No, you don't have to start over. Please don't.
» Upon completion of the commission's questions, I will ask if there's anyone
in the audience wishing to speak at this request. If there is, I will ask the
person who filled out the speaker card to come to the podium, state their name
and address for the record, and give their testimony. When all testimony is
complete, I will ask commission members for a motion to close the public
hearing. [sighs] Did we change that where we don't have to ask for new
motions? >> Just make three calls and if there's no
one to respond, then you make you may close.
» The chair just closes the public hearing. Okay. Um
if there's no further input, no further input will be taken once the public
hearing is closed unless you're recognized by the chair or one of the
commission members is seeking clarification.
The commission will review and discuss the findings of fact. The findings are a
series of questions that the commission is required to answer based on Minnesota
statute and the requirements of the ordinance.
Uh we have no one attending virtually this evening I believe. Okay.
Then we will move on to the the meeting.
We'll take roll call. District one Cindy Hner
» here. Uh, District 2, Dev Dave Benford is absent. District three, Greg
Frederick's absent. Uh, District 4, Dave Canafla
» here. Uh, >> I'm Leroy Gander from District 5. At
large, member Rick Blankenish >> here.
» At large, Angie Tomovic >> here.
» Exofficio member County Commissioner Joe Perski here.
» Thank you. We will recite the stand and we'll recite the pledge.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. [clears throat]
» Okay, with that, we'll start with our first agenda item. The applicants are
Dave and Julia Wick. if you care to come forward.
Uh they're here to conditional they're here to consider a conditional use
permit request for an after the-act major shoreland alteration
according to sections 10.2.14D and 10.2.14i
of the Sterns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance 439. The request includes
retaining walls constructed on a on steep slopes within the building setback
of Cedar Lake Island, Cedar Island Lake. The property is part of government lot 3
in section 31 of Wakefield Township. The address of the property is uh 18598
Cedar Lane, Richmond, Minnesota. I'll ask uh the members who visited the
site. Uh I did. Uh Cindy, >> yes I did. Uh Dave,
» I did for their uh application for variance.
» Okay. Uh Rich, >> yes.
» Angie, >> yes.
» And Commissioner Perski, >> yes.
» We'll ask Nick to do a staff report. >> Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the planning
commission. Um we'll go over some site information here. The parcel is about a
third of an acre. Impervious coverage is about 24%. There's bluff present in the
project area with a direct slope from the lake to the lake from the building
setback. Uh lomy sand partially [clears throat] potentially highly
erodable due to the slope. Most of the lot is mowed lawn grass currently and
devoid of native vegetation. There is flood plane but it's not in the project
area where the wall is. Uh septic system is compliant. R1 zoning district. Cedar
Island Lake is the water body. um property owners, they submitted an
application back in May for a variance to add a deck and second story addition
that didn't meet setbacks. As part of that process, they were notified that
proceeding with the variance request would require compliance with all other
aspects of the property, including this after the fact permit application for
the retaining wall on the lake side of the structure. It was constructed years
ago by previous owners. It was not the current owners that constructed this. Uh
and then they submitted their application
for this conditional after the fact conditional use permit. Uh there's two
sections of retaining walls, one on either side of the steps that come down.
The north wall is 73 ft by about 3 and 12 to 4 ft tall. The south wall is 26 ft
long and again up to 4 ft tall. Um aerial imagery shows it was constructed
and/or modified between like 2005 and 2008 time frame. Shoreline permits for
anything like this would have been required after the mid1 1980s in this
area. Uh they did come up with a planting plan. We talked about this a
little bit and they uh worked with Minnesota Native Landscapes to develop a
native planting plan for the um there's a few areas indicated in the pictures.
Essentially u three separate areas shown. The north side above the
retaining wall is about 1,600 square ft. uh the shoreline slope would be enhanced
of uh that's about 1,600 square f feet and then a buffer above the shoreline
slope area to be enhanced and that's about 825 ft.
