Anyone speaking to the Planning Commission shall state their name and address for the record. Thank you.

Transcription

1 1. CALL TO ORDER Blue Earth County Planning Commission Members: Chair Lyle Femrite, Kurt Anderson, Bill Anderson, Kip Bruender, Barry Jacques, Michael Riley and Joe Smentek. AGENDA Blue Earth County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday, November 1, :30 PM Blue Earth County Commissioners Room County Courthouse, 204 South Fifth Street, Mankato, Minnesota 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 4, 2017 Regular Meeting 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. NEW BUSINESS PC Bradley & Eileen Anderson - Request for review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Transfer the Residential Development Right from the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter all located in Section 7, Judson Township. The property is zoned Agricultural. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT Anyone speaking to the Planning Commission shall state their name and address for the record. Thank you. All agenda items will be heard by the County Board of Commissioners at 9:30 A.M., Tuesday, November 21, 2017 in the Commissioners Room, Blue Earth County Courthouse, 204 South Fifth Street, Mankato, Minnesota.

2

3 MINUTES Blue Earth County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Wednesday October 4, :30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:25 p.m. by Chairman Lyle Femrite. Planning Commission members present were Bill Anderson, Kurt Anderson, Kip Bruender, Lyle Femrite, Barry Jacques, Michael Riley, and Joe Smentek. County staff members Garett Rohlfing, Aaron Stubbs and George Leary were also present. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Smentek made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 6, 2017 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Bruender seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. indicated there was no change to the agenda. 4. NEW BUSINESS PC Larry McMullen Petition to vacate a portion of the unimproved platted right-of-way of Jessica Drive, unused utility easements and pedestrian walkway located within Lots 1 through 6 of Block 1 of Williwaw Knolls Subdivision. The property is zoned rural residence and is located in part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Jamestown Township. Mr. Leary presented the staff report. Mr. Femrite asked if a turnaround area would be provided if the township ever did take over maintenance of the road. Mr. Leary stated the road already serves as access to developed properties and delivery vehicles and other maintenance vehicles are able to turn around. The applicant and his attorney were present and had no initial comment. Aaron Glade was present and spoke on behalf of Steve Heidecker, owner of Lot 6, Block 1 of Williwaw Knolls Subdivision. Mr. Glade indicated Mr. McMullen has started a lawsuit that involves boundary rights and ownership of the walking path and the litigation is ongoing. He advised the Commission that he had spoken with Mr. McMullen s attorney and thought there had been a resolution, but that is apparently no longer correct. Mr. Glade opined that the litigation should be allowed to run its course prior to any action being taken on the vacation request. Mr. Glade indicated that only that portion of the walking path lying between lots 3 and 4 is included in the vacation petition, but the path, as shown on the plat, continues all the way to the lake and provides lake access to other residents in the area. Mr. Glade added that Mr. McMullen is claiming ownership of the walkway, but as shown on the plat, the pathway was intended for the benefit of the public. He concluded by stating there are some issues that need to be resolved through litigation before any action can be taken on the petition. Mr. Kurt Anderson asked about the 60-day rule.

4 Mr. Leary said the Planning Commission could take advantage of the 60-day rule extension. He added that this item has been discussed with the county attorney s office and they are aware that this item is still moving forward. Mr. Femrite opined that if there are matters that are being litigated, at what point is the Commission to take action? Mr. Leary suggested that the Planning Commission could proceed with a recommendation to the County Board. When the County Board meets to review the request, the County Attorney could provide comment on the 60-day extension and if needed, the request could be sent back to the Planning Commission. There was further discussion on the lawsuit. Mr. Glade stated the claim was initiated by Mr. McMullen claiming he owned the walkway, but the plat clearly shows what was dedicated as part of the public areas of the subdivision. Mr. Smentek asked if they were contesting the fact that Mr. McMullen can t buy something that has been dedicated. Mr. Glade said that would-be part of it. Mr. Femrite added that it would also deprive someone from access. Mr. Smentek stated that what was shown to the Commission as the ownership documentation has a question of authenticity and therefore the access to Lake George. Chuck Peterson, the attorney representing Mr. McMullen acknowledged that a lawsuit had been started but was stopped when they found on the plat that the walkway had not been dedicated. Mr. Peterson read the dedication instrument of the plat to the Commission and advised them that there was no mention of the walkway in the dedication. He added they reopened the Guillemette estate to deed the walkway to Mr. McMullen. He further added that the owner of Lot 7 did the same thing and obtained a deed from the Guillemette s. He claimed they have no intention of pursuing the lawsuit unless the county does not allow Mr. McMullen to proceed with the vacation. Mr. Peterson said Roland Guillemette was still alive when the walkway adjacent to Lot 7 was deeded over to the owners of Lot 7 and it is now shown by the tax records as being owned by Lot 7. Mr. Femrite asked if the plat was left as-is, who can use the trail? Mr. Peterson stated the current owner is Mr. McMullen and that it had been the Guillemette estate. He advised the Commission that Mr. Guillemette owned property with an older home to the north and he developed the subdivision and wanted to reserve a walkway for himself for access to the lake running between lots 3 and 4 and continuing to the lake.

