[8:59] No, you don't have to start over. Please don't.

[9:05] » Upon completion of the commission's questions, I will ask if there's anyone

[9:09] in the audience wishing to speak at this request. If there is, I will ask the

[9:13] person who filled out the speaker card to come to the podium, state their name

[9:16] and address for the record, and give their testimony. When all testimony is

[9:20] complete, I will ask commission members for a motion to close the public

[9:23] hearing. [sighs] Did we change that where we don't have to ask for new

[9:27] motions? >> Just make three calls and if there's no

[9:29] one to respond, then you make you may close.

[9:31] » The chair just closes the public hearing. Okay. Um

[9:36] if there's no further input, no further input will be taken once the public

[9:39] hearing is closed unless you're recognized by the chair or one of the

[9:43] commission members is seeking clarification.

[9:47] The commission will review and discuss the findings of fact. The findings are a

[9:51] series of questions that the commission is required to answer based on Minnesota

[9:55] statute and the requirements of the ordinance.

[9:59] Uh we have no one attending virtually this evening I believe. Okay.

[10:05] Then we will move on to the the meeting.

[10:10] We'll take roll call. District one Cindy Hner

[10:14] » here. Uh, District 2, Dev Dave Benford is absent. District three, Greg

[10:19] Frederick's absent. Uh, District 4, Dave Canafla

[10:24] » here. Uh, >> I'm Leroy Gander from District 5. At

[10:28] large, member Rick Blankenish >> here.

[10:31] » At large, Angie Tomovic >> here.

[10:34] » Exofficio member County Commissioner Joe Perski here.

[10:38] » Thank you. We will recite the stand and we'll recite the pledge.

[10:46] I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[10:51] republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[10:58] justice for all. [clears throat]

[11:05] » Okay, with that, we'll start with our first agenda item. The applicants are

[11:09] Dave and Julia Wick. if you care to come forward.

[11:15] Uh they're here to conditional they're here to consider a conditional use

[11:20] permit request for an after the-act major shoreland alteration

[11:25] according to sections 10.2.14D and 10.2.14i

[11:32] of the Sterns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance 439. The request includes

[11:36] retaining walls constructed on a on steep slopes within the building setback

[11:41] of Cedar Lake Island, Cedar Island Lake. The property is part of government lot 3

[11:47] in section 31 of Wakefield Township. The address of the property is uh 18598

[11:54] Cedar Lane, Richmond, Minnesota. I'll ask uh the members who visited the

[11:59] site. Uh I did. Uh Cindy, >> yes I did. Uh Dave,

[12:05] » I did for their uh application for variance.

[12:10] » Okay. Uh Rich, >> yes.

[12:12] » Angie, >> yes.

[12:14] » And Commissioner Perski, >> yes.

[12:16] » We'll ask Nick to do a staff report. >> Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the planning

[12:21] commission. Um we'll go over some site information here. The parcel is about a

[12:24] third of an acre. Impervious coverage is about 24%. There's bluff present in the

[12:30] project area with a direct slope from the lake to the lake from the building

[12:34] setback. Uh lomy sand partially [clears throat] potentially highly

[12:38] erodable due to the slope. Most of the lot is mowed lawn grass currently and

[12:43] devoid of native vegetation. There is flood plane but it's not in the project

[12:47] area where the wall is. Uh septic system is compliant. R1 zoning district. Cedar

[12:52] Island Lake is the water body. um property owners, they submitted an

[12:56] application back in May for a variance to add a deck and second story addition

[13:01] that didn't meet setbacks. As part of that process, they were notified that

[13:05] proceeding with the variance request would require compliance with all other

[13:09] aspects of the property, including this after the fact permit application for

[13:13] the retaining wall on the lake side of the structure. It was constructed years

[13:17] ago by previous owners. It was not the current owners that constructed this. Uh

[13:22] and then they submitted their application

[13:25] for this conditional after the fact conditional use permit. Uh there's two

[13:30] sections of retaining walls, one on either side of the steps that come down.

[13:35] The north wall is 73 ft by about 3 and 12 to 4 ft tall. The south wall is 26 ft

[13:41] long and again up to 4 ft tall. Um aerial imagery shows it was constructed

[13:47] and/or modified between like 2005 and 2008 time frame. Shoreline permits for

[13:52] anything like this would have been required after the mid1 1980s in this

[13:55] area. Uh they did come up with a planting plan. We talked about this a

[14:01] little bit and they uh worked with Minnesota Native Landscapes to develop a

[14:04] native planting plan for the um there's a few areas indicated in the pictures.