Uh the retaining wall has been in place for many years. There's no current
erosion concerns associated with the wall at this time. the planting plan is
is sufficient to meet the minimum requirements and it will also reduce the
surface runoff from the slope um to allow for some more infiltration into
the ground instead of it running across the surface. It conforms to the
requirements of the permit and is aligned with the goals of the
comprehensive plan. So, um there's two proposed conditions. One is that the
planting plan as proposed would be implemented by June 15th of next year.
And then uh in terms of a financial guarantee, a financial guarantee of cash
asker letter of credit for $5,000 shall be submitted to Sterns County to ensure
establishment of the planting plan and that would be returned once 70% of the
vegetation cover is achieved. Uh I did not receive any correspondence
on this item. I believe that's all I got.
» Thank you, Nick. Uh do do the Wix uh first introduce yourselves uh give your
name and address and then if you have any comments,
additional comments.
Richmond. >> Thank you. Do you have any additional
comments you'd like to to add? Any? >> Um, no. That pretty much, I guess, sums
it up. Okay. We bought the house a little over a year ago and um, from my
understanding, yeah, that wall's been there for 20 plus years from the
previous owner and it's in good shape, no deterioration, and straight and
level, and I think doing what it's it was originally intended to do.
» Okay.
Um I at this time we'll open a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public
who wishes to speak regarding this matter? Could come forward please.
» Good evening. [clears throat] >> Good evening.
» State your name and address. >> My name is Scott Gerkin and I have a few
addresses in the county. um some in Richmond, some just down from their
property. Uh I just wanted to [clears throat] say a few words. First
of all, >> Scott, could you give us one of the
maybe the address where you live? >> How about 15463 County Road 21? Great.
» And that'd be Watkins, which is a few miles from the project.
So, I I guess I'm a little concerned and and I think this is probably the maybe
the county's way of doing things, but the way that it was handled, I don't
think it was very efficient or professional in that when
he applied for the variance, the first one was denied and now he has
to come back and pay for and then apply for this variance.
So, he's going to have to pay for this and then you guys are probably going to
charge him or Nick's office will with a uh after the fact penalty on top of it.
And I think as a as a county, they're trying to do the right thing. The wall
isn't damaged. They're not shoveling. They're not moving any dirt. Um I I
think the county should take a look at that and probably wave either both those
fees or definitely the penalty fee. Second, I don't think that they should
have to put down $7,000 or $5,000 cash down to ensure that they're going to do
the work. They came to the county to get the proper variances for their house and
now for the retaining wall that is doing its job just fine.
If you're going to insist that they pay that, I think you should pay it back
with interest when they complete the property, just as though it were a loan
to the county like anybody else would expect interest on it.
Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Scott. Is there anyone
else who wishes to speak to this matter? Any other public testimony?
Anyone? Uh then I'll declare the public hearing
closed.
Does the commission have any questions for staff or the applicant?
» Uh I just have a question for the applicants. Do you have any comments
about what the gentleman just said? >> Um, I guess,
yeah, I understand there's a permit fee. Um, there's an after fee.
[clears throat] I guess we're we want to get the project
done. At the same time, it's been 20 plus years. We did not do it. I guess
the penalty part is what it is, but I guess in my honest opinion, I guess I
don't I don't agree with that. Um why we're being penalized
when like I said, we had nothing to do with it in the first place. So I guess
we'll we'll do what needs to be done, but I guess that would that would at the
end of the day probably Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with that.
Anyone else?
Mr. Chair, I've got a couple things. Uh, first of all, Angie, do they have the
the ability to request an appeal on that at all?
» Uh, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Perski, the appeal on the fee?
» Yes. >> Yes, they could request relief from the
county board of commissioners. um just for the public's and the
planning commission's benefit. The reason there's after the fact fees
charged is we can't we can't go and find the seller of the property and find them
for something that they did 20 years ago. Our office has substantial
investment in these projects that are after the fact.
We have a lot of staff time that goes into them. And so when the commissioner
set the fees for 2026, they were very aware that after the fact
fees were going to be higher to counteract those costs, or else
obviously the result is the levy dollars that everyone else in the county is
going to be picking up. So that's a county commissioner or county board of
commissioners decision 100%. I would ask that the planning commission not give an
opinion on that. Um, Commissioner Perski, if you want to pursue something
to that effect, that would be up to you as a commissioner.