5 Mr. Smentek ask if there is an ongoing lawsuit. Mr. Peterson stated he had served the complaint which was followed by a request for an extension of time to answer by Mr. Glade. Mr. Peterson added that he had not received an answer because he gave Mr. Glade the extension of time and quit pursuing it. He stated there has not been any motion to dismiss it. Mr. Smentek asked Mr. Peterson if he intended to dismiss it. Mr. Peterson responded only if the petition is denied, and if denied, he did not feel he would have any alternative. He added they did not want to proceed with the lawsuit because it is an expensive process. Mr. Femrite acknowledged that it needs to be resolved. He added there is some difference in opinion as to who has the rights. Mr. Peterson pointed out the walkway was not part of the plat. He added that the County Attorney s office did not recommend they proceed until they had a meeting with them. He said he thought the County Attorney s office was convinced with his claim and therefore they were allowed to proceed with this hearing. Mr. Smentek asked Mr. Peterson if it is his contention that it is not an easement and was never dedicated. Mr. Peterson said yes, it was never dedicated and remains in private ownership. Mr. Smentek asked if something that was never dedicated can be vacated. Mr. Peterson said you can t, but said it has become an issue and something needs to be done. He compared the matter to another situation with title matters of an old plat with a road that goes through a building and years later there was a problem because a title insurance company won t insure it unless the road is vacated, but the road was never accepted and was never made a road. In that situation, they adopted a hybrid resolution that said vacated or extinguished. Mr. Smentek continued with his concern that if something was never dedicated, that it could therefore not be vacated. Mr. Peterson stated the walkway was never accepted and the roadway was never accepted, therefore none of it should be vacated. Mr. Femrite asked who owns it. Mr. Peterson responded that Mr. McMullen owns it. He added that the roadway was never accepted so it can t be vacated either.

6 Mr. Smentek opined that it can be vacated because it was platted and the language exists on the plat. Mr. Peterson stated the town has to accept it and establish it as a road. Mr. Smentek stated if Township said they wanted to construct homes on the lots, the County could vacate everything that was dedicated. But the private walkway owned by Mr. McMullen was never dedicated in the plat. Mr. Peterson said the walkway is drawn on the plat even though it was never dedicated, so it is an issue. Mr. Femrite stated the Commission could not determine the legality and there are some uncertainties. There was no further public comment. Mr. Smentek stated the plat clearly stated what is and is not dedicated. He added that the easements and road were dedicated and there was no mention of a 10-foot private pedestrian walkway being dedicated and the plat listed it as a 10-foot private pedestrian walkway. Without it being dedicated, he questioned if it can be legally vacated. The possibility of removing the walkway vacation component of the recommendation was discussed. Mr. Leary asked if the County Board chooses to take action of the walkway, will the petition not have to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smentek opined that if the County Attorney determines that the walkway does not need to be vacated, it could be acted on by the County Board. Likewise, if it is determined that the walkway vacation does need to be acted on, the County Board could send it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Leary indicated that from previous planning & zoning workshops, we have learned that when a County Board looks at a request differently than the Planning Commission, it should often times be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. Mr. Smentek stated that if the County Attorney makes the legal determination that it needs to be acted on, he had no issue with the County Board doing so. Other Commission members agreed. Mr. Smentek made a motion to recommend approval of the vacation to the County Board of all the items requested with the exception of the 10-foot private walkway. Mr. Kurt Anderson seconded the motion which carried unanimously.