[14:10] Essentially u three separate areas shown. The north side above the

[14:15] retaining wall is about 1,600 square ft. uh the shoreline slope would be enhanced

[14:20] of uh that's about 1,600 square f feet and then a buffer above the shoreline

[14:26] slope area to be enhanced and that's about 825 ft.

[14:30] Uh the retaining wall has been in place for many years. There's no current

[14:36] erosion concerns associated with the wall at this time. the planting plan is

[14:40] is sufficient to meet the minimum requirements and it will also reduce the

[14:44] surface runoff from the slope um to allow for some more infiltration into

[14:49] the ground instead of it running across the surface. It conforms to the

[14:53] requirements of the permit and is aligned with the goals of the

[14:55] comprehensive plan. So, um there's two proposed conditions. One is that the

[15:01] planting plan as proposed would be implemented by June 15th of next year.

[15:06] And then uh in terms of a financial guarantee, a financial guarantee of cash

[15:11] asker letter of credit for $5,000 shall be submitted to Sterns County to ensure

[15:16] establishment of the planting plan and that would be returned once 70% of the

[15:20] vegetation cover is achieved. Uh I did not receive any correspondence

[15:26] on this item. I believe that's all I got.

[15:30] » Thank you, Nick. Uh do do the Wix uh first introduce yourselves uh give your

[15:35] name and address and then if you have any comments,

[15:38] additional comments.

[15:50] Richmond. >> Thank you. Do you have any additional

[15:53] comments you'd like to to add? Any? >> Um, no. That pretty much, I guess, sums

[15:57] it up. Okay. We bought the house a little over a year ago and um, from my

[16:01] understanding, yeah, that wall's been there for 20 plus years from the

[16:05] previous owner and it's in good shape, no deterioration, and straight and

[16:11] level, and I think doing what it's it was originally intended to do.

[16:16] » Okay.

[16:19] Um I at this time we'll open a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public

[16:23] who wishes to speak regarding this matter? Could come forward please.

[16:36] » Good evening. [clears throat] >> Good evening.

[16:39] » State your name and address. >> My name is Scott Gerkin and I have a few

[16:42] addresses in the county. um some in Richmond, some just down from their

[16:46] property. Uh I just wanted to [clears throat] say a few words. First

[16:50] of all, >> Scott, could you give us one of the

[16:52] maybe the address where you live? >> How about 15463 County Road 21? Great.

[16:57] » And that'd be Watkins, which is a few miles from the project.

[17:01] So, I I guess I'm a little concerned and and I think this is probably the maybe

[17:06] the county's way of doing things, but the way that it was handled, I don't

[17:10] think it was very efficient or professional in that when

[17:15] he applied for the variance, the first one was denied and now he has

[17:19] to come back and pay for and then apply for this variance.

[17:25] So, he's going to have to pay for this and then you guys are probably going to

[17:27] charge him or Nick's office will with a uh after the fact penalty on top of it.

[17:33] And I think as a as a county, they're trying to do the right thing. The wall

[17:38] isn't damaged. They're not shoveling. They're not moving any dirt. Um I I

[17:44] think the county should take a look at that and probably wave either both those

[17:48] fees or definitely the penalty fee. Second, I don't think that they should

[17:52] have to put down $7,000 or $5,000 cash down to ensure that they're going to do

[17:58] the work. They came to the county to get the proper variances for their house and

[18:03] now for the retaining wall that is doing its job just fine.

[18:08] If you're going to insist that they pay that, I think you should pay it back

[18:11] with interest when they complete the property, just as though it were a loan

[18:15] to the county like anybody else would expect interest on it.

[18:21] Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Scott. Is there anyone

[18:25] else who wishes to speak to this matter? Any other public testimony?

[18:31] Anyone? Uh then I'll declare the public hearing

[18:35] closed.

[18:38] Does the commission have any questions for staff or the applicant?

[18:46] » Uh I just have a question for the applicants. Do you have any comments

[18:50] about what the gentleman just said? >> Um, I guess,

[18:57] yeah, I understand there's a permit fee. Um, there's an after fee.