» I I just uh when we, you know, increase those fees, the idea was when we active,
we have people that are actively making changes and they try to get by
intentionally and are still at the property owners. This is a little bit
more unique when it's a good number of years have passed and of course, they
weren't involved with the actual construction of that wall. So, Yeah.
» Uh I have a question, Angie. The it was mentioned that they had a variance for
the the building project you want to do that was turned down
because of this. It was a different reason.
» Uh Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. So, the variance was denied
for the reasons that the board of adjustment established, not related to
the retaining wall. But there's a provision in our ordinance that states
if you have a violation on your property, you need to correct that
violation before you can obtain any before you can apply for any permits.
So, they were aware unfortunately the variance was denied and now they're here
to obtain approval to keep the walls as
existing. >> Okay. So, one has nothing to do with the
other. >> No, it just triggered one triggered the
other. Okay. But didn't was not part of the findings for the board of
adjustments decision. >> Okay.
Mr. Chair, the other questions I had was uh regards to the shoreline. Uh it looks
like you're going to be doing an rather extensive restoration on the shoreline,
which is quite good. We like to see that. And then uh as far as the rock is
concerned, the uh rock at the base of the uh shoreline, there's going to be no
uh additional rock put in. Is that correct?
» No. >> And that there's no erosion taking place
at that times at this time at all. So >> Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that.
» Um Nick, when the the planting plan occurs on this property,
could you run through how that's going to progress? Are they going to do they
have to kill the existing grass that's there?
» Yep. So, some of that's outlined in the fees um that Minnesota Native Landscapes
put together in their estimate, but so you terminate the existing vegetation
that's there. It's usually sprayed. Um you might do a touch-up spray to
terminate the remaining vegetation that's still there. Ideally, the
planting happens later in the fall. Um and then
you know it it'll overwinter and then in the spring it starts to come through. Um
fall plantings you get a little bit better establishment that following
year. So um then once it's 70% cover that financial guarantee is released you
know we we follow up with a site visit verify that it's growing then the
financial guarantee can be released. I did just want to make one more note as
well on that financial guarantee. The standard for financial guarantees is
125% of the cost of the project. Um because this was an additional cost with
this after the fact fee and they did not do this project themselves, we did lower
that to the $5,000. So that is substantially less than what our
standard 125% of the cost financial guarantee would be as well. So So that
is a measure that was taken to address that part. Mr. M, sorry, Mr. Chair, I
just want to make make sure that we again we are not voting on the costs and
and so forth. We are really voting on a shoreland uh alternation improvements
really what you're doing as far as planting correct and approving that plan
not not necessarily the cost the permits the variances so forth just just to be
clear on that. So uh I for my part I like what you're proposing to do on a
shoreline to to protect the water quality. Uh, as far as the cost, there
is apparently a a process to to really challenge that and and have that
discussion with the board directly. I don't think the planning commission will
weigh on that tonight.
I mean, the concern I have about terminating the existing sod that's
there is erosion. Is is that a concern and how is that going to be addressed?
» Sure, Mr. Chair. Um, so Minnesota Native Landscapes is an established contractor
that's done a lot of work in the county and elsewhere in the state. So, it's a
common practice when you terminate that. Um, you still have that vegetation, the
dead, you know, vegetative cover. Um, it's not like it's a disturbed area, you
know, where you're tearing out every all the roots and everything. Um and then in
addition you know after planting uh it all gets covered up again you know if if
there are areas with disturbed soil it gets covered with erosion control
blanket and covered and then over winter it's not you know concern with snow
cover and with all of that covered it does grow through pretty well and
erosion is not an issue and from from what I saw in their proposal here um
this is done it's very commonly done on slopes like this and much steeper
What if we vote um to recommend not to approve this? What would they have to do
to the property? >> Uh then the retaining wall would need to
be removed or they would have to bring it down to what a administrative minor
shoreland alteration permit would allow which would actually be very limited
here due to the slope um that's present. So essentially the wall would have to be
removed um if it was denied. Do we have an idea of what the the area looked like
before the wall was put up? >> It's hard to tell. Um
I mean it probably looked somewhat similar to the adjacent slope. Um
again I mean a lot of these areas have been altered to some extent over the
years. So there's really no way to know even reasonably close necessarily what
what it was like. Um, you know, like I did mention, there were permits just a
couple houses down on both sides of them from the 80s. Um, they were
substantially smaller projects, but the a lot of these areas have had
alterations done in some form over time. And, um,
as I noted, there's there's no there's no, you know, substantial erosion issue
or runoff problems that this wall is causing at the present time. it's been
here a while and it's not if if it if there were areas of concentrated runoff
or erosion problems or something then that might be something that I would
really want you know some clarity on and we would have probably talked about that
more to address that but that's not the case from from what I've seen here.
