MINUTES OF THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
The Kandiyohi County Planning Commission met on Monday, February 11, 2013 in the Commissioners
Room at the Kandiyohi County Health & Human Services Building located at 2200 23rd St NE, Willmar,
Minnesota. Members present were John Dean, Douglas Hanson, Ron Peterson, and Doug Reese. Also
present was Zoning Administrator Gary Geer, & Assistant Zoning Administrator Eric Van Dyken.
Acting Chair Dean opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes of the previous hearing were approved as mailed.
In the first matter of business the Board Reorganized for 2013:
Motion by Peterson, second by Reese to nominate Dean for the office of Chair. Motion passed.
Motion by Reese, second by Peterson to nominate Hanson for the office of Vice-Chair. Motion passed.
Motion by Hanson, second by Reese to nominate Gwynne Anderson for the office of Secretary. Motion
passed.
Motion by Peterson, second by Hanson to appoint the Zoning Administrator as the Recorder. Motion
passed.
A hearing was held on the application of Southern MN Beet Sugar Cooperative: The E 450’ of the SE ¼ of
Section 24, Township 122, Range 35, Colfax Township. (Hwy 71 & 247th Ave NE) Arline Goodall, Landowner.
Applicant requests a beet piling/storage site approximately 450’ x 2640’ in an A-2 General Agricultural
District. Ken Dahl was present representing SMBSC. Dahl explained the need for and benefits of the
additional beet piling site. Dahl stated that SMBSC will improve the township road that will be used for
entrance. Dahl stated that they will install berms and a controlled outlet to contain runoff water. Dahl
commented that they will haul beets out in late December thru January. Larry Urban, Colfax Township
Board Supervisor, stated that he would like to see that when the road is maintained it is done in
coordination with the Township. Urban noted that he would like a 5 ton road sign put up just past the
approach heading west so that truck drivers know not to go west from the entrance. Urban noted that he
does not want to see water discharge into the road right-of-way causing erosion in the road ditch, and
notes that a pipe may need to be installed to avoid erosion. Margaret Peters, Middle Fork Crow River
Watershed District, stated that the project will need a stormwater permit from MFCRWD and will need to
specify best management practices (BMPs) for treatment of runoff. Dean asked Dahl if SMBSC is prepared
to maintain the township road. Dahl answered yes. Dahl further stated that they will install pipe or rock
outfall to avoid erosion in the right-of-way. Dahl stated that rather that posting a 5 ton sign, they would
prefer to prohibit trucks from exiting to the west. Dahl noted that they must meet water quality standards
before releasing runoff water from the site. Peterson asked what width and tonnage the upgraded section
of township road will be. Dahl stated that the road will be 10 ton and either 25 or 30 feet wide. Peterson
asked what height the berm will be. Dahl noted that the berm will probably be 4-5 feet high, and must
capture a 10 year rain event. Peterson asked who manages the discharge of water. Dahl noted that they
will have a control valve allowing for the release of water once it has been established as meeting quality
standards. Urban stated that a typical road is 36-foot wide grading width. Dahl stated that they must meet
25 BOD and also turbidity level requirements prior to discharge of runoff water. Dahl further noted that
1
they have treated with aeration in the past. Geer read a MNDOT letter from the file. Geer noted draft
findings and recommended approval, noting that an NPDES permit governs quality of discharge. Dahl
noted that if approved by MNDOT, they may want access to Hwy 71, but they will get a permit as required
by MNDOT. Reese asked if the site would remain if access to Hwy 71 was not granted. Dahl answered yes.
Peterson asked if approval should include a condition for the township road. Geer replied that it is up to
the commission to determine if a condition concerning the road is appropriate, noting that such conditions
have been included on past permits for various uses. Motion by Peterson, second by Reese to recommend
approval of the request with the following condition and findings:
Condition
1. Public roads that have been damaged or have received unsafe or damaging levels of tracked dirt or
mud due to operations related to the sugar beet pile site shall be cleaned and repaired to a
condition as determined by the Road Authority. The County Engineer shall be the arbiter of
disputes relating to road safety and repair.
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
agricultural production land.
3. The Planning Commission finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, off-street parking,
and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The Commission notes that the site
will not require facilities or infrastructure above normal levels for the area.
4. The Planning Commission finds that adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or
control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise, and vibrations, so that none of these will constitute a
nuisance, and to control lighted signs, and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to
neighboring properties will result. The Commission notes that the lights, noise, dust, odors, fumes,
and vibrations associated with the proposed use will be minimal or non-existent.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is allowed with a conditional use permit in
the A-2 zoning district under Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 7-3 entitled “conditional uses”.
6. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use is in harmony with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission notes that the Comprehensive Plan identifies in
Chapter 7 Goal 3 Objective D #3, that planning should occur to protect agricultural lands as a
natural and economic resource. It goes on to state in Chapter 7 Goal 4 Objective A #3, that the
County should implement land use plans and ordinances that encourage the preservation of
2
agricultural lands for agricultural purposes, and in Chapter 7 Goal 7 Objective B, that the County
should encourage the convenient and economical movement of commodities.
7. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use has the ability to meet the standards of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Commission notes that zoning staff review of the proposal found no
violations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission notes that the proposed site can adequately
serve the needs of the proposed use.
8. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed use will not have significant negative impacts on
groundwater, surface water, or air quality if operated according to all applicable Federal, State, and
County regulations, including the conditions placed on the permit.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends the County Board approve the CUP as requested with
the condition and findings stated herein. Motion carried.
In other business, Geer presented the 2012 Year End report of permitting numbers.
There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
3