MINUTES OF THE MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7:00 PM
The Kandiyohi County Planning Commission met on Monday, April 13, 2015 at 7:00 PM in the Commissioners Room
at the Kandiyohi County Health & Human Services Building located at 2200 – 23rd St NE, Willmar MN. Present were
Harlan Madsen, John Dean, Jane Youngkrantz, John Hauge, Doug Hanson, Jeff Johnson, and Ronald Peterson. Also
present was Zoning Administrator, Gary Geer, & Assistant Zoning Administrator Eric Van Dyken.
Chair Dean opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes of the previous hearing were approved as mailed.
A hearing was held on the application of Robert Moller, W ½ of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ and the W1/2 of
the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ Section 8, and that part of the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ and of Government Lot 6, Section 7,
all in Township 120, Range 34, Green Lake Township. (90th Ave NE) Applicant requests mining,
processing, and stockpiling of gravel and granular materials in an A-2 General Agricultural District. Robert
Moller was present and explained the proposal. Moller noted that he proposes to mine 55 acres of the 98
total acres in the legal description. Moller noted that he has completed environmental review for the
project. Moller stated that he proposes to have the site mined from north to south, with trucks exiting
the pit to the south end of the property onto the county road. Jason Ver Steeg was present representing
lessee Duininck, Inc. Ver Steeg explained the sequence of proposed mining operations and showed maps
illustrating the property and proposed mining boundaries. Ver Steeg stated that they will observe a 25foot setback from the wetlands on site as recommended by MN DNR. VerSteeg noted the location of the
proposed entrance and drive, made note of the required 200-foot setback from the residence located to
the northwest of the proposed mine and described the proposed reclamation plan and showed a
proposed reclamation map. He noted that reclamation will likely result in an area of open water
remaining in the north part of the mine due to gravel deposit below the water table in this area. Dean
asked when Duininck, Inc. plans to start mining. Ver Steeg replied that they intend to start this year. Tom
Sand, neighboring landowner, was present and stated that he has no objection to the proposal. Clint
Schwitters, landowner to the east, questioned whether the lessee would be planting trees as a buffer and
what the depth of mining will be. Ver Steeg noted that the distance from mining to the Schwitters house
would be approximately 1,000 feet and they will also have topsoil berms for screening. Ver Steeg noted
that they have no plan to plant trees. Ver Steeg stated that the gravel depth ranges from 10 feet to about
30 feet. Sandy Laingen, landowner to the north, stated that she is concerned about air quality in windy
times and also concerned about impacts on property value and well water. Ver Steeg noted that many of
these concerns have been addressed in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Ver Steeg
stated that gravel producers must have an air emissions permit with which contains standards for air
quality and includes requirements for dust control. Ver Steeg noted that exiting the site onto an asphalt
road will help with dust in hauling. Ver Steeg further noted that they also have a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for water quality. Ver Steeg stated that MN DNR requires a
water appropriation permit for pumping water and use of water over certain levels and that DNR can halt
pumping and make an operator replace a well. Ver Steeg stated that MPCA administers fuel storage tank
requirements and requires that they must have secondary containment and monitoring. Ver Steeg noted
that berms and distance to residences will help to reduce concerns about noise. Ver Steeg stated that
they are requesting a 20-year permit. Peterson asked what the depth to the water table is. VerSteeg
stated that they encountered the water table at elevation 1178, about 30 feet down from the elevation of
the house to the immediate northwest of the proposed mine. Johnson asked if the operation will include
a wash plant. VerSteeg stated that they will have no wash plant. Luke Barthel, property owner to the
immediate northwest, stated that he is concerned about well impacts, both for water quantity and quality
and questioned whether the permit is for 20 or 30 years. Barthel noted that he is concerned about dust
and asked if any thought had been given to limiting the amount of mine that can be active and open and
also wondered who enforces permit conditions. Madsen asked Geer to provide some explanation on
phased reclamation. Geer noted that at times the Planning Commission and County Board have limited
an operation to having 40 acres open at one time. Geer noted that the lessee has described a mining
procedure that proceeds in 4 to 5 acre blocks. Geer also noted that the lessee describes interim
reclamation efforts that will take place after each mining season. Geer noted that the zoning
administrator enforces permits and conditions, at times with help of residents who call in with concerns.
Geer noted that staff is proposing a condition for dust control. Barthel questioned how the operator will
handle the flow of water into the pit. Ver Steeg stated that they will pump the water out faster than
water comes in. Ver Steeg noted that they cannot legally permanently affect the wetland and they must
meet DNR permit requirements for dewatering. Johnson stated that he is not sure the water
appropriation permit is required. VerSteeg responded that a water appropriate permit is required, and it
will address both the use of water and the discharge of water. Barthel wondered if he can get well
protection language in writing. Madsen stated that the language is in state statute. Barthel stated that
he is concerned about his property value because of the proximity of his property to the mine. Barthel
noted that he has had an appraisal done 4 years ago and also last week, with the property value rising
slightly over those years. Barthel noted that he feels that people won’t want to buy his property with a
pit nearby. Barthel commented that based on input he has gotten he believes that the value of his
property value may drop 10%. Barthel noted that his wife works from home and is allergic to dust.