» Okay. Are there any other questions of the
applicant or staff or any discussion amongst the commission?
Are we ready to move to the finding the fact
number one? Can the applicant sufficiently document that the
alteration was done to protect water quality, improve aesthetics, control
erosion, or enhance habitat? Please describe the reasons the applicant made
the alteration and include documentation if possible or if available.
Mr. Chair, >> yep. I uh in my my opinion, the
applicant has made sufficiently documented the that the alternation will
take place as appropriately as as requested by the by the county to
improve aesthetic control, erosion and enhance uh water, you know, protect the
water quality and documentation is submitted with this
together with proposed conditions by the county.
» Okay. Number two, why did the applicant fail to obtain an alteration permit or
comply with requirements before commencing work?
That's kind of obvious. They didn't do it. Some previous owner, do you know it
was the previous owner or several owners? Previous
» one previous owner. >> Okay.
Number three, did the applicant obtain all other required permits and comply
with other requirements? Uh, please identify all other required permits and
whether the applicant obtained the permits.
» Mr. Chair, the applicant was required to apply for this permit to apply for his
variance request and he had to do a compliance inspection on the septic
system. >> Thank you, Dave. Number four is the
alteration in a sensitive area like a shore or bluff impact zone, a wetland
buffer, county by biological survey site, or other documented high value
habitat. Identify and describe all sensitive areas.
I would guess it was just the the the shore or bluff impact zone and the
others probably did not uh impact this site.
» It doesn't look it's in a flood plane, right? And it's not in a wetland area.
» Number five, is the alteration visible from the lake or public water? describe
the degree to which the alteration is visible.
» Mr. Chair, it is visible from the water, but it's going to be, I would say,
enhancing the appearance from the standpoint you're going to see the
natural vegetation that you have planned for it.
» Thank you, Rich. Uh, number six, does the alteration affect the character of
the neighborhood or will it result in a substantial detriment to neighboring
properties? describe all substantial changes and detriments.
» Mr. Chair, I don't uh the the alternation will not negatively affect
the neighborhood or or neighborhood neighboring properties. In in fact, it's
going to enhance aesthetic, the character, the vegetative buffer,
erosion, sediment control, u water quality, storm water system management,
uh wildlife and all that, you know, efficient. So, it's it's really a
positive uh effort. Thank you, Angie. Uh, number seven, did the alteration
reduce or eliminate an existing buffer between the ordinary ordinary high water
level water and impervious surfaces or create a more direct conduit for storm
water flow into public waters? Uh, please describe for the answer
» again. M. [laughter]
» Oh, go ahead, Cindy. >> Mr. Chair, I was just going to clarify
that I believe that the alteration um improves the um existing buffer um and
will in um and will inrove improve that um storm water flow.
» Thank you. Okay, Angie. Anything else? >> Yeah, I I want to echo what was said.
The proposed alteration, right, will will improve the water quality because
it will filter that first runoff. It will reduce that pollutants coming into
into the water really. So it's it's again in all in all the proposed uh
vegetation plan, vegetative plan etc is uh uh is commendable.
» Number eight, >> I just want to point out that um are we
referring to the alteration in the retaining walls that were put in? Uh and
then to remedy the situation there, this property owner
is [snorts] getting um natural vegetation involved
to do a better job of anchoring the the the bluff area.
