. Discharge of manure from open lots to Lake Christopherson

b. Feed storage runoff discharging into Lake Christopherson

c. Non-certified manure/runoff collection basin discharging to surface and groundwater.

2.) Final plans to address the pollution hazards identified in condition #1 must be submitted to the Land & Resource Management office for review and approval by the Director and Feedlot Officer within 9 months of the granting of this permit.

3.) Modifications to the final plans may be permitted if they are submitted in writing to the Land & Resource Management office and approved by the Director and Feedlot Officer, except for the following which may not be changed:

a. The non-certified manure/runoff collection basin located adjacent to the existing calf shed shall be abandoned and ground restored to perennial vegetation.

b. Manure may not be stockpiled within 1000 ft of the ordinary high watermark of Lake Christopherson unless it is within an engineered manure storage facility or approved lot.

c. All open lots located within 200 ft of the ordinary high watermark of Lake Christopherson must be abandoned and the ground restored to perennial cover, except for any lot engineered and constructed as a zero-discharge lot.

4.) All modifications to the facility identified in the approved final plan must be implemented so as to comply with Condition #1 no later than December 31, 2015. An inspection will be scheduled in September of 20 15 to determine the status of compliance.

Any component of the facility that is non-compliant, unless actively being brought to compliance, will be scheduled for closure by December 31,2015. The facility will be reregistered in January, 2016, according to capacity of compliant feedlot areas not to exceed 485 animal units.

5.) During the interim period the compliance requirements will include use of earthen berms, cleaning of lots to minimize discharge and abandonment of any lot area that interim measures cannot address. Interim measures must be reviewed and approved by Land & Resource Director and County Feedlot Officer and implemented by October 1, 2013.

Motion carried 6-0

4.) 7:22pm Conditional Use Permit on application of Solvie Farms Inc. to allow 720 AU feedlot for swine finishing on property described as: SW \4 NE \4; N Y2 NW \4 (N Yo NW \4 AKA GLS 3 & 4) Section 03, Township 125, Range 40. Rush referred to Barry Bouwman, Feedlot Officer, to give the background on this application. Bouwman explained the application. Solvies have completed all of the necessary design, engineering and permitting steps. This has already been in front of the township. Lindor is questioning how the township fits into county ordinance. Rush explained that New Prairie Twp has its own zoning ordinance and is more restrictive than the county. Rush also explained that the county should be considering a permit for this use as well because the county enforces the feedlot rules for the State. Dean and Tyler Solvie were present for any questions. They added that the application was approved by the township and they are working with the township on development and road access issues. Public hearing was opened. Nancy Barsness, zoning administrator of New Prairie Township also wanted to clarify as to why the township is involved and to clarify that this was approved on the condition ofsnowplowing only 3000ft down the minimum maintenance road. They did want to make sure the issue of the odor be addressed and wanted to see if biofilters could be installed. She also has questions regarding the manure management plan and wants to make sure that the land application agreements are being agreed to by the people who own the land. Madyline Maxim is representing the Pope County Mother's and Others and wants to encourage using biofilters. Rush read a letter stating that if this is approved she would like to see biofilters used. Public hearing is closed. Site inspection took a look and they were ok with the placement. Rush was asked to review the staff recommendation to approve and the proposed conditions. Vatthauer questioned if there is a manure management plan in place. Bouwman has that plan and has it available to the public. The land owner will always be responsible for the management of the business. Holland asked Rush to review the proposed findings of fact the support the recommended action. Motion by Jergenson and seconded by Vatthauer to approve the permit based on the findings of fact and with the following proposed conditions:

1.) That the feedlot (parcel) may not exceed 720 animal units at any time. 2.) All requirements of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Rules, Chapter 7020 that

pertain to animal feedlots with over 300 but under 1000 animal units must be met at all times during the operation of the feedlot.

3.) The applicant must maintain a manure management plan to accommodate manure produced for the number of animals registered for the site. The plan must be written to address all items regulated in MPCA Chapter 7020.2225 and all additional requirements of this permit. The manure management plan must be approved in writing by the County Feedlot Officer or his designee before the plan may be implemented and the feedlot occupied by animals.

