Public
Hearing # 1
On Monday, September 14, 2009, at 7:15 p.m., Chairperson=
Tom
Braun called a Public Hearing to order. Other members present were Eric Min=
ks, Carl
Sanford, Kathy Stoeckel, and Cindy Bodger. Larry Ziebarth and Town Board li=
ason
John Roxbury, Jr. were absent. The purpose of the Public Hearing was to
consider adopting a new Comprehensive Plan.
Carl Sanford stated that pertaining to the developments =
in
the Comprehensive Plan, it requires someone to do a cost benefit analysis w=
hich
is fine because the Town Board has to know that it is going to be cost
beneficial to the Township. Regarding River Conservation, that is pretty mu=
ch
controlled by the DNR rulings and our own ordinances. In the Future Land Use
section, it addresses that if land use changes, then the ordinances will be
changed, but he thought they had done quite a bit of changing lately. As fa=
r as
the solar energy goes, it states that in new development, new houses should=
be
positioned to benefit solar future planning and the roads are also mentione=
d.
If someone meets the cost benefit plan in a development, that’s one
hurdle, then they have to address the open space or park dedication, that is
another hurdle, then someone has to construct a development to meet solar
specifications, like all houses facing south and roads are going east to we=
st.
He asked how many hurdles do they want to put in the Comprehensive Plan.
Carl Sanford stated that another section he was looking = at was where it addresses requiring subdivision applicants to show whether the= re are gravel deposits in the land proposed for development. Now the applicants cannot be on a gravel deposit, they have to have all houses facing south, a= nd roads a certain way, they have to give land to the township and they have t= o show it is cost beneficial to put up a development. If someone splits five acres= off his forty and builds a house, they do not have to do any of those things. <= o:p>
Carl also stated that since he has a gravel pit he is
concerned with the statement in the proposed Comprehensive Plan that states
“control secondary uses of gravel pits (i.e. concrete recycling, shoo=
ting
ranges, ATV riding, etc….)”. He has a pile of concrete that is
going to be recycled, and he was concerned that he can’t ride his own=
ATV
in his gravel pit, or have a shooting range there. The Comprehensive Plan a=
lso
states “and ensure proper reclamation of existing and new pits”=
. He
asked if this is what they want for the future?
Tom Braun stated that he doesn’t think the Compreh=
ensive
Plan reads that someone can’t do that, it is just to have a little mo=
re
control over it. He does not think it is extruding that.
Eugene Stoeckel stated that he thinks that any private u=
se
is fine, but if someone was opening a shooting range for others to come on,
that use would require a Conditional Use Permit, and that would be the cont=
rol
since it would be commercial.
Mark Riverblood stated that if someone had gravel on the=
ir
land and they were considering doing a subdivision, when they find they have
this natural resource on their land, rather than just cover it up with
residential use, there could be a plan for extracting this gravel resource =
and
there is a recommendation plan that may or may not be a residential land us=
e.
It seemed like an opportunity for the landowner to recover this natural
resource, make a profit from it and not bury it under the lawn.
Tom Braun stated that these are suggestions for the long
range, they’re not changing ordinances. It’s all in the way that
each individual is going to read it and their theory on what it means.
Carl Sanford stated that there seems to be a lot of road
blocks thrown in the way of developers.
Kathy Stoeckel asked if Carl was looking for commercial
exposure or if he was just looking at it for personal use. What did he have=
a
problem with if it is just all personal use since anything commercial would=
require
a Conditional Use Permit?
Carl Sanford stated that the Comprehensive Plan gives a
general direction but if it says specifically to do something exactly in a
certain way, than that is the way it should be followed. Since the Comprehe=
nsive
Plan states to control secondary uses like ATV riding in a gravel deposit,
since he happens to have one, does that mean that the township could tell h=
im
he couldn’t ride it there.
Tom Braun stated that he doesn’t read it that way,
saying that you can’t do it, but if you’re going to make a ridi=
ng
range, that would be different than riding for pleasure.
Mark Riverblood stated that maybe the Planning Commission
considers a language change. He personally did not see a conflict but does
respect all points.
Carl Sanford stated that he did not agree with the verbi=
age
“control secondary uses..” but would rather see it state
”consider controlling secondary uses…”.