» Thank you, Rich. Number eight, did the alteration change
or damage any of the following categories? Uh describe the change or
damage for each category. uh aesthetics of the shore as viewed
from the public water. Character of the neighborhood or shoreline, vegetated
buffer, erosion or sediment control device or system, storm water management
device or system, fish or wildlife, wildlife habitat, or water quality.
No, I think we're talking about the original alteration.
» Mr. Chair, I believe that it it did alter the aesthetics
um with the view from the lake and
it may have altered some of the storm water drainage to the
lake. Um there was no indication of erosion.
Um,
» that's about it.
Number nine. Could the applicant mitigate the damage or change without
removing the alteration and restoring the site? Please explain how mitigation
would occur and the results of the mitigation.
I think Nick uh described what would happen if
uh if if we had to uh restore it.
Anyone want to add anything to that?
Mr. Sure. I believe that uh
removing the the existing retaining wall possibly could cause more damage
than leaving the leaving leaving the wall in and making the
or doing the vegetative buffers. >> Okay.
Thanks, Dave. Number 10. Would the minimum benefits to the county appear to
be far outweighed by the detriment the applicant would suffer if forced to
restore the alteration? Why or why not? And then describe the minimum benefits
and details of the detriment to the applicant.
Uh Mr. Chair, I don't see any benefits to the county of um having them restore
the alteration back to its previous condition.
Any other opinions on that?
Mr. Chair, I I do believe there is a feasible plan to actually uh mitigate
the damage of of the previous alteration, I guess, by by uh without
removing the alteration and and putting together, you know, implementing this
planting plan that that we have been discussing uh today. Um and yeah,
there's no benefit to the county to remove in my opinion retaining wall.
It's actually more damage probably erosion and steeper slopes uh uh and and
the water quality. I don't know how would water quality benefit plus the
owners will incur substantial cost. >> Okay.
Uh that at this time I'm looking for a motion to approve or deny the request.
» Mr. Chair [laughter] >> Rich,
» uh I move that we approve um the after the fact application with
the two pro uh excuse me proposed conditions.
Um, in regards to the planting and the financial guarantee,
» I'll second.
Rich made a motion to approve the after the fact request. Dave seconded the
motion. Is there any discussion? Any discussion? [sighs]
If not, all in favor? >> I I.
» All opposed? Motion carries. I believe the county
commissioners will make a the final determination. We're a recommending
board. The the commissioners will make a final deter determination I think
September 15. That sound right? >> I think I saw that somewhere. Thank you.
» Sorry you had to go through this. It's >> that commissioners meeting. Is that
anything that we have to attend as well or
» if you want to talk about the fees maybe? [clears throat]
[laughter]
Thank you.
» Our next item is to consider request for conditional use permit submitted by
Jiren and Brenda Nathy of Melrose. Jiren, would you come forward, please?
According to the requirements of Sterns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance
439, section 6.8 8 requires a conditional use permit for feed lots
with 700 animal units or more that are proposing changes. The property under
consideration is located at 41887 County Road 13 Melrose.
Uh members who visited the site, uh I did. Cindy,
» yes. >> Dave,
» no. >> Rich,
» yes. >> Angie,
» yes. and Commissioner Perski. >> Yes.
» Okay. Uh Amber, would you care to give us a
staff report? >> Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members
of the board. Um, the applicant is looking to increase
animal units up to 818, construct a 40x 64 total confinement
barn, which is number eight on the map, and also planning to expand the minur um
manur stockpile area, the concrete stockpile pad, um, by about a third, um,
5,300 [clears throat] square ft to be a total of 15,000 square
ft. And then during the review of this site, it was found that there was an
existing settling basin that was on a on a plan from NRCS back in 2008 that was
just overlooked. So that's also getting added to the permit. It it does meet all
the requirements. So that's noted on here as well.