[19:02] [clears throat] I guess we're we want to get the project

[19:06] done. At the same time, it's been 20 plus years. We did not do it. I guess

[19:12] the penalty part is what it is, but I guess in my honest opinion, I guess I

[19:16] don't I don't agree with that. Um why we're being penalized

[19:23] when like I said, we had nothing to do with it in the first place. So I guess

[19:28] we'll we'll do what needs to be done, but I guess that would that would at the

[19:34] end of the day probably Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with that.

[19:40] Anyone else?

[19:44] Mr. Chair, I've got a couple things. Uh, first of all, Angie, do they have the

[19:48] the ability to request an appeal on that at all?

[19:53] » Uh, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Perski, the appeal on the fee?

[19:56] » Yes. >> Yes, they could request relief from the

[20:00] county board of commissioners. um just for the public's and the

[20:04] planning commission's benefit. The reason there's after the fact fees

[20:08] charged is we can't we can't go and find the seller of the property and find them

[20:14] for something that they did 20 years ago. Our office has substantial

[20:19] investment in these projects that are after the fact.

[20:23] We have a lot of staff time that goes into them. And so when the commissioner

[20:26] set the fees for 2026, they were very aware that after the fact

[20:32] fees were going to be higher to counteract those costs, or else

[20:38] obviously the result is the levy dollars that everyone else in the county is

[20:42] going to be picking up. So that's a county commissioner or county board of

[20:46] commissioners decision 100%. I would ask that the planning commission not give an

[20:51] opinion on that. Um, Commissioner Perski, if you want to pursue something

[20:56] to that effect, that would be up to you as a commissioner.

[20:59] » I I just uh when we, you know, increase those fees, the idea was when we active,

[21:05] we have people that are actively making changes and they try to get by

[21:10] intentionally and are still at the property owners. This is a little bit

[21:14] more unique when it's a good number of years have passed and of course, they

[21:17] weren't involved with the actual construction of that wall. So, Yeah.

[21:25] » Uh I have a question, Angie. The it was mentioned that they had a variance for

[21:29] the the building project you want to do that was turned down

[21:34] because of this. It was a different reason.

[21:39] » Uh Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. So, the variance was denied

[21:44] for the reasons that the board of adjustment established, not related to

[21:48] the retaining wall. But there's a provision in our ordinance that states

[21:51] if you have a violation on your property, you need to correct that

[21:55] violation before you can obtain any before you can apply for any permits.

[22:00] So, they were aware unfortunately the variance was denied and now they're here

[22:04] to obtain approval to keep the walls as

[22:08] existing. >> Okay. So, one has nothing to do with the

[22:12] other. >> No, it just triggered one triggered the

[22:15] other. Okay. But didn't was not part of the findings for the board of

[22:18] adjustments decision. >> Okay.

[22:22] Mr. Chair, the other questions I had was uh regards to the shoreline. Uh it looks

[22:27] like you're going to be doing an rather extensive restoration on the shoreline,

[22:32] which is quite good. We like to see that. And then uh as far as the rock is

[22:36] concerned, the uh rock at the base of the uh shoreline, there's going to be no

[22:43] uh additional rock put in. Is that correct?

[22:46] » No. >> And that there's no erosion taking place

[22:48] at that times at this time at all. So >> Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that.

[22:55] » Um Nick, when the the planting plan occurs on this property,

[23:00] could you run through how that's going to progress? Are they going to do they

[23:04] have to kill the existing grass that's there?

[23:08] » Yep. So, some of that's outlined in the fees um that Minnesota Native Landscapes

[23:12] put together in their estimate, but so you terminate the existing vegetation

[23:16] that's there. It's usually sprayed. Um you might do a touch-up spray to

[23:20] terminate the remaining vegetation that's still there. Ideally, the

[23:23] planting happens later in the fall. Um and then

[23:29] you know it it'll overwinter and then in the spring it starts to come through. Um

[23:33] fall plantings you get a little bit better establishment that following

[23:36] year. So um then once it's 70% cover that financial guarantee is released you

[23:42] know we we follow up with a site visit verify that it's growing then the

[23:46] financial guarantee can be released. I did just want to make one more note as

[23:50] well on that financial guarantee. The standard for financial guarantees is

[23:55] 125% of the cost of the project. Um because this was an additional cost with

[24:00] this after the fact fee and they did not do this project themselves, we did lower

[24:04] that to the $5,000. So that is substantially less than what our

[24:08] standard 125% of the cost financial guarantee would be as well. So So that

