ALEXANDRIA TOWNSHIP

Alexandria, Minnesota 56308

Minutes of the meeting of June 23, 2008

 

A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Alexandria Township was held on the 23rd day of June, 2008 at the Alexandria Township Conference Room, 610 Fillmore Street.

 

Roll Call:  Commission members present were John Knowles, Julie Feuling, Russ Niskanen, Larry Steidl and Lyle Hammerschmidt.  Also present was Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk and Ben Oleson, Township Zoning Administrator.  As said members formed a quorum and the meeting was called to order by Chairman Knowles at 6:00 p.m.

 

Agenda:

Hammerschmidt, seconded by Niskanen, made a motion to approve the agenda as presented.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Minutes:

Steidl, seconded by Feuling, made a motion to approve the minutes of the 5/28/08 meeting as written.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

Public Hearing:  None

 

Zoning Administrator’s Report: 

Commissioner Feuling questioned whether Midwest Machinery was required to pay for both a sign permit and a variance.  Zoning Administrator Oleson responded in the affirmative.

 

Oleson summarized where and what constitutes a bluff area.

 

Old Business:  None

 

New Business:

Zoning Administrator Oleson provided an outline of possible zoning/subdivision ordinance amendments to be discussed.  The commission will review the topics and pass along their comments to the zoning subcommittee. 

 

The first item for discussion was sign regulations.  Oleson stated that the county will be updating their ordinance in the future.  Would the township want to put together a detailed outline of a sign ordinance and make a presentation to the county?  Another question raised concerned reducing the right-of-way setbacks, spacing, height and other requirements in C/I districts.  The consensus of the commission was that the 50 foot right-of-way and 500 feet between signs setbacks were too restrictive. They would also rather not see billboards in the township. 

 

Currently, residentially-zoned areas are not allowed to have signs unless they are 16 square feet in size or less and are part of a home-based business/home occupation.  The consensus was to keep the 16 square foot maximum requirement in residential areas and to allow the signs only as part of a business.

 

Should the township regulate LED signs or other electronic signs that change the message continuously or every few seconds?  The commission felt the signs are distracting and the township may want to regulate the speed with which it changes.

 

Would the township want to regulate “temporary” signs, such as those advertising homes for sale, garage sales, parties, etc.?  The commission did not feel the need for regulation, as long as it was not part of a business.

 

The next item for discussion was ghost platting.  Oleson said that there is no “official” definition of ghost platting under state law; however, the practice has been used in many communities throughout the state.  The commission felt that the ghost platting process would be beneficial for orderly development throughout the township. 

 

Oleson asked if the township should require developers to show how the property could be re-subdivided, even if the township didn’t require that new construction be located so that future subdivision could occur.  The commission thought that the requirement for re-subdivision was prudent; however, they did not feel it was the township’s place to tell people where to build on their property.  How would the township address 5-acre lots?  How would road assessments affect this?  Would it matter if the parcel was owned by a landowner versus a developer?

 

Should homes within ghost plat areas be allowed to have private sewers?  The consensus was to allow them.  If the township prohibited them, we would in essence be saying they could not build in that area.

 

What are the commission’s leanings regarding clustered sewer systems?  The commission raised concerns about maintenance and neighbor conflicts.  The consensus was that it would need more regulation and oversight.

 

The third item for discussion was cul-de-sacs and loop roads, whether the township should have specific limitations on either the length of these roads (versus guidelines) and/or whether there should be a maximum number of dwellings allowed to be served by these roads.  Reasons cited for limiting the use of these roads are public safety and snowplowing.  The consensus was that there should be a lower number of homes allowed on a cul-de-sac than on a loop road due to traffic congestion, etc.  Perhaps the number allowed should be based on how many lot/block lots are proposed.  The commission did not feel the need to ban these roads, but rather to control them.  They did stress the need for more than one exit for loop roads.  They also raised the concern of storage space for snowplowing.

 

The commission requested that the zoning administrator present these three topics to the zoning subcommittee to research. 

 

Adjournment:

Being no further business, Hammerschmidt, seconded by Feuling, made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted….

                                                                                                __________________________

                                                                                                  Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk

Approved this _______day of ________, 2008

                                                                                                __________________________

                                                                                                      John B. Knowles, Chairman