7 PC Jim Gross - Request for review and approval of an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for the movement and placement of fill within the Bluff Impact Zone for the purpose of bringing an existing lake access path into compliance with County Zoning regulations. The property is zoned Rural Residence, and is also within the Shoreland Overlay District of Lake Washington. The property is described as Lot 6, Block 1 of the Gurni Subdivision, and the portion of the now vacated CSAH 2 adjacent to the property. All located in part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Jamestown Township. Mr. Stubbs presented the staff report. Mr. Gross indicated he understood what Mr. Stubbs was talking about. He expressed his concerns with the compliance dates. He provided the Commission with some additional photos. He also asked that the stairs be allowed to remain. He also suggested that it might be difficult to find a contractor available to do the work under the timeline laid out. He said it is not that he is not willing to do it, but rather working with the timeline that will be difficult. He also asked if the rock of the path could be covered and convert the area back to vegetation. He thought this would be easier than all the other work required. The path was discussed by the Commission. Mr. Femrite went over some of the detail of the existing path and indicated walking on the path is difficult and thought that it may be an option to leave the stairs in place. Mr. Femrite commented on Mr. Gross consideration of covering the rock path with soil and reestablishing vegetation. Mr. Femrite stated that Mr. Gross would need to decide on that and present a plan to the Planning & Zoning for consideration. Mr. Smentek agreed. He added that, in part, the Planning Commission is at this date, due to actions taken by the property owner earlier, without coming forward earlier to ask for this, and before moving forward with the construction of the path, the large beach and the parking area. Mr. Smentek recalled other properties with projects that included a gentle sloped and vegetated path which were constructed to county standards, that included abandonment of stairs. He did not recall a situation where both an access path and stairs were allowed. Mr. Femrite asked staff if the rock could be removed and revegetated. Mr. Stubbs responded that the rock may be removed, but could not be covered up with soil. Mr. Stubbs advised the Commission that the compliance dates were established earlier in anticipation of this item being presented in September. He added the compliance dates may be changed. Mr. Smentek provided his concern with allowing the applicant to choose the surface of the path that is difficult to walk on and to allow the stairs to remain. Mr. Femrite stated there are many options for the type of surface of the path and the Commission is not in a position to dictate what type of surface to use. Mr. Smentek said the Commission is on a position to dictate the amount of allowed impervious surface area. If the applicant is going to add the walkway with a surface that the DNR considers

8 impervious surface, the Commission can ask that other impervious surface be removed to accommodate that. The selection of the rock material that is difficult to walk on was the applicant s choice. Mr. Jacques stated that while on site, he used the stairs. The path was added for the accessibility needs and the path is not walkable. Mr. Kurt Anderson stated the applicant needs to work with staff to come back into compliance. This includes revegetation, erosion control and the width of the path. He opined that the stairway was pre-existing. The property was not in compliance when the applicant purchased it with the impervious surface requirements. He added that the Commission is not suggesting that actions of the previous owners be corrected, but rather remedying work completed by the applicant. Mr. Anderson said he could not support removal of the stairway. Mr. Femrite asked if the applicant could work with staff on compliance dates. Mr. Leary requested that adequate erosion control be addressed, especially considering we are heading into winter and the spring snow melt that follows. Adequate erosion control needs to be added now and if needed, areas could be revegetated next spring. The recommended conditions were reviewed. Condition number 1 that all impacted areas shall be re-vegetated prior to November 1, Mr. Leary suggested that the Commission consider requiring adequate erosion control prior to November 1 st and that revegetation be established by July 1, Mr. Gross stated he did not think he could ever get the path to a 3 to 1 slope. He added he is willing to fill the path back in. He opined that it would be best to just cover the rock. Mr. Leary provided some clarification on the requested conditional use permit which is for the cutting of the access path and the placement of the fill at the top. He added the four-foot access path with the two to four-inch rock covering may remain as-is. It must be reduced from the current eight to twelve-foot width to four feet which is allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Femrite asked if the trail is abandoned and filled back in, does the rock need to be removed? He added without removing the rock, it may be difficult to get anything to grow. Mr. Gross said the roots of the tree are already there and with the shaded area, it is difficult to get anything to grow. The Commission stated erosion control must be established by November 1 st. Condition number 8 involving the removal of the stairs was discussed. Mr. Kurt Anderson stated he was aware of other properties that have obtained approval to install compliant access paths and were allowed to keep stairways.