The feed lot was originally registered back in February of 1999 for 342 animal
units. Um the last permit was issued May 7th of 2018 for 698 animal units and
this July a registration came in for 804 animal units and that was over the
maximum for the site. So that's what triggered um a non-compliance letter
sent to the to the land owners. [clears throat] Um when that letter was
sent then an application was submitted on July 8th
um proposing the increase to the 818 animal units. So I was out there on July
8th for a compliance inspection and determined the facility to be compliant
with water quality and I also did review records and a min management plan and
both were found compliant as well. [clears throat]
Um, all surrounding properties are zoned A80. The nearest residence is 3,288
ft to the west.
F FRC did review this uh request on August 5th at their meeting and did
approve it with the recommended um with this staff recommendations or conditions
I should say. And if approved, it would go to the
county board meeting September 15th, 2026. That's all I have.
» Okay. Thank you, Amber. >> Um
Jiren, would you state your name and address for the record, please?
» Jiren Nathy, 35073 County Road 13, Melrose.
» Thank Do you have anything to add to the report?
» Um I don't. She covered it very well, I believe.
» Okay.
Does um well, we'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone
from the public who wishes to make a comment?
Anyone?
Anyone? At this time, we'll close the public hearing. Uh does the any of the
commission have any questions for the staff or applicant?
» Kind of quiet.
Is there any further discussion? [laughter]
» I always like it when uh no one's here to uh from the public to complain, if
you will. That means you're doing a good job out there.
» Are we ready for the finding the fact? I guess we are. Is their proposal
consistent with the Sterns County zoning ordinance number 439? Please specify all
performance standards that apply.
Mr. Chair, uh it is consistent with zoning ordinance 439
sections 4.8, 4.14,
6.8, and 9.2.
Thanks, Rich. Number two, is there an environmental assessment worksheet?
Um, environmental impact statement, national pollution discharge, discharge
elimination system, state disposal system or other permit required for this
facility.
Mr. Mr. Chair, it was indicated that no additional permits were needed.
» Thank you, Cindy. Does the proposal conform to the goals and objectives of
the Sterns County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? Please specify the appropriate
sections. >> Mr. chair. I think that uh the the the
application complies with the agriculture pillar goals that support
agriculture as a desirable land use for the long term and facilitate
diversification of the county's agricultural economy as well as with the
living pillar, manage the impacts of the growth and development on the county's
raw character and natural resources. >> Thank you, Angie.
Number four, will the site configuration number and types of animals at this site
and prevailing wind conditions impact any of the following: traffic, public
safety, schools, parks, churches, or other municipal or residential areas, or
any other impacts?
I don't think it will be. He's what 3,000 some feet from the closest
neighbor. Number five, has the has information
been provided regarding the impact to property values in the area as a result
of the proposal?
» Mr. Chair, none have been provided. >> Thanks, Rich. Number six, have all
recommendations from the feed lot review committee and feed lot staff been
reviewed?
» Mr. Chair, I believe they have.
Okay. And number seven, are there any other issues pertinent to this matter?
I guess we could list just the two conditions that have been listed. um
they may be pertinent. [sighs]
Okay. Again, note that the planning commission is a recommending body to the
county board and any uh motion related to the conditional use permit uh should
be made in that context if the county board makes the final decision.
Can I get a motion to approve or deny this request?
Um, I uh u move a motion to approve with the conditions to staff conditions.
» I will second that. >> Angie made a motion. Um, Rich made a
second the motion. Is there any discussion?
Any discussion? All in favor?
» I >> I
» opposed. Motion carries. Um the county commissioners will make a final
determination on September 15th and uh so you're good to go unless
» y >> thanks Jarren.
» Thank you.
» Does anyone have any questions of the minutes of July 23rd meeting? If not, I
am looking for a motion to approve the minutes.
» I'll make that motion.
» I'll second. >> Rich moved and Dave seconded the motion
to approve the minutes of the July 23rd meeting. All in favor?
» I >> I
» opposed. Motion carries.
If there's nothing else that anyone has, I guess I'm looking for a motion to
adjurnn. I'll make the motion to adjurnn.
» Dave, are you going to second that motion?
» Second. >> Dave seconded the motion to adjurnn.
» All in favor? >> I opposed.
» Motion carries. Thanks, Dave. [laughter]
» You're going to do every