LAND & WATER
August 7, 2019
Lake of the Woods County Board of Adjustment/Planning Commission Meeting 7:00 P.M. on August 7, 2019
Tom Mio opened the meeting at 7:00 pm with the following member present: Scott Head, Ken Horntvedt, Reed McFarlane, Dave Marhula, Marshall Nelson, and Wes Johnson. Others present were: Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund.
Introductions of Board of Adjustments/Planning Commission members took place.
Approval of the Agenda:
Motion to approve agenda – M/S/P Head/Horntvedt
Approval of Meeting Minutes: July 10, 2019
M/S/P Marhula/Head
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
– None
Board of Adjustment – New Business
– Consideration of Variance #19-09V by Morris Point Lake View Lodge: A tract in Government Lots 4 and 5, Section Sixteen (16), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, and Range Thirty-Two (32) West, Parcel ID# 19.16.23.000. Applicant is requesting a variance as required by Section 503.2 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to replace an existing structure at less than a seventy-five (75) foot setback to the OHWL of Lake of the Woods, and less than the required fifty (50) foot setback from the road right-of-way of 42nd Avenue NW. Lake of the Woods is a General Development Lake.
Mio asked Mr. Holte to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Holte explained that he would like replace an old building with a new one. He explained that he would like to keep the building the same as it currently is as one side as a cabin and one side as a storage shed.
Mr. Holte explained that if he got approval for the building that he would move the building five feet farther away from the ordinary high-water level.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding about where the road right of way is located. Discussion then turned to that a portion of 42nd Ave NW may have to be abandoned to verify that the building is not located in the right of way. Discussion then turned to what Mr. Holte can do without a variance.
Land and Water Planning director Josh Stromlund mentioned that the building could be located within the right of way and that the board should use caution about granting a variance for a structure that they don’t know if it is within the right of way or not.
The board then discussed tabling the request till the next meeting to allow for the Lake of the Woods County Highway department to survey the right of way near the building and also for the county board to considered abandoning a portion of 42nd NW.
Motion made by Marhula to table the request until the next meeting.
Motion seconded by Nelson.
All in favor, motion passed.
With no further business for the Board, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of Adjustments.
Motion made by Horntvedt to close Board of Adjustment.
Motion seconded by Marhula.
All in favor, motion passed.
Mio opened the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Commission – New Business
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-09CU by Scott Wold: A tract of land in the NE¼ of the SE¼, Section Twenty-one (21), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.21.13.020. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401A of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to develop an area for the construction of a 40’ x 60’ dwelling structure with a mound septic system in an area that is zoned as Special Protection (SP).
Mio asked Mr. Wold to come to the table.
Mio asked Land and Water Planning Director Josh Stromlund how the meeting should proceed with the meeting.
Land and Water Director stated that he had prepared a note to be read into the record. Mio Read the note into the record. The note stated that based on legal advice obtained that the Land and Water Planning office should not of accepted a Conditional Use Permit for a use that is not allowed by the use table for a special protection district located in the Lake of the Wood County Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Wold and the Board. Mr. Wold outlined his timeline of the process to obtain the property and attempt to obtain all of the required permits. The Board then gave Mr. Wold the option to apply for a zone change on the property.
Discussion then ensued between the board and Mr. Wold.
Mio then asked if anybody in attendance had a comment. Carl Olson stated that he was not in favor of the request and that his neighbor Jared Martinson also was not in favor as well.
Discussion between the Board and Mr. Wold to outlined the procedure that Mr. Wold would need to go through to apply for the Zone Change.
Mio asked the Board for their recommendation.
The board stated that if there are 2 sites for a standard septic system and he went through the zone change process and all of the requirements for a zone change are met that they would recommend the request to the county board.
Mio then proceeded to the next request.
– Consideration of Conditional Use Permit #19-10CU by Nels Holte: Lots 5 and 6, Block 6, Morris Point Estates Subdivision in Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-Two (32) – Parcel ID# 19.69.06.050, 19.69.06.060. Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit as required by Section 401D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to operate a Commercial Planned Unit Development in an area that is zoned as Commercial Recreation.
Mio asked Mr. Holte to come to the table and explain his request.
Mr. Holte explained that he would like to construct a 4-plex commercial planned unit development with transient rental of the structure or long-term rental of the structure.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Holte and the Board. The board asked questions regarding how the sewage would be handled for the structure. Discussion then turned to why a conditional use permit is need for a parcel that is zoned as commercial.
Mike Reed then stated his frustrations with the need for a conditional use permit on commercially zoned property.
Discussion between the board member then stated the need for commercial property to go through the conditional use process when a commercial planned unit development is proposed on a parcel.
Planning Commission member Reed McFarlane made a motion to proceed to the findings of fact.
Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission
Findings of Fact and Decision
Name of Applicant: Nels Holte Date: August 7, 2019
Location/Legal Description: Lot 5 and 6, Block 6, Morris Point Estates, Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Sixty-two (162) North, Range Thirty-two (32) West, parcel ID# 19.69.06.050, 19.69.06.060
Project Proposal: A Conditional Use Permit, as required by Section 401-D of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance, to create a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of a 4-plex transient rental cabin.
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? Development plan.
2) Is the project proposal consistent with maintaining the public health, safety, and welfare? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( )
Why or why not? To meet state regulations.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Will 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? Already exists.
8) Is the project proposal compatible with adjacent land uses? YES (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Commercial area/zoned commercial.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? New system to meet state and county specs.
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 (X) NO ( ) N/A ( ) Why or why not? To meet state and county specs.
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 (X) N/A ( ) Why or why not? Not required.
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? 4’ x 8’ proposed.
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 county road and on site parking.
The specific conditions of approval are as follows: _____________________________________
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 (X) Approved with Conditions ( ) Denied ( )
August 7, 2019 _____________________________ Date Tom Mio Chair, Planning Commission
This is in accordance with Section 1204 of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance. Motion made by Marhula to approve as Presented.
Motion seconded by Nelson.
All in favor, motion passed.
With no further business for the Commission, Mio entertained a motion to adjourn the Board of Adjustment.
Adjournment: M/S/P McFarlane/Head
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.