9 Mr. Femrite acknowledged the Commission was dealing with an impervious surface issue of the entire property. He suggested that the stairs be allowed to remain. Mr. Smentek stated the stairs were there before. Compliance was an issue before. There are other areas of rock on the side of the house. Mr. Smentek expressed his concern with allowing someone to construct a path that is not navigable and increase impervious surface area without addressing some other way. He stated the applicant could remove the rock landscaping. He appreciated the work of the county to try to bring the property into compliance. He understood the need for the stairs and suggested the applicant look at the path material and consider making it more walkable and useable by everyone and try to reduce the impervious surface. Mr. Kurt Anderson commented that the impervious surface issue was dealt with by the Board of Adjustment. The Planning Commission is dealing with the cutting and filling in the bluff impact zone. Mr. Smentek responded indicating the Commission is taking into consideration some of the impervious surface concerns with some of the conditions and protections included in the ordinance. He urged Mr. Gross to take a look at some of the areas where impervious surface could be reduced. Mr. Femrite asked for a motion to delete the removal of the stairs and leaving the compliance dates as presented and for the applicant to work with the county staff. Mr. Bruender moved the motion. Mr. Jacques seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. PC Samuelson Hardwoods, Inc. Request for review and approval of Landyn Woods, a subdivision plat consisting of one lot. The property is zoned Light Industrial and is also located within the Urban Fringe Overlay District of the City of Mankato. The property is located in part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 23, South Bend Township. Mr. Leary presented the report. Don Zernechal was present on behalf of the applicants. There was no public comment. Mr. Kurt Anderson stated the request was fairly straight forward and proceeded with a motion to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to the County Board as recommended by staff. Mr. Smentek seconded the motion which carried unanimously. PC Brude Family Trust & USS Brude Solar, LLC Request for review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a Large Solar Energy System. The proposed project will span approximately 8.7 acres and will have a power capacity of up to 1 Megawatt

10 (MW), which by Blue Earth County standards, is classified as a Large Energy System. The property is zoned Agricultural and is located in part of the Eastern Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Rapidan Township. Mr. Stubbs presented the staff report. Lori Ganske representing the Brude Family and David Watts from the solar company were present. Mr. Watts stated the request is similar to a recent project and that school districts and residents can benefit from the project. He stated this site is adjacent to a Township road. He added the project meets or exceeds all requirements and the panels will have a maximum height of 10 feet. Native grasses and a pollinator friendly mix will be planted. Mr. Femrite asked if the panels are flammable. Mr. Watts said no and that the panels meet fire safety codes. The Township was present and had no comment. Lori Ganske stated the family does acknowledge the project will be on their land. There was some discussion by the Commission regarding the setback requirement of the fence to the road and ROW. There was also some discussion on the setback requirement of the project to a neighboring home. Mr. Stubbs responded that the property line setback requirement is 50 feet. There was no further discussion. Mr. Smentek made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the County Board as recommend by county staff. Mr. Jacques seconded the motion which carried unanimously. PC Jeffrey & Debra Henry - Request for review and approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a second residential dwelling to be utilized as an elder care dwelling. The property is zoned agricultural and is located in part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Decoria Township. Mr. Rohlfing presented the staff report. The applicant was present and had no comment. There was no public comment.

11 Mr. Smentek asked if the documentation regarding the variance application involving this property was sent out and if the variance application was approved. Mr. Stubbs said yes. There was no further discussion. Mr. Kurt Anderson made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the County Board as recommend by county staff. Mr. Bill Anderson seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 5. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Leary introduced Jaclyn Essandoh as the new Planning and Zoning Intern. Mr. Leary advised the Commission of a Floodplain training opportunity in Blue Earth on October 6 th. 6. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Jacques made a motion to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Smentek and the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Planning Commission Chair Date Planning Commission Secretary Date

12

13 PC Bradley and Eileen Anderson Conditional Use Permit TDR 11/04/2017 Applicants & Property Owners Bradley & Eileen Anderson 2024 W Montana Ave Harlingen, TX Request and Location Request for review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Transfer the Residential Development Right from the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter all located in Section 7, Judson Township. The property is zoned Agricultural. Legal Description Transferred From: Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼) of Section 7, Judson Township 108N, Range 28W Transferred To: Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼) of Section 7, Judson Township 108N, Range 28W General Site Description and Project Proposal The applicants own a single parcel that makes up the sending and receiving Quarter-Quarter Sections and have a combined total of acres. There is an existing developed parcel with a single-family dwelling northeast of the property. The applicants are requesting approval to transfer the development right from the SW Quarter of the NE Quarter of Section 7, Judson Township to the SE Quarter of the NE Quarter of Section 7, Judson Township. The sending quarter-quarter consists of cropland areas. The eastern portion of the parcel involved with the transfer, does have frontage to the County State-Aid Highway (CSAH) 20. If the transfer is approved, the applicants intend to construct a second residential dwelling in the receiving Quarter-Quarter. See Attachment A-3 Project Outcome - If approved, the SE Quarter of the NE Quarter of Section 7, Judson Township will have an additional development right to enable the applicants to construct a second residential dwelling in the Quarter-Quarter Section. 1