Barthel stated that the potential amount of loss is speculation until the property would be actually sold,
but noted that his house is as close to the project as can legally be. Korey Kruger, landowner to the east,
stated that he is opposed to this proposal. Kruger stated that he is trying to raise a family down the road
and is concerned about traffic. Kruger commented that he has various allergies, as well as his son. Kruger
noted that he is also concerned about impacts on property value and to his well. Kruger stated that
when he moved to the property a new well had to be drilled because the old well had gone dry and stated
that his new well is 350 feet deep. Kruger further commented that he doesn’t believe there is a need for
more gravel pits in the area. Mark Dobmeier, landowner to the east, stated that he is concerned about
dust. Shawn Oman, landowner to the west, (next to Luke Barthel) questioned whether there will be truck
traffic on 97th Ave NE and inquired about hours of operation. Ver Steeg stated that all trucks will exit to
the south and will not enter 97th Ave NE. Ver Steeg stated that the proposed hours of operation are 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday. Ver Steeg stated
that in his experience property values have typically gone up and development has occurred near gravel
pits. Ver Steeg referred to urban situations that he was aware of where development has occurred or is
occurring near a gravel mining operation. Ver Steeg also noted that he has never seen a case where
property values have gone down near a pit, though such cases may exist. Barthel commented that he
does not believe the urban examples referenced by Ver Steeg are applicable to this rural setting. Barthel
stated that he has letters for the record indicating possible effects to property value. Barthel placed two
documents on the podium. Dobmeier stated that he would like hours of operation reduced from what is
proposed. Kristi Laingen, daughter to Sandy Laingen, noted that sound carries in the area and she is
concerned about property values and dust. Ver Steeg noted that operations on site will be periodic and
not continuous and they will do all they can to control noise. Madsen asked if Duininck, Inc. has used
strobes lights instead of audio for backup alarms in evening hours. Ver Steeg replied that he is unsure if
they have or if it is allowed, noting that most work is done between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Clint Schwitters asked if the lessee will plant trees as a buffer. Ver Steeg noted that they will have a
screening berm, but do not anticipate planting trees. Johnson asked if there is evidence that tree buffers
are effective for reducing noise and dust. Ver Steeg replied that he’s not aware. Barthel inquired about
the size of berms and if they will be planted. Ver Steeg stated that state permitting does require seeding
of the berms. Barthel asked if concerned landowners will get a copy of the permit and conditions. Geer
noted that Barthel should ask the zoning office for a copy and one will be provided. Peterson asked Geer
to explain setbacks required for the operation. Geer noted that there is no setback for the haul road, a
200-foot setback from residence, and a 10 foot property line setback for any part of operation. Johnson
asked if DNR comment taken during the EAW process. Geer replied that DNR had reviewed the EAW and
commented, including the recommended 25 foot setback from wetlands. Madsen noted that the 25 feet
is from the delineated boundary of wetland, not just where you see water. Geer noted that Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) rules are still in effect to protect the wetland from damage. Madsen suggested
that Geer read the proposed conditions. Geer read proposed condition number one limiting the open
mine area to 40 acres. Dean sought a clarification regarding the language of the operator proposing 4 to
5 acre phases of operation. Ver Steeg read the pertinent language, noting that they need more than 5
acres at a time for processing and storage of various materials. Geer read the remainder of the proposed
conditions. Peterson asked if condition number 4 regarding berm construction requires that the
operation start at a certain point. Geer answered no. Peterson asked what is meant by project
commencement. Johnson stated that under the proposed language, if they start mining in the south, no
berm will be built in the north at that time. Moller stated that the lessee has agreed to start mining in the
north. Madsen stated that the condition could be amended to require berm construction immediately
upon commencement. Geer stated that that could be accomplished by taking the legal description out of
the condition. Madsen stated that he would like to see the berm farther from the property line. Barthel
requested a survey of the property line. Madsen asked if 25 feet is too close for the berm to the property
line. Peterson agrees that the berm should be farther away from the property line near the residence.
Madsen suggested that the berm setback should be moved to 50 feet. Johnson suggested that the permit
time limit could be reduced to 20 years as requested by the lessee. Geer agreed that the permit length
could be reduced to 20 years. Johnson commented that Ver Steeg said in testimony that there will be no
wash plant, but washing is mentioned in the EAW. Ver Steeg stated that they are not planning to wash
material, but it was noted in the EAW. Johnson asked if the pit will house an asphalt plant. Ver Steeg
stated that they proposed to have recycled asphalt and concrete materials for mixing with other grades of
granular material only. Dobmeier asked how the operator will control dust during crushing. Ver Steeg
replied that dust control is covered in their air emissions permit and that they test soil moisture and must
have 1.5% moisture in the material to avoid dust. Peterson asked if there can be a condition on the
permit that limits the operator to what they asked for. Geer stated that such a statement could be added
as a condition, but is not necessary because the permit grants them permission to operate according to
what is contained in the application. Motion by Madsen, second by Youngkrantz to recommend approval
of the request with the proposed condition and findings, noting the following changes to the proposed
conditions: 1) Delete the legal description from condition number 4, 2) Increase the berm setback to 50
feet, 3) Limit the permit to 20 years, and 4) Strike the township reference from the haul road condition.