[24:13] is a measure that was taken to address that part. Mr. M, sorry, Mr. Chair, I

[24:18] just want to make make sure that we again we are not voting on the costs and

[24:22] and so forth. We are really voting on a shoreland uh alternation improvements

[24:27] really what you're doing as far as planting correct and approving that plan

[24:32] not not necessarily the cost the permits the variances so forth just just to be

[24:38] clear on that. So uh I for my part I like what you're proposing to do on a

[24:43] shoreline to to protect the water quality. Uh, as far as the cost, there

[24:48] is apparently a a process to to really challenge that and and have that

[24:54] discussion with the board directly. I don't think the planning commission will

[24:57] weigh on that tonight.

[25:02] I mean, the concern I have about terminating the existing sod that's

[25:06] there is erosion. Is is that a concern and how is that going to be addressed?

[25:12] » Sure, Mr. Chair. Um, so Minnesota Native Landscapes is an established contractor

[25:17] that's done a lot of work in the county and elsewhere in the state. So, it's a

[25:20] common practice when you terminate that. Um, you still have that vegetation, the

[25:24] dead, you know, vegetative cover. Um, it's not like it's a disturbed area, you

[25:30] know, where you're tearing out every all the roots and everything. Um and then in

[25:33] addition you know after planting uh it all gets covered up again you know if if

[25:39] there are areas with disturbed soil it gets covered with erosion control

[25:42] blanket and covered and then over winter it's not you know concern with snow

[25:47] cover and with all of that covered it does grow through pretty well and

[25:50] erosion is not an issue and from from what I saw in their proposal here um

[25:55] this is done it's very commonly done on slopes like this and much steeper

[26:04] What if we vote um to recommend not to approve this? What would they have to do

[26:09] to the property? >> Uh then the retaining wall would need to

[26:13] be removed or they would have to bring it down to what a administrative minor

[26:19] shoreland alteration permit would allow which would actually be very limited

[26:22] here due to the slope um that's present. So essentially the wall would have to be

[26:26] removed um if it was denied. Do we have an idea of what the the area looked like

[26:32] before the wall was put up? >> It's hard to tell. Um

[26:38] I mean it probably looked somewhat similar to the adjacent slope. Um

[26:44] again I mean a lot of these areas have been altered to some extent over the

[26:47] years. So there's really no way to know even reasonably close necessarily what

[26:53] what it was like. Um, you know, like I did mention, there were permits just a

[26:58] couple houses down on both sides of them from the 80s. Um, they were

[27:02] substantially smaller projects, but the a lot of these areas have had

[27:06] alterations done in some form over time. And, um,

[27:12] as I noted, there's there's no there's no, you know, substantial erosion issue

[27:17] or runoff problems that this wall is causing at the present time. it's been

[27:20] here a while and it's not if if it if there were areas of concentrated runoff

[27:25] or erosion problems or something then that might be something that I would

[27:28] really want you know some clarity on and we would have probably talked about that

[27:31] more to address that but that's not the case from from what I've seen here.

[27:36] » Okay. Are there any other questions of the

[27:40] applicant or staff or any discussion amongst the commission?

[27:48] Are we ready to move to the finding the fact

[27:55] number one? Can the applicant sufficiently document that the

[27:59] alteration was done to protect water quality, improve aesthetics, control

[28:04] erosion, or enhance habitat? Please describe the reasons the applicant made

[28:08] the alteration and include documentation if possible or if available.

[28:20] Mr. Chair, >> yep. I uh in my my opinion, the

[28:24] applicant has made sufficiently documented the that the alternation will

[28:29] take place as appropriately as as requested by the by the county to

[28:34] improve aesthetic control, erosion and enhance uh water, you know, protect the

[28:38] water quality and documentation is submitted with this

[28:42] together with proposed conditions by the county.

[28:46] » Okay. Number two, why did the applicant fail to obtain an alteration permit or

[28:52] comply with requirements before commencing work?

[28:56] That's kind of obvious. They didn't do it. Some previous owner, do you know it

[29:00] was the previous owner or several owners? Previous

[29:04] » one previous owner. >> Okay.

[29:08] Number three, did the applicant obtain all other required permits and comply

[29:12] with other requirements? Uh, please identify all other required permits and

[29:17] whether the applicant obtained the permits.