14 PC Bradley and Eileen Anderson Conditional Use Permit TDR 11/04/2017 Land Use Plan The current Land Use Plan adopted in 1998 directed the review of all permitted and conditional uses in all zoning districts. As a result of the review process by the Planning Commission and County Board for a 2012 amendment to the zoning ordinance, the County Board decided that transferring residential development rights in an agricultural zoned district should remain as a conditional use. Zoning Both the sending and receiving quarter-quarters are zoned Agricultural. Access The current access to the property is to and from CSAH 20. Existing Land Use within ¼ mile of the receiving quarter-quarter North: One residence, and cropland South: Cropland East: CSAH 20, Cropland, and 219 th St. (a Township Road) West: Cropland NATURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION Topography The topography of the area is best described as gently rolling. See Attachment A-4 Floodplain According to the draft FEMA floodplain map, neither of the quarter-quarter sections have areas of floodplain. The nearest area of floodplain is in excess of one mile from the property, therefore no attachment has been included. Shoreland Neither quarter-quarter section includes areas within a Shoreland Overlay District. The nearest Shoreland area is approximately 450 feet, northwest of the sending Quarter-Quarter ssection. See Attachment A-5 Township Review The applicants met with the Township at their September 11 th, 2017 meeting. The Township expressed no issue with the request provided it is in compliance with the Blue Earth County Planning and Zoning requirements. 2

15 PC Bradley and Eileen Anderson Conditional Use Permit TDR 11/04/2017 Environmental Health Review See Attachment A-6 APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES Section Uses (b) Conditional Uses (30) Transfer of Development Rights Section Density Regulations for dwellings (c) Transfer of development rights. Development rights may be transferred from a quarter of a quarter section (40 acres) to a contiguous (sharing one (1) common boundary) quarter of a quarter section (40 acres) for the purpose of constructing a dwelling, upon obtaining a conditional use permit. The sending quarter of a quarter of a section (40 acres) shall consist of a suitable buildable area capable of accommodating all requirements of the Blue Earth County Code of Ordinances for the construction of a single family dwelling. The transfer shall not allow the establishment of more than four (4) dwellings in a quarter of a quarter section. Sec Planning Commission (f) Findings required 1. Enumeration. The Planning Commission shall not forward a recommendation of approval of a conditional use permit unless they find the following facts at the hearing where the applicant shall present a statement and evidence in such form as the Planning Agency may require: a. That the proposed use conforms with the county land use plan. b. The demonstrated need for the proposed use. c. That the proposed use will not degrade the water quality of the county. d. That the proposed use will not adversely increase the quantity of water runoff. e. That soil conditions are adequate to accommodate the proposed use. f. That the proposed use does not create a potential pollution hazard. g. That adequate utility, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 3

16 PC Bradley and Eileen Anderson Conditional Use Permit TDR 11/04/2017 h. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. i. That facilities are provided to eliminate any traffic congestion or traffic hazard which may result from the proposed use. j. 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. k. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for predominant uses in the area. l. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, 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. m. That the density of proposed residential development is not greater than the density of the surrounding neighborhood or not greater than the density indicated by the applicable zoning district. n. That the intensity of proposed commercial or industrial development is not greater than the intensity of the surrounding uses or not greater than the intensity characteristic of the applicable zoning district. o. That site specific conditions and such other conditions are established as required for the protection of the public's health, safety, morals and general welfare. 4

17 PC Bradley and Eileen Anderson Conditional Use Permit TDR 11/04/2017 Proposed Findings of Facts (The proposed findings below are directly related to the above standards, labeled, items a-o) After careful review of the project and all associated documents, staff has developed the following opinions for this proposal: 1. That the proposed use conforms with the county land use plan. The current Land Use Plan included a goal that existing permitted and conditional uses be reviewed to determine if the use can be accommodated in the rural areas. The uses were reviewed by the Planning Commission and County Board in As a result, the proposed use was added as a conditional use in the Agricultural District. 2. The demonstrated need for the proposed use. The sending quarter quarter located on the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter does not have direct access to the CSAH 20. In order to avoid taking prime farmland out of production by creating a new access, the applicants are transferring the development to the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to enable them to use the existing access point from CSAH 20 to the proposed building area. Therefore, there is a demonstrated need for the transfer. 3. That the proposed use will not degrade the water quality of the county. With proper erosion control of the intended development area, the proposal does not appear likely to degrade the water quality of the county. 4. That the proposed use will not adversely increase the quantity of water runoff. With proper planning of the proposed development, the quantity of runoff should not be adversely affected. 5. That soil conditions are adequate to accommodate the proposed use. Based on the information contained on the County s Soils Map, it appears as though the soil conditions onsite are adequate to accommodate an area for the proposed development. 6. That the proposed use does not create a potential pollution hazard. With proper erosion control during future development of the property, the proposal does not appear likely to create a potential pollution hazard. 7. That adequate utility, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. These items will be addressed as part of the construction permit review. 5

