Loading...
4-14-98 Comp Plan Public HearingApril 14, 1998 111111111 I �: L . Namossm A public hearing was held on this date to take public testimony on New Scandia's revised Comprehensive Plan. in attendance were the Town Board, the Planning Commission and Planning Consultant Peggy Reichert, as well as approximately 50 people in the audience. Mary Lanz, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, opened the meeting. Kevin Nickelson, Town Board Supervisor and Co -Chair of the Growth Management Task Force, outlined the plan development process. Peggy Reichert, Plamling Consultant, presented the highlights of the proposed plan. The floor was then opened for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Anthony Margida, 16099 209th St N, Scandia, asked why there is a need for a bonus on cluster designs. R. To promote OSD and because there are no further development rights on the open space in a cluster design. 2. Dana Vogen, 21621 Oldfield, Scandia, asked about any major changes in plan since July '97 meeting. Stated growth projection seemed small considering the bonus on clustering. Her last comment was that she was impressed with the plan and supports it. R. Bonus changed to 100% and open space requirement changed from 70% to 60% with 25% of the 60% held by the homeowners. Can't control rate, but can control placement. 3. Kathleen Wallace, 16797 205t" St N, Scandia, stated that the lower St. Croix River was left out of the Water Resource section. Encouraged township to list its resources. Would like road map changed to remove roads shown in Copas and Otisville, as some don't exist. County Road 53 is shown as a township collector road —what is the status — A township or county road? Suggested we get a legal description of the road including easements. On the Recreation Resource map the Log House Landing is one mile off from where it is located. The Willard/Munger Trail is supposed to run through Scandia from Pine Point Park and suggested the town work with the State on defining this route. Finally, she commended the Township Supervisors and Planning Commission for their work. Likes open space versus lots of lots stretched out along Hwy. 97. 4. Fritz Knaack, Attorney for Nancy & Jim Stratton, Big Marine Lake. Wanted to verify that the plan reflects 5 acre lots along the lake. R. Yes, along the first tier, then 4:40. Asked the Town Board to consider the effect that smaller lots from clusters will have on adjacent five acre lots and allow the five acre lots to subdivide if development becomes that dense. 5. Richard Parrish, 23039 Perkins Ave N, Scandia, asked if township had long-term projections for Parks & Recreation including budgeting. Mike White responded Park & Rec has been concentrating on the skating facility and other plans have been stalled for years. Mr. Parrish asked that the town board consider planning for parks and budgeting for it as part of the comprehensive plan. 6. Mike White, 13310 188th St, Marine, asked that we protect our natural resources, dedicate more land to parks and trails, and asked if open space will be private or public land. The park & Rec committee voted on a resolution to ask for part of open space for public trails. 7. Audrey Almendinger, 14940 Old Marine Trail, has 16 acres on Sand Lake and doesn't understand why she can't subdivide off a five acre lot. R. County ordinances only allows 10 acres. However, the township's new ordinances would allow 5 acres, but they're not written yet. 8. Robin Booren, 11529 Mayberry Trail, doesn't endorse the plan at all. He owns a large area on Big Marine Lake, which he farms. He is the 4th generation on his property, but currently has no one to pass it on to. The land is his 401k plan and we're limiting his choices, dabbling in April 14, 1998 Page 2 his retirement plan. Higher densities on 40 acres are backwards; don't do 2.5 acres in the VC, put smaller lots in VC if land can support sewer and water and larger lots in outlying areas. He doesn't think we'll stop development. People will go north or across the river for five acres and we'll just end up with the traffic. Looks at this as a mandated plan by the MET Council. R. Bruce has a problem with property restrictions — we don't have flexibility & autonomy if we can't allow Almendinger to subdivide. Kevin stated township type government restricts us, we could incorporate and get out from under the County. 9. Joyce Heinish, 23620 Olinda Trail, farms and objects to being told what to do with her land. Taxes go up 10% per year and she's being told how to develop, build roads. If the rural look is the object of the township and MET, they would do something about the taxes that would encourage fanning. 10. Myron Lindgren 15 040 Old Marine Trail, has three generations buried here. According to a Washington County extension service newsletter, the average price per acre in Washington County is $4,720; highest in the state. There's no way anyone can farm at that price. Growth is coming, we can't stop it, just get the traffic. 11. Jeff House, 12595 Lakamaga Trail, asked if lakeshore lots will have to be five acres and will there be bonuses for clusters on the lakeshore — first tier? R. the County hasn't addressed lakeshore ordinance and neither has the township. 12. Loren Nickelson, 11300 Mayberry Trail, is for clustering and the plan as it will accommodate the people coming. Farming will have to move. It will maintain the rural look. People will be able to buy smaller, affordable lots and be in rural surroundings. 13. Lori Gordon, 19303 Parkview, wanted to know if someone from the Minnesota Land Trust was here tonight. 14. John Baird, MN Land Trust, explained the easement concept and transfer of development rights to a land trust to preserve open spaces permanently. 15. Joyce Heinish asked if the Land Trust bought the land. R. No, only development rights transferred. 16. John Borchert lives in a cluster of 8 lots with open space dedicated to the Land Trust. The homeowners association owns the land and can do anything with it but develop or mine it. The value of the land decreases, but that's the trade-off. 17. Rich Doolittle, Pilar Road, said cluster housing is not defined in the plan; not specified in lot averaging —both are 4/40 density. Thinks the township should have a total open space figure planned for. 18. Marcia Hathaway, 12103 23 8"' Street N, asked if the road system would be developed by the plan. R. Roads will be built as each area develops. 19. Howard Hawkinson, 21710 Oldfield Ave, will it be mandatory for a common sewer in a cluster? Public hearings on his plat were controversial for anything under 5 acre lots. Believes a common sewer is needed for clusters. 