4.) All aspects of the approved manure management plan must be followed at all times during the operation ofthe feedlot. Any changes to the plan must be submitted in writing to the Land & Resource Management Office (Feedlot Officer or Director) for review and approval. Proposed changes to the manure management plan must be approved in writing by the County Feedlot Officer or his designee before the plan may be implemented.

5.) All manure application must comply with MPCA Chapter 7020.2225 and the following requirements: a.) Any surface application of hog manure must be incorporated within 48 hours of application or as approved by the County Feedlot Officer.

6.) All mortality must be either removed from the site, or properly disposed of on-site within 48 hours of discovery.

7.) Biofilters must be installed on all fans ventilating the manure pit. The biofilter design must be from an accredited university or agricultural research facility and approved by the County Feedlot Officer.

8.) Failure to meet any of the conditions listed above may result in revocation of this permit following procedures established by and listed in the Pope County Land Use Ordinance.

Motion carried 6-0.

5.) Discussion of tabled business - Adjourn Motion by Jenniges and seconded by Lindor to adjourn the meeting at 7:50pm. Motion carried 6-0.

Respectfully Submitted ~

~- - ~~.£-. David B. Rush, Interim Director

MEETING MINUTES POPE COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY COl\1MlSSION

Thursday, June 20'" 2013

Members Present: Judy Anderson, Mike Holland, Darin Adolphsen, Brian Jergenson, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director;


1.) Review Minutes from May 16th 2013. Motion by Mike Holland and seconded by Vic Vatthauer to approve the May meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0

1.) Discussion of tabled business - Adjourn Motion by Mike Holland and seconded by Darin Adolphsen to adjourn the meeting at 6:34pm. Motion carried 5-0.


David B. Rush, Interim Director


Thursday July 181\ 2013

Members Present: Judy Anderson, Mike Holland, Darin Adolphsen, Daniel Jenniges, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director;


I.) Reviewed minutes from June 201~013. Motion by Holland and seconded by Jenniges to approve the June meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0.

1.) 6:22pm Conditional Use Permit on application of Bryan & Cathy Tolin to allow a one year extension to keep the existing RV(recreational vehicle) on lot, on property described as: Lot 4 Block 1 45,000 sq.ft., Les Kalina 3rd Addition in Reno Township. Bryan and Cathy are both present to represent their request. Rush explained the ordinance regarding the RV's on lots in residential zoned subdivisions. This proprty has already received two conditional use permits to remain there. The homeowners are still planning on building on this land. Cathy is requesting to keep the camper on the lot until they are financially able to build. The RV is hooked up to private sewer and is shut down during the winter and is only used over the spring, summer and fall. Discussion was had. There is no one present to speak against the request or for it besides the applicant. Chairperson Anderson asked Rush to go over the staff recommendation. Rush presented the following recommended condition:

1. The permit for the RV shall expire after 3-years of the date of approval by the County Board or within one-year of completion of a permanent dwelling, whichever occurs first. Discussion was had regarding the recommendation of extending the permit for 3 years instead of 1 year.

Staff proposes extending the life of the permit from one to three years as the last conditional use permit was granted without issue and the placement of the RV on this lot conforms to the comprehensive plan and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. More frequent renewal places unnecessary burden on the applicant. Discussion was had.

Motion by Larry Lindor and seconded by Vic Vatthauer to approve the application based on the findings offact and with the conditions proposed by staff. Motion carried 6-0.

I. 6:35pm Conditional Use Permit on application of Harold and Rose Marie Kraft to allow a 2,304 square foot pole type building on a lot less than five acres, on property described as: W 7 AC of GL 7 Ex Plat Schauers Addition & Ex pt N of CL CSAH #28, in Leven Township. Rush explained the application. The ordinance states that you cannot exceed 1100 square feet on less than 5 acres. The present resort has several parcels that amount to 17 acres, but since they are separate parcels, and the one on which the shed will be located is less than five acres, a conditional use permit is required. Harold Kraft was here to explain his application. They will remove the existing shed and would replace it with the new structure. The building is primarily for storage. It will match the color of the lodge just south of the yellow building. Vatthauer questioned the total acreage which is 17 acres. The lot they want to put this on is just less than 5 acres. This will be part of the resort operation to house pontoon boats mainly.