18 PC Bradley and Eileen Anderson Conditional Use Permit TDR 11/04/ That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. The property appears to have adequate off-street parking to accommodate any vehicles requiring access to the property. 9. That facilities are provided to eliminate any traffic congestion or traffic hazard which may result from the proposed use. The property appears to have adequate area to alleviate any traffic congestion or traffic hazards in this area. 10. 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. The predominant use of the area is a mix of residential and agricultural uses. Transferring of the residential development right and future development of the site appears unlikely to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of any property in its immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted. 11. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for predominant uses in the area. It appears unlikely that approval of this transfer will impede any development efforts of the surrounding vacant areas. 12. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, 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. This standard does not apply to this request. 13. That the density of proposed residential development is not greater than the density of the surrounding neighborhood or not greater than the density indicated by the applicable zoning district. With the development right transfer, the density of the area conforms to the ordinance. 14. That the intensity of proposed commercial or industrial development is not greater than the intensity of the surrounding uses or not greater than the intensity characteristic of the applicable zoning district. This standard does not apply to this request. 6

19 PC Bradley and Eileen Anderson Conditional Use Permit TDR 11/04/ That site specific conditions and such other conditions are established as required for the protection of the public's health, safety, morals and general welfare. The protection of the public s health, safety, morals and general welfare have been addressed through the required performance standards for this type of conditional use and in the conditions included below. Recommendations Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit to Transfer the Development Right with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall obtain a construction permit prior to commencement of any future construction activities. 2. That any future splitting of the property within the receiving Quarter-Quarter Section, shall first meet the requirements outlined in the County Land Division Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS A-1 General Location Map A-2 General Site Map A-3 Proposed TDR Map A-4 Topography Map A-5 Shoreland Overlay Map A-6 Environmental Health Comments 7

20

21 General Location Map Attachment A-1 Site of the Proposal

22 General Site Map Attachment A-2 Approximate Location of Proposed Home Sending quarter-quarter section Receiving quarter-quarter section

23 Proposed TDR Map Attachment A-3 Approximate Location of Proposed Home SWNE Qtr-Qtr Section SENE Qtr-Qtr Section

24 Topography Map Attachment A-4

25 Shoreland Overlay Map Attachment A-5 Approximate Location of Proposed Home

26 BLUE EARTH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Government Center, 410 South Fifth Street P.O. Box 3566, Mankato, Minnesota Phone: (507) Fax: (507) Environmental Health Section - Planning Application Reviews Date Printed: October 25, 2017 Permit Number: PL Property Owner: ANDERSON BRADLEY R & EILEEN M Applicant: ANDERSON BRADLEY R & EILEEN M Parcel Number: R File ID: PC Application Description: Request for review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to transfer the residential development right from the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter all located in Section 7, Judson Township. The property is zoned Agricultural. Status: Complete - Comments Received Septic Review Comments: The transfer of development rights will require that when the property is split into two parcels that each new parcel has the ability to support two septic systems each. At the time of development or subdividing of the receiving ¼ ¼, this requirement will be required to be completed. Anderson, Jesse 09/26/2017 4:27 PM Status: Complete - Comments Received Well Review Comments: A review of the well records indicates that the recieving quarter section with some grain bins and a machine shed has a sealed well, unique # H291539, which previously served the existing building site. This well was properly sealed by Searles Well Drilling in The transfer of development rights does not appear to negatively impact the known well situation on this property. grant 09/28/2017 4:27 PM Wetland Review Status: Complete - Comments Received Comments: The proposed TDR will not directly impact any wetlands. The area of the proposed house will be reviewed once building plans have been finalized, however, a brief wetland review did not suggest any likely wetland issues with the proposed building site. Schulte Michael 10/23/2017 9:58 AM