Discussion followed concerning the required berm in the north area of the pit and how long the berm
should be required to stay. Barthel indicated that he would prefer that the berm be removed when
mining is complete in the north end of the mine. Following further discussion Madsen and Youngkrantz
agreed to amend the motion so that the proposed berm condition remained as proposed by staff, while
acknowledging that the applicant could come back at a later time to have the permit amended if desired.
Peterson suggested that the permit regarding hours of operation also add hours of operation for Saturday
at 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Madsen and Youngkrantz agreed to the friendly amendment, with the resultant
conditions and findings as follows:
Conditions
1. The site shall be progressively reclaimed such that no more than 40 acres is open and unreclaimed at any given time. This allowable area shall include all extraction, processing, and
stockpiling areas.
2. All existing wetlands on the property shall remain intact and shall not be altered in any manner.
The wetland delineation shall be surveyed. All mining activities shall maintain a minimum setback
of twenty five (25) feet from the delineated wetlands.
3. All vehicle traffic shall enter and exit the site from 90th Ave. NE. The entrance/exit approach shall
be improved to meet the requirements of the county engineer.
4. Upon project commencement the operator shall construct a screening berm for the purposes of
screening the property located at 4281 97th Ave NE (PID# 18-007-0050) from the dust, noise and
sights of the operation. The berm shall be constructed as follows:
a. The berm shall be constructed of the first available overburden that is stripped when
mining is begun.
b. The berm shall run along the north south portion of the applicant’s west property line and
parcel # 18-007-0050. The toe of the berm shall maintain a minimum fifty (50) foot
property line setback.
c. The berm shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in height from original grade, shall be sloped
no steeper than 3:1, and shall be completely vegetated with grass or other appropriate
ground cover.
d. The berm shall remain in place until final project completion.
5. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and
6:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.
6. The applicant shall provide a bond or irrevocable letter of credit to Kandiyohi County in the
amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per acre to assure proper reclamation of the site after
completion of the project.
7. The applicant shall observe all setback regulations as contained in Chapter 32, section 32-5-6 of
the Kandiyohi County Zoning Regulations.
8. This conditional use permit shall be valid for 20 years from the date of issuance.
9. Kandiyohi County Environmental Services staff shall be granted access upon reasonable
notification for reasons of determining compliance with all conditions of this permit and Zoning
Ordinance Performance Standards.
10. Prior to commencement of mining activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance to the site that
clearly states the date of the permit issuance, hours of operation, duration of the permit, the
operator’s phone number, and the Zoning Office phone number. The sign and lettering shall be of
sufficient size and shall be located such that it can reasonably be read without trespassing on the
property. The sign shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in surface area.
11. This conditional use permit shall authorize the extraction, processing, and storage of sand, gravel,
& rock, and the storage and processing of recycled concrete and asphalt.
12. The owner and/or operator shall be responsible for maintenance and restoration of all county
roads used as haul roads for the operation. In the event that haul roads are damaged or suffer
more than ordinary wear or deterioration due to the applicant’s use, the applicant, upon written
notification by the Zoning Administrator, shall immediately suspend operations under the CUP
until all required maintenance is completed, at the applicant’s expense, to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer.
13. The operator shall be responsible to maintain dust control measures on site and on haul roads at
levels adequate to insure normal rural dust conditions are not exceeded. Such dust control may
include required application of chloride treatment at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.
Findings
1. The Planning Commission finds that the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses
predominant in the area. The Commission notes that the surrounding area is predominantly other
gravel pits, and CRP agricultural land.
3. The Planning Commission finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, off-street parking,
and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The Commission notes that the site
will not require facilities or infrastructure above normal levels for the area.
4. The Planning Commission finds that adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize or
control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibrations, so that none of these will constitute a
nuisance, and to control lighted signs, and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to
neighboring properties will result.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in
the A-2 district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 entitled “conditional uses”.
6. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is in harmony with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission notes that the Comprehensive Plan identifies in
Chapter 7 Goal 4 that the County should make land use decisions that help protect aggregate
resources and mining activities with an emphasis on minimizing or avoiding potential residential
and environmental conflicts.
14. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use has the ability to meet the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Commission notes that zoning staff review of the proposal found no
violations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission notes that the proposed site can adequately
serve the needs of the proposed use.
15. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will not have significant negative impacts on
groundwater, surface water, or air quality if operated according to all applicable Federal, State,
and County regulations, including the conditions placed on the permit. The Planning Commission
also notes that no potential for significant environmental effects were found through the
completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
The Planning commission unanimously recommends the County Board approve the request with
conditions & based on findings as stated herein. Motion carried.
There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.