The Chair opened the public portion of the hearing. Lori Olson, Marlin Johnson and Terry Wiley are all here to speak against the permit. L. Olson is questioning the purpose of the building, wondering if it would be used as rented storage space. There are no plans for that at this time. Olson was wondering why no one else has been able to build a larger structure on their parcel if it is less than 5 acres. Staff explained the reasoning for the permit process and that no other decision for the other properties will affect this decision. Staff also explained that this building will be on commercial property and that because it is that type of property renting space would be reasonable. Olson also wanted clarification as to why there was a need for the permit if the resort is on 17 acres. Staff explained that the property is recorded onto different deeds so they need to apply for a permit per lot. M. Johnson is concerned about winter and the snow accumulation because the road that is just north of this building is the road to his place that he plows. The set back is 40' from the right of way and the new building will have to be set back that 40' . T. Wiley is here speaking on behalf of other neighbors who have concerns about if there will be access to get to this building if there is a fire emergency. Will the building require some sort of sprinkler system since it is a commercial building? Staff responded that in Pope County there is no enforcement of this sort of request. There was one letter sent in from an Eric Hanson speaking against the application. Staff read the letter to the board. The Chair closed the public hearing. The site team feels that a new building would be better than the falling down barn and that it would fit in well and improve the resort as a whole. Rush presented the staff recommendation to approve the permit with the following condition:

1. The siding and roof of the building shall be a neutral earth tone in color such as brown, grey, dark red, green or other similar color so as to blend in with the surrounding landscape.

Motion by Adolphsen, seconded by Holland to approve the application based on the findings of fact presented in the staff report and with the recommended conditions proposed by staff. Motion carried 6-0.

2.) Discussion of tabled business - Adjourn Motion by Jenniges and seconded by Vatthauer to adjourn the meeting at 7:07pm Motion carried 6-0.




Thursday, August 15'\ 2013

Members Present: Judy Anderson, Mike Holland, Daniel Jenniges, Brian Jergenson, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director;

Chainnan Anderson called the meeting to order at 6: 15 p.m.

I.) Review Minutes from July 18'h, 2013 Motion by Vic Vatthauer and seconded by Brian Jergenson to approve the July meeting minutes. Motion carried.

1.) Discussion of tabled business - Adjourn Motion by Dan Jenniges and seconded by Brian Jergenson to adjourn the meeting at 6:16pm. Motion carried.




Thursday, September 19 t h, 2013

Members Present: Judy Anderson, Mike Holland, Darin Adolphsen, Daniel Jenniges, Brian Jergenson, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director;


I . Review Minutes from August 15th, 2013 Motion by Mike Holland and seconded by Vic

Vatthauer to approve the August minutes. Motion carried 6-0

2. Discussion of tabled business - Adjourn Motion by Dan Jenniges and seconded by Darin Adolphsen to adjourn the meeting at 8:22pm. Motion carried 6-0.


Amanda Strommer, Director


Thursday, October 24'h, 2013

Members Present: Judy Anderson, Daniel Jenniges, Brian Jergenson, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: David Rush, Interim Director; Amanda Strommer, Director


1.) Review Minutes from September 19'1., 2013 Motion by Vatthauer and seconded by Jergenson to approve the September minutes. Motion carried 5-0.

2.) 6: 21 pm Conditional Use Permit on David & Sara Haeckel for a 70'x30' (2100 square feet) pole type building larger than 110 square feet in a shoreland zoning. On property described as: S 200 ft ofE 500 ft ofNE Y-I SW Y-I, Section 23, Twp 125 (Glenwood), Range 37. Staff went over the request for the permit. The ordinance requires this on lots smaller than 5 acres. Sara Haeckel is present to describe the reason for the request. They vehicles and farming machinery for food plots that they would like to keep inside. The site team reported that there would be no issues as few neighboring properties would be able to see the shed. The shed will be steel with an open carport in front with large sliding doors for getting equipment in and out. Staff recommended the application be approved and the following condition be included:

1. Roof runoff from the building shall be directed away from the soil treatment area of the septic system.

The public hearing was opened and no one was present speaking for or against this request. Public hearing was closed. Staff reviewed the following proposed findings of fact:

1. The project is in compliance with the setback and other provisions of this ordinance unless a variance has been granted: The proposed building and use as presented to the county appears to be in compliance with the ordinance.

