SPECIAL BOARD MEETING – Comprehensive Plan Review

 

 

The Stanton Town Board met with the Planning Commission and Dean Johnson at the Phillippo Scout Reservation at 6:00 p.m.

Reason: To discuss and review the 2006 Comprehensive Plan

 

Meeting called to order by Bob Benson

Pledge of Allegiance

Bob recommended starting on page 7

Dave Garner suggested referring to previous minutes on the subject

Bob pointed out that on page 7 of the plan fire protection was stated as being provided by Randolph, when in fact we have 2 fire departments.  He stated we should add Cannon Falls Fire Department as the second one. 

Dave suggested we strike out the last line of the same paragraph regarding holding  public meeting at the Phillippo Scout Reservation.

Dean asked if in striking out that statement would it be all right to put in something about a new town hall being planned, etc.?

Bob replied that would be OK.

Dave stated 310th and 40th Avenue would be the location.

Joyce Moorhouse suggested that the Town Hall location statement should be adjusted.

 

The meeting turned to page 8

White areas on page 8 map were questioned.

Dean replied that in the creation of the map there were large areas that were primarily wooded and had no home on them.  The map technician choose to leave those vacant, (or white) but that they could be shaded green to be included with the Ag land around them.

Discussion continued review white areas on map.

 

Page 9

Last paragraph was questioned by Bob regarding the planned trails within the township. 

Joyce asked how this affects us.

Dean explained that these were 2 planned trails by the county that were to go through Stanton Township. 

Bob asked what commitment do we have with that?

Dean replied that the statement didn’t commit us (Stanton Township).

Dean said “This paragraph is really describing things that, under transportation facilities, would include things like busses, transit, trains, but it also identifies the state and county highway system..but also within transportation… any trails.  This is just the fact that the county has in their plan identified these 2 trail corridors.” 

 

Page 12 (page 13 map)

White areas explained.

Dean explained we will add what’s on here, it’s kind of everything else.  It means CER under 60, but it’s not a bluff area, or steep slope.  He said it would be added later.

Mark Dubbles asked about the map on page 14, regarding white area.

Bob replied that will be clarified also.

 

 

Page 16

Dave requested to strike “commercial” in four locations

Bob also questioned “excessive traffic” in the 6th bullet at the bottom of the page which begins with “Prohibit private…”

Dean recommended we keep this as is, as it would provide us with protection regarding establishments which might come in and bring with it excessive traffic, such as Water Slide Parks, Dog Racing Tracks, Horse Racing Facilities, but generally speaking he felt Stanton wanted Ag related things.  We could just rely on our zoning ordinance too, it’s just what we want to do with it.

Joe Vandenheuval stated he felt the language was in there for our protection.

Bob stated we would leave it as it was.

 

Page 17

Discussion about many of the items on this page were county regulated, and we did not have a lot of choice about them. 

Dean pointed out that there were instances listed where we could be more restrictive.

Dave asked if we were all agreed that everything on the page could stay.

Bob said yes.

 

Page 18

Bob asked that under “Commercial/Industrial Policies” that the word “prohibit” be questioned. 

Dean pointed out the statement on page 16 also.  He explained the word “prohibit” is a protection for us. 

It was suggested that the 1st bullet under “Residential Policies” have “or more restrictive” added.

 

Page 19

Under Parks and Recreation:

 

1st bullet, Joe asked about the trail being planned to run by people’s homes.  He wanted to know if the word “committed” meant it was OK to put the trail in?

Dean answered stating it is not saying you will cooperate, it says you will coordinate.  If you don’t offer to coordinate then the county will do it on their own. 

Regarding bullet 1 and 2: Dean said by removing the word “establishment” you are not withdrawing any commitment, but you would lessen your involvement.  Keeping the word in there would allow us to have a part/involvement to whatever was proposed.

 

Joe asked if we could change the word in the 2nd bullet to read “coordinate” instead of “cooperate”.  Also, eliminate the word “establishment” in the first bullet.