[29:21] » Mr. Chair, the applicant was required to apply for this permit to apply for his

[29:30] variance request and he had to do a compliance inspection on the septic

[29:36] system. >> Thank you, Dave. Number four is the

[29:40] alteration in a sensitive area like a shore or bluff impact zone, a wetland

[29:45] buffer, county by biological survey site, or other documented high value

[29:50] habitat. Identify and describe all sensitive areas.

[30:04] I would guess it was just the the the shore or bluff impact zone and the

[30:08] others probably did not uh impact this site.

[30:14] » It doesn't look it's in a flood plane, right? And it's not in a wetland area.

[30:21] » Number five, is the alteration visible from the lake or public water? describe

[30:27] the degree to which the alteration is visible.

[30:32] » Mr. Chair, it is visible from the water, but it's going to be, I would say,

[30:37] enhancing the appearance from the standpoint you're going to see the

[30:41] natural vegetation that you have planned for it.

[30:45] » Thank you, Rich. Uh, number six, does the alteration affect the character of

[30:49] the neighborhood or will it result in a substantial detriment to neighboring

[30:54] properties? describe all substantial changes and detriments.

[31:00] » Mr. Chair, I don't uh the the alternation will not negatively affect

[31:05] the neighborhood or or neighborhood neighboring properties. In in fact, it's

[31:09] going to enhance aesthetic, the character, the vegetative buffer,

[31:13] erosion, sediment control, u water quality, storm water system management,

[31:19] uh wildlife and all that, you know, efficient. So, it's it's really a

[31:22] positive uh effort. Thank you, Angie. Uh, number seven, did the alteration

[31:28] reduce or eliminate an existing buffer between the ordinary ordinary high water

[31:33] level water and impervious surfaces or create a more direct conduit for storm

[31:38] water flow into public waters? Uh, please describe for the answer

[31:47] » again. M. [laughter]

[31:50] » Oh, go ahead, Cindy. >> Mr. Chair, I was just going to clarify

[31:54] that I believe that the alteration um improves the um existing buffer um and

[32:00] will in um and will inrove improve that um storm water flow.

[32:08] » Thank you. Okay, Angie. Anything else? >> Yeah, I I want to echo what was said.

[32:12] The proposed alteration, right, will will improve the water quality because

[32:16] it will filter that first runoff. It will reduce that pollutants coming into

[32:20] into the water really. So it's it's again in all in all the proposed uh

[32:24] vegetation plan, vegetative plan etc is uh uh is commendable.

[32:31] » Number eight, >> I just want to point out that um are we

[32:36] referring to the alteration in the retaining walls that were put in? Uh and

[32:42] then to remedy the situation there, this property owner

[32:49] is [snorts] getting um natural vegetation involved

[32:54] to do a better job of anchoring the the the bluff area.

[33:00] » Thank you, Rich. Number eight, did the alteration change

[33:04] or damage any of the following categories? Uh describe the change or

[33:09] damage for each category. uh aesthetics of the shore as viewed

[33:14] from the public water. Character of the neighborhood or shoreline, vegetated

[33:19] buffer, erosion or sediment control device or system, storm water management

[33:24] device or system, fish or wildlife, wildlife habitat, or water quality.

[33:34] No, I think we're talking about the original alteration.

[33:44] » Mr. Chair, I believe that it it did alter the aesthetics

[33:53] um with the view from the lake and

[33:59] it may have altered some of the storm water drainage to the

[34:05] lake. Um there was no indication of erosion.

[34:11] Um,

[34:15] » that's about it.

[34:22] Number nine. Could the applicant mitigate the damage or change without

[34:26] removing the alteration and restoring the site? Please explain how mitigation

[34:32] would occur and the results of the mitigation.

[34:35] I think Nick uh described what would happen if

[34:40] uh if if we had to uh restore it.

[34:49] Anyone want to add anything to that?

[34:55] Mr. Sure. I believe that uh

[35:01] removing the the existing retaining wall possibly could cause more damage

[35:14] than leaving the leaving leaving the wall in and making the

[35:20] or doing the vegetative buffers. >> Okay.

[35:24] Thanks, Dave. Number 10. Would the minimum benefits to the county appear to

[35:29] be far outweighed by the detriment the applicant would suffer if forced to

[35:34] restore the alteration? Why or why not? And then describe the minimum benefits

[35:38] and details of the detriment to the applicant.