2. The use is not in conflict with the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The use does not appear to conflict with the comprehensive plan as

it supports uses of land for residential and recreational purposes and does not present an over-use or high-density use of the land given the size of the parcel.

3. That the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish or impair neighborhood property values in the area, and will not interfere with the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole: The accessory building is proposed in an area setback from other residential structures and properties. The size and location of the building will not interfere with future development on adjacent properties, nor is it expected to diminish or impair neighboring property values.

4. The use will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, water supply, public drainage systems and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve in the area: This alteration is not expected to impact public infrastructure.

5. The structure and sites shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties: The proposed building will be new and the site is expected to remain neat and orderly in appearance. Given the location and size of the property, the building will be isolated from the few other cabins and dwellings on adjacent properties and therefore not expected to have an adverse affect.

6. The road on which the project is proposed is adequate to handle increased tramc during construction and operation, and that the use will not cause tramc hazards or congestion: The structure is located on a property that is accessed by an easement trail that connects to an existing County Road. The construction of the building is not expected to increase the amount of traffic on the County Road, except during the period of construction.

7. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare, odor, or general unsightliness: There are no neighboring businesses.

8. That the establishment of the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property uses predominant to the area: The predominant adjacent land use is agricultural and the construction of this accessory building will not hinder development or improvement of neighboring properties.

9. That adequate utilities, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided: Adequate utilities exist or will be constructed to serve this use.

10. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control rodents, insects, offensive odors, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration in order that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and that adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent negative impacts on surface water, groundwater, and air quality, and that

measures have been taken to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result: The proposed use of the building as a residential accessory structure is not expected to create any of the nuisance conditions described above.

Some discussion was had about limiting the colors of the siding to allow the building to be less visible. Rush stated that conditions to limit the siding colors for the building were not proposed for this application because of the remote location of the building. Only 3 -4 neighbors would be able to see the building. Motion by Lindor and seconded by Jenniges to approve the conditional use permit. Motion carried 5-0.

3.) 6:35pm-Conditional Use Hearing on the application of Dan & Jamie Rother for a 36x40 (1440 sq ft) pole type building larger than 1100 square feet in shoreland zoning. On property described as: Lot 10 Block 2 40,500 sq ft.; Peterson Addition. Applicants are not present. Staff reviewed the application to construct a detached accessory structure for the purpose of storing personal items. Public hearing was opened and no one was here for or against this. Public hearing was closed. Site team reported that the site was adequate for the building size and was located across the township road from lakeshore properties and adjacent to an agricultural field.

Vatthauer inquired if there should be any conditions placed on the application that would require they have an earth friendly or neutral color because this is an open lot with open lots around it. Rush stated that the building was proposed to be red and white. Jenniges suggested a condition that would require the building to be neutral in color. Strommer proposed the following condition be added to those already recommended by staff:

That the exterior of the accessory building must be a neutral earth-tone color (i .e., tan, green, brown, beige, cream, white).

There was no drawing of the building presented. Strommer stated that ifthere is any kind of septic needed they must get a permit for it and follow the state and county regulations. Staff reviewed the following proposed findings offact:

I. The project is in compliance with the setback and other provisions of this ordinance unless a variance has been granted: The proposed building and use as presented to the county appears to be in compliance with the ordinance.

2. The use is not in conflict with the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The use does not appear to conflict with the comprehensive plan as it supports uses of land for residential and recreational purposes and does not present an over-use or high-density use of the land given the size of the parcel.

3. That the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish or impair neighborhood property values in the area,

and will not interfere with the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole: The accessory building is proposed in an area setback from other residential structures and properties. The size and location of the building will not interfere with future development on adjacent properties, nor is it expected to diminish or impair neighboring property values.

4. The use will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, water supply, public drainage systems and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve in the area: This alteration is not expected to impact public infrastructure.

