LAND & WATER
May 2, 2018
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on May 2, 2018
Chairman Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Steve Levasseur, Scott Head, Gerald Levasseur, Reed McFarlane and Dave Marhula. Members absent: Ken Horntvedt, and Ed Arnesen. Others present were: Land & Water Planning Director, Josh Stromlund
Introductions of Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda:
M/S/P McFarlane/Marhula
Approval of Meeting Minutes: April 4, 2018
M/S/P G. S. Levasseur/Marhula
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
- Marhula indicated that he would abstain from the vote regarding Conditional Use #18- 08CU
Planning Commission:
- New Business
- Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-02CU by Michael Gamache: The S½SW ¼ of Section 33, Township 161 North, Range 31 West (Baudette), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – Parcel Number 24.33.33.000. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use permit as required by Section 902 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to allow the movement of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material to expand the clay pad and to stockpile clay, topsoil, granite, rock, sand and gravel (earthen material) within the shoreland area of Kelly Creek while maintaining a buffer. Also, the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance to operate a commercial business consisting of renting storage containers and parking in a Rural Residential (R2) Zoning District.
Mio asked Mr. Gamache to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Gamache explained that he would like to expand a pad currently on the property, stockpile material on his pad and place storage containers on the property and rent them out. He explained that parking is intended to be for large equipment (semi-trailers) that is in the area for large projects.
Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Gamache. Buffers and drainage were discussed.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. Gamache, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings of Fact.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: _Michael Gamache Date: May 2, 2018
Location/Legal Description: The South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section Thirty-three (33), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31)
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Sections 902 and 401-C of the Lake of the Woods Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to expand clay pad, stockpile earthen materials within the shoreland are of Kelly Creek and rent storage containers and parking spaces.
1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land
Use Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Allowing some commercial development.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Drainage and parking issues addressed.
3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Addressed in conditions.
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Also addressed in conditions.
5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In conditions.
6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In conditions.
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Adjacent to County Road.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Agricultural.
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?
YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In conditions.
17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Off County Road and parking on pad.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: 1) Maintain 100’ buffer to Kelly Creek. 2) Any area within the 100’ buffer needs to be sloped to a minimum of 4 to 1 and seeded with perennial grasses. 3) Signage limited to one 8’x8’. 4) Existing drainage must be maintained.
The Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Lake of the Woods County Board of Commissioners that this proposal be:
Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( ) Motion made by Marhula to approve the request with conditions.
Motion seconded by S. Lavasseur.
All in favor, motion passed.
- Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Application #18-03CU by Grant & Savanna Slick: A tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31) (Baudette), Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota – parcel ID# 24.29.22.021. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the operation of a commercial business consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure within the shoreland area of the Winter Road River and in a Rural Residential District (R2). The Winter Road River is a tributary river segment.
Mio asked Mr. and Mrs. Slick to come to the table and explain their request. Mr. Slick explained that they would like to rent out their property as a short-term vacation rental. Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. and Mrs. Slick.
Mio asked the Board if they had any further questions for Mr. and Mrs. Slick, hearing none Mio proceeded to the Findings of Fact.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: Grant and Savanna Slick Date: May 2, 2018
Location/Legal Description: A tract of land in Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Sixty-one (161) North, Range Thirty-one (31)
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-C of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to operate a commercial business consisting of transient short-term rental of an existing structure in a Rural Residential District (R2).
1) Is the project proposal consistent with the Lake of the Woods County Comprehensive Land Use Plan? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Existing residential.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? No change.
3) Is the project proposal consistent with the goal of preventing and controlling water pollution, including sedimentation and nutrient loading? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
4) Will the project proposal not adversely affect the site’s existing topography, drainage features, and vegetative cover? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
5) Is the project proposal’s site location reasonable in relation to any floodplain and/or floodway of rivers or tributaries? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
6) Has the erosion potential of the site based upon the degree and direction of slope, soil type and existing vegetative cover been adequately addressed for the project proposal? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
7) Is the site in harmony with existing and proposed access roads?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No new access needed, access via Co Rd.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Residential.
9) Does the project proposal have a reasonable need to be in a shoreland location? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? Existing and vacation rental.
10) Is the amount of liquid waste to be generated reasonable and the proposed sewage disposal system adequate to accommodate the project proposal? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? In conditions.
11) Will the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters comply with Section 901 of the Zoning Ordinance? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? Not affected.
12) Is the site adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment systems? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? In conditions.
13) Are the affected public waters suited to and able to safely accommodate the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project proposal will generate?
YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? No change.
14) If the project proposal includes above ground or below ground storage tanks for petroleum or other hazardous material that is subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements, has a permit been sought? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
15) Will there be fencing and/or other screening provided to buffer the project proposal from adjacent properties? YES ( ) NO ( x ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not required/wooded lot.
16) If signage is associated with the project proposal, has the applicant demonstrated the need for the number and size requested, and minimized the visual appearance as viewed from adjacent properties to the extent possible? YES ( ) NO ( ) N/A ( x ) Why or why not? ______________________________________________________
17) If the project proposal will generate additional traffic to or from the site, has the applicant adequately demonstrated how the additional traffic and parking is to be addressed? YES ( x ) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? On-site parking.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows:
1) Septic compliance inspection.
2) Apply for State and Fed. ID Tax numbers and collect and pay lodging taxes. 3) CUP terminates on sale or transfer of property.
Approved as Presented ( ) Approved with Conditions ( x ) Denied ( )
Motion made by S. Lavasseur to approve the request with conditions.
Motion seconded by McFarlane.
All in favor, Marhula abstained, motion passed.
With no further items for consideration before the Planning Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn.
Adjournment:
M/S/P Head/McFarlane, meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
The above is not a verbatim transcript, only a summary of what transpired, a complete version has been recorded digitally and upon request can be copied for individuals requesting a copy of the proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Josh Stromlund