[35:49] Uh Mr. Chair, I don't see any benefits to the county of um having them restore

[35:56] the alteration back to its previous condition.

[36:05] Any other opinions on that?

[36:15] Mr. Chair, I I do believe there is a feasible plan to actually uh mitigate

[36:20] the damage of of the previous alteration, I guess, by by uh without

[36:23] removing the alteration and and putting together, you know, implementing this

[36:27] planting plan that that we have been discussing uh today. Um and yeah,

[36:33] there's no benefit to the county to remove in my opinion retaining wall.

[36:36] It's actually more damage probably erosion and steeper slopes uh uh and and

[36:41] the water quality. I don't know how would water quality benefit plus the

[36:44] owners will incur substantial cost. >> Okay.

[36:51] Uh that at this time I'm looking for a motion to approve or deny the request.

[36:58] » Mr. Chair [laughter] >> Rich,

[37:01] » uh I move that we approve um the after the fact application with

[37:07] the two pro uh excuse me proposed conditions.

[37:11] Um, in regards to the planting and the financial guarantee,

[37:18] » I'll second.

[37:22] Rich made a motion to approve the after the fact request. Dave seconded the

[37:28] motion. Is there any discussion? Any discussion? [sighs]

[37:33] If not, all in favor? >> I I.

[37:36] » All opposed? Motion carries. I believe the county

[37:41] commissioners will make a the final determination. We're a recommending

[37:45] board. The the commissioners will make a final deter determination I think

[37:50] September 15. That sound right? >> I think I saw that somewhere. Thank you.

[37:57] » Sorry you had to go through this. It's >> that commissioners meeting. Is that

[38:03] anything that we have to attend as well or

[38:06] » if you want to talk about the fees maybe? [clears throat]

[38:09] [laughter]

[38:13] Thank you.

[38:18] » Our next item is to consider request for conditional use permit submitted by

[38:23] Jiren and Brenda Nathy of Melrose. Jiren, would you come forward, please?

[38:28] According to the requirements of Sterns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance

[38:31] 439, section 6.8 8 requires a conditional use permit for feed lots

[38:36] with 700 animal units or more that are proposing changes. The property under

[38:41] consideration is located at 41887 County Road 13 Melrose.

[38:48] Uh members who visited the site, uh I did. Cindy,

[38:54] » yes. >> Dave,

[38:56] » no. >> Rich,

[38:59] » yes. >> Angie,

[39:01] » yes. and Commissioner Perski. >> Yes.

[39:04] » Okay. Uh Amber, would you care to give us a

[39:08] staff report? >> Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members

[39:12] of the board. Um, the applicant is looking to increase

[39:16] animal units up to 818, construct a 40x 64 total confinement

[39:23] barn, which is number eight on the map, and also planning to expand the minur um

[39:29] manur stockpile area, the concrete stockpile pad, um, by about a third, um,

[39:36] 5,300 [clears throat] square ft to be a total of 15,000 square

[39:40] ft. And then during the review of this site, it was found that there was an

[39:45] existing settling basin that was on a on a plan from NRCS back in 2008 that was

[39:52] just overlooked. So that's also getting added to the permit. It it does meet all

[39:56] the requirements. So that's noted on here as well.

[40:01] The feed lot was originally registered back in February of 1999 for 342 animal

[40:07] units. Um the last permit was issued May 7th of 2018 for 698 animal units and

[40:15] this July a registration came in for 804 animal units and that was over the

[40:22] maximum for the site. So that's what triggered um a non-compliance letter

[40:26] sent to the to the land owners. [clears throat] Um when that letter was

[40:33] sent then an application was submitted on July 8th

[40:40] um proposing the increase to the 818 animal units. So I was out there on July

[40:45] 8th for a compliance inspection and determined the facility to be compliant

[40:50] with water quality and I also did review records and a min management plan and

[40:56] both were found compliant as well. [clears throat]

[41:01] Um, all surrounding properties are zoned A80. The nearest residence is 3,288

[41:09] ft to the west.

[41:13] F FRC did review this uh request on August 5th at their meeting and did

[41:19] approve it with the recommended um with this staff recommendations or conditions

[41:25] I should say. And if approved, it would go to the

[41:29] county board meeting September 15th, 2026. That's all I have.

[41:35] » Okay. Thank you, Amber. >> Um

[41:39] Jiren, would you state your name and address for the record, please?