5. The structure and sites shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties: The proposed building will be new and the site is expected to remain neat and orderly in appearance.

6. The road on which the project is proposed is adequate to handle increased traffic during construction and operation, and that the use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion: The existence of the building is not expected to increase traffic or create hazard, as it is intended to be used for storage of personal items.


8. That the establishment of the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property uses predominant to the area: The predominant adjacent land use is residential and agricultural. The construction of this accessory building will not hinder development or improvement of neighboring properties.

9. That adequate utilities, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided: Adequate utilities exist or will be constructed to serve this use.

10. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control rodents, insects, offensive odors, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration in order that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and that adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent negative impacts on surface water, groundwater, and air quality, and that measures have been taken to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result: The proposed use of the building as a residential accessory structure is not expected to create any of the nuisance conditions described above.

Staff recommended approval of the application with the following condition:

I. If any wastewater generating facilities (i.e., bathroom) are constructed at any time, a properly designed and permitted individual septic treatment system shall be installed.

Motion by Vatthauer and seconded by Jenniges to approve the application based on the findings of fact with the recommended condition and additional condition regarding the earth-tone color of the exterior. Motion carried 5-0.

4.) 6:45pm-Conditional Use Hearing on the application of Gary & Heidi Nohl for a 600 animal unit feedlot swine finishing. On property described as NE Y. Ex RR R-O-W reserved in bk f pg 626. Gary Nohl and Tyler Scott were present. Strommer introduced the application and then asked Barry Bouwman, feedlot officer, to go over the application in detail. Bouwman stated that all state and county requirements have been met for the siting of the facility and in following the procedures for the application process. This facility requires at least 1800 ft for set back from any neighboring residential properties based on the number of animal units. The closest residence is 5000 ft away. This has also been published in the paper as notification that there is a request for this large of a feedlot in the area. The applicant would need to write a commitment on the running of the feedlot. The applicant is present and willing to answer all questions. Tyler Scott explained the structure which will be double-tunnel ventilated finishing barn with fans on each. The manure will be in a pit under the barn and the pit will be ventilated as well. This will be a shower in/out facility for bio-security. The bins will be on the east side of the barn for efficiency reasons. Manure will be application will directly injected in the ground using a dragline custom applicator. The building will be located between two center-pivot irrigators.

The Chair opened the public portion of the hearing. Delroy Thielke is a landowner and is closest to this site. He is against this because of the potential of disease to spread to his hogs. He has a shallow well and is very concerned about leakage and it going into the water. He is also worried about the odor of the facility and ifbio-filters will be required. Gary Fredrickson is present to speak against this as he has a new house over I-mile from the proposed site. He also has low water table well and is very concerned about potential contamination of his well. He is also nervous about how the roads will hold up to the additional traffic. Kim Reaume is present and owns nearly 100 acres just east. He does not like factory farming. He is also concerned with the water quality and what the smell would be. The disease born by the operation is also a huge concern. He is also afraid it will ruin the value of his land. Nancy Tank is present questioning what the slope of the land from the proposed site to the Chippewa River. Barry did answer this and that it is flat and tiled. Nancy is questioning what the chance is that the runoff would reach the river. Barry explained the regulations for the pits. Richard Smith is present with concerns about the air quality and worried that the smell will affect the value of their property and the water table is very shallow. Kurt Reese had Delroy Thielke speak on his behalf. Kurt Reese is employed at the University of Minnesota, Morris campus and works in the swine research facility there. He was concerned that having a large swine finishing facility close to his home could be a potential bio-security hazard and will affect his work. He is also concerned about the water quality being affected in his shallow well.