Tom Braun stated that the main issue was the ATV riding
because the other examples would require a Conditional Use Permit. Eric Min=
ks
suggested striking all three examples. Cindy Bodger thinks that listing them
gives an idea as to what is being thought of in the first place. Eric Minks
stated that secondary uses could be anything so by striking them all, the
language is still there. He doesn’t see why the examples are even nee=
ded.
Carl Sanford stated that he did not see anything on wind
generators in the Comprehensive Plan and knew that it was discussed at prev=
ious
meetings, but was not at the last one so he was not sure if they decided no=
t to
include the issue.
Mark Riverblood stated that the Board did discuss it and
felt that the large scale generators may not be appropriate in some areas of
the Township, but they agreed that they would need to look at that. Carl
Sanford agreed that they may have to address the issue in the future.
Lance Stanley wanted to know how the Township could tell=
a
developer that he has to develop his land with solar energy but he can̵=
7;t
use wind generators. If you are trying to be green, you can’t pick one
over the other. Tom Braun stated that they didn’t eliminate them. They
just planned on reviewing them on a case by case basis.
There were no other residents who wished to speak.
Tom Braun motioned to close the Public Hearing at 7:43 p=
.m.
Regular
Meeting
At 7:44 p.m. Planning Commission Chairperson Tom Braun c=
alled
the Regular Monthly Planning Commission Meeting to order.
A motion was made by Cindy Bodger and seconded by Kathy
Stoeckel to approve the minutes of June 1, 2009 as printed. Motion Carried.
Eric Minks motioned to move the discussion on the Landsp=
lit
in Section 23 ahead of the Comprehensive Plan discussion on the agenda.
Lance Stanley explained that he has 40 acres and wants to
split off 5 acres with the house. The person he is selling it to would like=
20
but cannot afford it right now so he will just be splitting off the 5 and
holding 15 for him.
Kathy Stoeckel stated that on the letter from Oliver
Surveying it states that “both proposed parcels are buildable since o=
nly
on dwelling exists on the property” but since one already has a home =
only
one parcel would be buildable. Lance Stanley stated that the other 35 acres=
could
have just one building site.
Kathy Stoeckel motioned to recommend approval of the
Landsplit to the Town Board noting that the remaining 35 acres could only h=
ave
one building site. Carl Sanford seconded the motion. Motion Carried.
The next item on the agenda was to discuss the public
hearing on the Comprehensive Plan.
After some discussion as to the wording of “control
secondary uses of gravel pits (i.e. concrete recycling, shooting ranges, ATV
riding, etc…) and ensure proper reclamation of existing and new pits.=
”
the Planning Commission decided to replace the previous sentence with the
following new sentence, “Conditional Use Permits will be used to cont=
rol
commercial secondary uses and ensure proper reclamation of existing and new
pits”. The three examples were removed. See Exhibit A.
Carl Sanford stated that he had some concerns with the
issues regarding new development under Solar Access Planning. After some
discussion the Planning Commission decided to just completely delete the
paragraph that discusses solar planning for new development. See Exhibit B.=
Carl Sanford stated that he was concerned with the Minne=
sota
Rules that were mentioned pertaining to River Conservation. He was not sure
what was in those rules and how they applied to the Township. The Planning
Commission agreed that they already have to follow all applicable rules and=
are
already restrictive, so people may just have to do some research on their o=
wn
to look into those rules. See Exhibit C.
The Planning Commission discussed whether there would ne=
ed
to be another Public Hearing because of the changes that were made tonight.=
The
Clerk was directed to check with Minnesota Association of Townships to get =
an
answer regarding that.
Eric Minks motioned to recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan to the Town Board with the two changes that are noted ab=
ove.
Kathy Stoeckel seconded the motion. Motion Carried.
Eugene Stoeckel wanted the Planning Commission to commen=
t on
possibly compensating Larry Ziebarth for all of his work on the Comprehensi=
ve
Plan. Tom Braun stated that he feels that Larry deserves something but thou=
ght
that was up to the Town Board to make the decision. Eric Minks asked if the=
re
were any legal ramifications that would need to be considered first. The Cl=
erk
was directed to check with the Minnesota Association of Townships regarding=
the
issue.
There were no other residents who wished to speak.
A motion was made by Eric Minks and seconded by Cindy Bo=
dger
to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Motion Carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Connie L. Wubben
Clerk/Treasurer &nb=
sp;
Attendees: Mark Riverblood, = Eugene Stoeckel, Lance Stanley