[41:43] » Jiren Nathy, 35073 County Road 13, Melrose.

[41:49] » Thank Do you have anything to add to the report?

[41:52] » Um I don't. She covered it very well, I believe.

[41:55] » Okay.

[41:58] Does um well, we'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone

[42:02] from the public who wishes to make a comment?

[42:06] Anyone?

[42:09] Anyone? At this time, we'll close the public hearing. Uh does the any of the

[42:16] commission have any questions for the staff or applicant?

[42:24] » Kind of quiet.

[42:35] Is there any further discussion? [laughter]

[42:40] » I always like it when uh no one's here to uh from the public to complain, if

[42:45] you will. That means you're doing a good job out there.

[42:50] » Are we ready for the finding the fact? I guess we are. Is their proposal

[42:58] consistent with the Sterns County zoning ordinance number 439? Please specify all

[43:02] performance standards that apply.

[43:08] Mr. Chair, uh it is consistent with zoning ordinance 439

[43:15] sections 4.8, 4.14,

[43:21] 6.8, and 9.2.

[43:26] Thanks, Rich. Number two, is there an environmental assessment worksheet?

[43:32] Um, environmental impact statement, national pollution discharge, discharge

[43:37] elimination system, state disposal system or other permit required for this

[43:43] facility.

[43:52] Mr. Mr. Chair, it was indicated that no additional permits were needed.

[43:57] » Thank you, Cindy. Does the proposal conform to the goals and objectives of

[44:01] the Sterns County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? Please specify the appropriate

[44:06] sections. >> Mr. chair. I think that uh the the the

[44:11] application complies with the agriculture pillar goals that support

[44:15] agriculture as a desirable land use for the long term and facilitate

[44:19] diversification of the county's agricultural economy as well as with the

[44:23] living pillar, manage the impacts of the growth and development on the county's

[44:27] raw character and natural resources. >> Thank you, Angie.

[44:33] Number four, will the site configuration number and types of animals at this site

[44:37] and prevailing wind conditions impact any of the following: traffic, public

[44:42] safety, schools, parks, churches, or other municipal or residential areas, or

[44:48] any other impacts?

[44:58] I don't think it will be. He's what 3,000 some feet from the closest

[45:02] neighbor. Number five, has the has information

[45:06] been provided regarding the impact to property values in the area as a result

[45:10] of the proposal?

[45:14] » Mr. Chair, none have been provided. >> Thanks, Rich. Number six, have all

[45:19] recommendations from the feed lot review committee and feed lot staff been

[45:23] reviewed?

[45:26] » Mr. Chair, I believe they have.

[45:30] Okay. And number seven, are there any other issues pertinent to this matter?

[45:53] I guess we could list just the two conditions that have been listed. um

[45:57] they may be pertinent. [sighs]

[46:03] Okay. Again, note that the planning commission is a recommending body to the

[46:06] county board and any uh motion related to the conditional use permit uh should

[46:12] be made in that context if the county board makes the final decision.

[46:16] Can I get a motion to approve or deny this request?

[46:23] Um, I uh u move a motion to approve with the conditions to staff conditions.

[46:29] » I will second that. >> Angie made a motion. Um, Rich made a

[46:34] second the motion. Is there any discussion?

[46:39] Any discussion? All in favor?

[46:43] » I >> I

[46:44] » opposed. Motion carries. Um the county commissioners will make a final

[46:50] determination on September 15th and uh so you're good to go unless

[47:01] » y >> thanks Jarren.

[47:03] » Thank you.

[47:09] » Does anyone have any questions of the minutes of July 23rd meeting? If not, I

[47:15] am looking for a motion to approve the minutes.

[47:17] » I'll make that motion.

[47:21] » I'll second. >> Rich moved and Dave seconded the motion

[47:25] to approve the minutes of the July 23rd meeting. All in favor?

[47:29] » I >> I

[47:31] » opposed. Motion carries.

[47:36] If there's nothing else that anyone has, I guess I'm looking for a motion to

[47:42] adjurnn. I'll make the motion to adjurnn.

[47:49] » Dave, are you going to second that motion?

[47:50] » Second. >> Dave seconded the motion to adjurnn.

[47:54] » All in favor? >> I opposed.

[47:57] » Motion carries. Thanks, Dave. [laughter]

[48:02] » You're going to do every

Planning Commission - 27 Aug 2026

Transcript