Rush asked Nohl and Scott what crops were typically planted on the fields surrounding the proposed facility. The crops on this acreage are normal com, sugar beet, etc. Rush asked how much fertilizer is normally applied to those crops. Nohl replied that it can be as much as 200 lbs per acre. Rush stated that he has a Masters Degree in hydrogeology from the University of North Dakota and spent 6 years of his early career studying the potential impacts of agricultural chemicals on ground water. He stated that manure use as a fertilizer is far more regulated than chemical fertilizers. He pointed out that the chemical fertili zer has more of a chance of seeping into the ground water than manure fertili zer because the manure will adhere to the soil and not migrate as quickly. He would recommend having the wells tested now to see if there are any problems even before this feedlot. Similar studies in the Perham area on sandy soils where crops are being irrigated showed high levels of nitrates in the shallow groundwater. There was a question when the irrigation pumps in the summer are going ifthat will change the direction of the water flow. This will change the flow but only as long as the pumps are running and only within close proximity to the pumps. There was a question about what kind of soil is in this area. Rush stated that he assumed that the soils were classified as a sandy loam and were overlying a sandy unconfined surficial aquifer. Barry Bouwman also addressed the concerns about the chemicals that go into the ground. He was just at a conference where swine manure fertilization and the organic nature of it was discussed. Barry stated that the county policy is to have biofilters. The ones that have been previously built are working far better than expected. The odor will never be gone but the biofilters and fan take the edge out of the odor. There was a question about large rains flooding this area and draining to the river. Tyler addressed this and stated that the pit will be half out of the ground because this is a low area. The facility will also have tile around the foundation to drain water away. Rush stated that because of this being built partially out of the ground, there would need to be 4 feet of standing water around the area before the facility would be overtopped. Bouwman stated the peA is very strict about the perimeter tile. Rush and Bouwman both agreed that they were not aware of any manure storage pit failing in Minnesota. Jane Thielke is present and is upset about this being built by them. Nancy Tank commented that the emissions from the facility have been shown to be toxic. She stated that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed for another facility operated by Propork and the EIS showed that emissions from the facility were toxic. She added that a neighbor to this facility had a child that was affected by the toxic nature of the emissions. Toxic fumes are monitored by the state on all facilities. Tank is requesting that the county table this and check to see if any fumes from hog facilities in Minnesota are toxic enough to harm people. Rush and Bouwman thought that the toxicity may be from hydrogen sulfide. They were unaware of any other facility in the state that had been shut down due to toxic emissions. There were also questions about disease from the hogs. Scott answered that this facility was bio-secure and is shower in/shower out facility. The hogs are all coming from a company with proven clean genetics and to be disease free. All trucks will be washed before they pick up the hogs. Scott has been in contact with Lee Johnson at the University regarding employment and disease. Anderson closed the public hearing. Lindor questioned how deep the irrigation system is which was answered was about 130'. Lindor asked what happens if the water lines burst. Scott answered that there is a

caretaker who visits the facility once daily and would alert the operator to any issues that need to be repaired. Nohl stated that a new well would be dug for the facility at approximately 40 ft. A board member asked why the applicant does not have the animals in their backyard. Nohl answered that his family lives in town so this is why he is building on his farm land. He would like to have a bam near other land that he owns, but cannot due to the restriction of having residential homes too close to a facility. Thielke has animal units in the 100 animal range. Vatthauer asked about the normal direction of surface drainage. Scott answered that it would be to the south and east. There is a drainage ditch that flow east and west to the Chippewa River but there is also one that is deeper and runs north.

Staff presented proposed findings that support approving the application. The findings are as follows:

1. The project is in compliance with the setback and other provisions of this ordinance unless a variance has been granted: The request complies with the provisions of the ordinance. 2. The use is not in conflict with the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The use does not appear to conflict with the comprehensive plan as it supports agricultural activity that does not impact neighboring properties in the Agricultural Protection district. 3. That the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish or impair neighborhood property values in the area, and will not interfere with the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole: The proposed feedlot is located in an agricultural region of the county where the immediate surrounding uses are agricultural in nature. No other conflicting uses have been permitted on adjacent properties. The nearest residence is located over 5000 ft from the proposed feedlot facility. 4. The use will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, water supply, public drainage systems and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve in the area: This alteration is not expected to impact public infrastructure. 5. The structure and sites shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties: The appearance of these structures and the sites is expected to be neat and orderly and is not expected to have an adverse effect on the neighboring agricultural properties. 6. The road on which the project is proposed is adequate to handle increased traffic during construction and operation, and that the use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion: The proposed feedlot is not expected to increase traffic. Additionally, the existing township road is adequate to accommodate the expected traffic volume and vehicle weight from this operation. 7. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare, odor, or general unsightliness: There are no neighboring businesses in this location. 8.That the establishment of the use will not impede the normal and orderly