 

Parks and Recreation Policies was discussed.

Page 19

Transportation Policies:

3 bullets down.

The word “prohibit” was questioned.

Dean suggested that our policy should reflect, at least in the Ag district, that we’re not taking any new roads, as a base policy we cannot afford to have new roads and maintain them. 

 

Page 20

Joe asked a question about the usage of the term “urban fringe”.  If we removed the word urban from the 3rd paragraph down under “Agricultural Land Uses” it might help us have a better hold on our lands and in dealing with annexation. 

 

Dean first stated we cannot change the county’s terminology.  The county calls it “Urban Fringe” and we call it “Ag Transition”.

Bob asked if we could take urban out.

Dean said no.

Dean reiterated that A-3 was the same as Agricultural Transition and they both now limit lot size to 35 acres for residential development.

 

Dean recommended that we use “Ag” terms where ever we can.

 

Page 21 Map

 

Bob noted the 2 of the 3 greens are identical on the map key.

 

Dean said they should be different on the key.

 

Dean said he wanted to make sure we understood on the bottom of page 20 where it uses the term Rural Residential Land Use, “we talk about in here that the county has the R-1 Surburban residence (residence?) so that’s what you find up along Cannon Falls and a couple of other locations on Lake Byllesby.”

Dean further explained: “What we’re saying here is that your position is you (Stanton Township) are not creating separate land use districts, you’re acknowledging these are scattered, existing developments and if you (Stanton Township) get more of them they will be reflected in your zoning ordinance. But on your (Stanton Township’s) Comprehensive Plan, which is a different thing, we are going to have those 3 districts.”   

The same description is on the following page under Commercial/Industrial Land Use.

 

One last question was asked about the purpose of the implementation plan.

 

Dean stated: “Statutorily you have to have a public hearing to adopt a plan, you have to have a public hearing to amend a plan.” 

 

Bob asked if any one else had any questions?

 

Page 24 Implementation Plan

 

Dave wanted to clarify a couple of points.  This is a stand-a-lone document.  For legal precedence the ordinance takes precedence because we are outside the metropolitan area.  The ordinance is the legal document, which will take precedence over any inconsistencies between the ordinance and this.  We work from this (the comprehensive plan) to the ordinance but the ordinance is the legal, final say on anything. 

If there is a discrepancy the ordinance takes precedence over everything else. 

 

Dean answered yes. 

Dean added right now the true zoning is the county’s.  The only difference is the B-2 and Stanton Center, and the scattered R-1 districts.  Our (Stanton’s ) zoning maps will reflect the county’s. 

 

Dave confirmed we can add to that and be more restrictive any place we want.

Dean said yes.

 

 

Joe asked a question about public hearings, amendments, and procedures for them as a planning committee member.  He sited an example:

A party comes forward proposing an amendment, he has a lot of signatures at which point the planning commission takes a look at it, reviews it and inspects it.  We then bring it to the board and they make a decision.  Then the board goes to the county to see it it’s OK with them.  If the county says yes, then the board gives it back to the planning commission to hold the public hearing then the planning commission makes a recommendation back to the board where the board’s ultimate decision as to whether the amendment would be adopted or not.  Is that the correct procedure?

 

Dave added that if we were going to be more restrictive than the county that we would not have to go to the county for permission. That we should not get into a public hearing when we decide we don’t need it anyway.

 

Dean explained if the county isn’t going to go along with the change that you’re requesting to be less restrictive there’s no point in going through the public.

 Dean added if you have a formal application everyone has the right to request rezoning of property or an amendment to your plan. So if they pay the fee and you have an application, deny it on the basis that it’s not consistent. And part of your findings would include that you can’t entertain that without the county’s approval and the county has declined to approve it. But if you have an application you have to deny it.  And do it in 60 days.  Otherwise it’s approved(?). 

 

Bob asked if there were any other questions.

 

Dave made a motion to adjourn the special meeting.

Motion seconded.

Motion passed.

 

Meeting adjourned.