development and improvement of surrounding vacant property uses predominant to the area: Proposed feedlot will not impede development of neighboring lands as they are currently in agricultural use where development is restricted by the current zoning ordinance. 9. That adequate utilities, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided: Adequate utilities are existing or will be constructed to serve this use. 10. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control rodents, insects, offensive odors, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration in order that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and that adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent negative impacts on surface water, groundwater, and air quality, and that measures have been taken to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result: Requirements of State rules and conditions proposed by County staff, if approved, will limit and/or prevent negative impacts on surface and ground water, air quality and the aesthetics of the location.

Rush presented the staff recommendation. Staff recommended approval of the application with the following conditions:

I. All requirements of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Rules, Chapter 7020 that pertain to animal feedlots with over 300 but under 1000 animal units must be met at all times during the operation of the feedlot.

2. The applicant must maintain a manure management plan to accommodate manure produced for the number of animals registered for the site. The plan must be written to address all items regulated in MPCA Chapter 7020.2225 and all additional requirements of this permit. The manure management plan must be approved in writing by the County Feedlot Officer or his designee before the plan may be implemented and the feedlot occupied by animals.

3. All aspects of the approved manure management plan must be followed at all times during the operation of the feedlot. Any changes to the plan must be submitted in writing to the Land & Resource Management Office (Feedlot Officer or Director) for review and approval. Proposed changes to the manure management plan must be approved in writing by the County Feedlot Officer or his designee before the plan may be implemented.

4. All manure application must comply with MPCA Chapter 7020.2225 and the following requirements:

a. Any surface application of hog manure must be incorporated within 48 hours ofapplication.

b. The County Feedlot Officer shall be notified at least 48 hours in advance of any manure application from this facility. If application is within a County other than Pope, that County's Feedlot officer or other responsible official shall be notified.

5. All mortality must be either removed from the site, or properly disposed of on-site

within 48 hours of discovery.

6. Biofilters must be installed on all fans ventilating the manure pit. The biofilter design must be approved by the County Feedlot Officer.

7. Failure to meet any of the conditions listed above may result in revocation of this permit following procedures established by and listed in the Pope County Land Use Ordinance.

Public hearing was opened for five minutes because of additional questions from the public. There was a question if the owner of the operation owns the pigs or ifhe is the middle man. A comment was made that the application appeared to be a "rubber stamp" approval. There were also questions about the value of the property. Public hearing was again closed. The owner does want to own the pigs but this has not been worked out because this is all on condition of this being approved or not. Vic Vatthauer questioned what design is being used for the biofilters. Bouwman answered that the county uses the designs developed by the University of Minnesota, Morris. These designs have become a standard for the industry. Anderson answered that all applications are considered by the board based on the information in the staff report and testimony from the applicant and public at the hearing. The board approaches every application with an open mind. Anderson closed the public hearing. Rush provided a synopsis of the issues for the board to consider. He stated that the county is aware that hog facilities produce odor and have the potential to pollute. But these facilities are agricultural operations in an agricultural area. Rush pointed out that the ordinance and county comprehensive plan have designed this area as an A2 zoning district, which is intended to be primarily for intensive agricultural purposes. He noted that provisions of the ordinance attempt to protect existing uses in those areas with setbacks such that existing houses are setback from new feedlots and new houses are setback from existing feedlots. All of the requirements of the ordinance and state rules have been met or exceeded by the applicant. Jenniges questioned about a previous feedlot such as this. Bouwman stated that there are several facilities that are larger than this one in the county and there have been few complaints about them in recent years. Motion by Jergenson to accept this application based on the findings of fact and with the recommended conditions and the additional condition that the biofilter design must follow the University of Minnesota standards, seconded by Vic Vatthauer. Motion carried 4-1

5.) Discussion of tabled business - Adjourn Motion by Dan Jenniges and seconded by Brian Jergenson at 8:07pm. Motion carried 5-0.




Thursday, November 21",2013

Members Present: Judy Anderson, Mike Holland, Darin Adolphsen, Daniel Jenniges, Brian Jergenson, Vic Vatthauer, Larry Lindor Others Present: Amanda Strommer, Director;


I.) Review Minutes from October 24th, 2013 Motion by Dan Jenniges and seconded by Vic

Vatthauer to approve the minutes from the October meeting. Motion carried 5-0.

2.) There may not be a December meeting so Amanda Strommer and Larry Lindor wanted to recognize Vic Vatthauer and Mike Holland for their years of service on the board. Their terms are up as of the end of December and they were handed plaques as a thank you.

3.) 6: \0 pm Conditional Use Permit on Michael & Barbara Niesen for a one year pennit extension to keep the existing RV on lot. On property described as: Lot I, Block I 53,244 sq ft ., Iversons Lakeshore Lots Plat 2, Section 18, Range 123 (Gilchrist), Range 37. Located at address 21372 Co Rd 10, Glenwood, MN 56334. Staff explained the reason for the request which is that an RV on any property is authorized for a three year period and that any time after that has to be requested yearly through a Conditional Use Permit. Michael and Barbara are present to answer any questions. They explained that they are hooked up to septic. They recently purchased the property next to them and they will be merging their property to one parcel. Future plans will be to build on this property. No one else is here to speak for or against this request and no correspondence was sent in. Staff findings are as follows:

1. The project is in compliance with the setback and other provisions of this ordinance unless a variance has been granted: The RV and its use as presented to the county appear to be in compliance with the ordinance.

2. The use is not in conflict with the County Comprehensive Land Use Plan: The use does not appear to conflict with the comprehensive plan which supports uses of land for residential and recreational purposes in the shoreland zoning district.

3. That the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish or impair neighborhood property values in the area, and will not interfere with the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole: The RV is located off the road and screened from the neighboring properties by trees and shrubs. In addition, the appearance of the RV and the property is neat and orderly and would not be considered to be a detriment to the neighboring properties.

4. The use will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, water supply, public drainage systems and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve in the area: The RV is used seasonally and will not greatly impact public infrastructure.

5. The structure and sites shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties: The RV and property are well kept and neat in appearance.

6. The road on which the project is proposed is adequate to handle increased traffic during construction and operation, and that the use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion: The existence of the RV is not expected to increase traffic or create a hazard.


8. That the establishment of the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property uses predominant to the area: The proposed continued placement of an RV on this lot is expected to lead to the development of a permanent year-round structure.

9. Those adequate utilities, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided: Adequate utilities exist.

10. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control rodents, insects, offensive odors, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration in order that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and that adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent negative impacts on surface water, groundwater, and air quality, and that measures have been taken to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result: The proposed use of the RV as a residential structure is not expected to create any of the nuisance conditions described above.

Staff recommendations are as follows:

l. The permit for the RV shall expire after 3-years of the date of approval by the County Board or within one-year of completion of a permanent dwelling, whichever occurs first.

Site team was there and there are no issues with the site. Motion by Dan Jenniges and seconded by Larry Lindor to approve with the conditions recommended by Staff. Motion carried 7-0.

4.) 6: 23pm- Final Plat Review on the application of Mary E. Pehan for a two (2) lot subdivision from an existing platted lot on property described as: Lot 5, Co Aud Subd # 19, Section 1, Township 126(Reno), Range 38. Located at address 10713 St. Hwy 29, Glenwood, MN 56334. There is no one present for this final review. Staff explained the findings of facts on the revised report and the purpose of this review. Staff went over the previous conditions and stated that this has been completed by the owner. Staff recommendations are to approve the request. Site team agreed that the previous conditions were met and the lots are very large. Motion by Vic Vatthauer to approve the division of the lot. Seconded by Mike Holland. Motion carried 7-0.

5.) Discussion of tabled business ~ Adjourn Motion by Dan Jenniges and seconded by Darin Adolphsen to adjourn the meeting at 6:30pm. Motion carried 7-0.



:edfu:u~m:;,~...meeting minutes pope county planning advisory commission thursday, february 21 st,...

Documents