20. Robin Booren, we already have a large amount of open space in wetlands. No one is entitled to a scenic view only the property that they buy. 21. Kathleen Wallace, would like to see clarification on how the VC expands and develops. Will there be strip malls off the highway. Asked the township to define concepts so future landowner will know what to expect in an area. 22. Nancy Peterson, 11240 2280' Street, takes exception to the strip mall comments. The Business Park gives jobs and other benefits to the area. It is a business park, not an industrial park. She wants to purchase a plan prior to adoption and another public hearing. Thinks Hwy 97 is the logical place for commercial development, but taskforce recommended building off the April 14, 1998 Page 3 highway. Would like stricken from the plan that mall is an eyesore (see page 28, Commercial Development Issues). Also, one -acre lots won't work with septicsystems on an open space design. Landowners are getting a raw deal. 23. Gary Hogle, 21509 Lofton Ave N, stated the task force appreciates the community in which it lives, but we have to consider neighbors when we develop. We have an incredible opportunity to save open space for ftiture generations. Task force did not discuss what was good for the township, only how to maximize development and landowner profits. Thinks the taskforce succeeded in the plan, except for clusters to which he is vehemently opposed — costs to put land in a Land Trust. Challenges taskforce to do what is good for the township. Not a waste of space to have large lots — to say so is an insult to landowners that want privacy. People move out here for privacy and space. Where will people go with horses? Too restrictive. It will be the death knell for AG areas by raising land value, taxes and decreasing profit margins by farmers. This plan will do exactly what MET, County and Township said they didn't want to do. 24. Franz Westermeier, 15659 Pilar Road, asked if any study was made of a cluster housing development and the type of agreement to support community property, i.e. when sewer system fails who is responsible, what is township's responsibility. Are soil maps being used to delineate these areas? Also, fascinated with the Jackson Meadows project in Marine. Are residents on 1/3 acre lots less responsible than the larger landowners in the development? What about parking cars, trailers, recreational vehicles? Where does responsibility lie for certain items. How fair is tax equation on clusters? Nancy Madden moved to adjourn, seconded by Dail Booren. Additional written comments: 1. We oppose the cluster concept and will not be convinced that our current local government could handle this concept without a lot more investigation. (signature unreadable) 2. I would hope that if we have 40 acres it could be divided as we wish and not make clusters, etc. mandatory!! Different situations may dictate the manner this 40 acres is divided. Ed Anderson 19435 Olinda Trail 3. Log House Landing is in Otisville, not Copas (& located in wrong place) In the General Rural/AG, the open space should have pennanent protection through the purchase or donation of conservation easements. I.e. Open Space Design development is preferable to lot averaging. Kathleen Wallace 16797 205'h Street 4. In one stroke you've destroyed the rural harmony of this area, while intent on preserving the rural character. The new Comprehensive Plan with its `four on forty', but only in cluster housing, has tainted the atmosphere in this township, and has pitted one group against another. Granted, one house on ten acres may look ugly to some, but to the people who reside in them, this is the reason they came here, for their personal space. Clusters may be cute to some, but I'm reminded of a type of migraine headache, which is also called a cluster, no very common, but difficult to cure. Tom Obst April 14, 1998 Page 4 I assumed the hearing last Tuesday evening would be a free flow of debate in which ideas would mix and hopefully create something better than the sum of its parts. I was dead wrong. What I witnessed was a Town Board who hid behind county policy and task force recommendations at every turn. I saw residents who were genuinely concerned not just for themselves, but for their neighborhoods systematically demoralized by an unresponsive town board. There was no debate. There was no exchange of ideas. There was no attempt at understanding the plight of the residents. "Thank you for your comment, next please". Most of us are savvy enough to know that this is code for "you just wasted your breath because my mind is already made up." You make a mockery out of citizen representation. I am truly sad. I expected more. Tom Nolte No address available The following written comments have been submitted to the township office. We support your efforts to maintain the rural character of this beautiful part of the country. Cluster Housing may seem like a viable solution, however we would like to share our first-hand knowledge with you. We moved here from one of the fastest growing counties in the country, Wake County, North Carolina. When we moved there, it was rural and the county promoted Cluster Developments as a way to preserve the rural character. Six years later there wasn't a farm left in the area, just back to back Cluster Developments. Where neighborhood children played soccer, it was suburban sprawl, nothing could be further from rural. Also, property values eventually went down since the market was saturated and the area no longer had its rural appeal. Let's not let that happen here. We urge you to support 10 acre lots, that way homeowners can keep livestock and farm their land. That is rural, along with dirt roads, barns, etc. Please preserve the very qualities that have attracted people to this area, dirt roads, rural atmosphere, pastures, and natural beauty. Thank you, Andrea and Anthony Margida 10699 209th Street Scandia, MN To: New Scandia Town Board New Scandia Planning Commission Planning Task Force Committee From: Robert W. Brunfeldt 14800 Old Marine Trail North Marine, MN 55047 RE: Thoughts and Comments on the Proposed New Scandia Comprehensive Plan (as presented 4/14/98) As a Township resident, I want to express my appreciation to all of you for the time and effort put forth on the Proposed New Scandia Comprehensive Plan. All too often, tasks such as this undertaking go unnoticed by the general public. I want to especially thank the Town Board and the Planning Commission for the work done year round on behalf of the residents. Regarding the Proposed Comprehensive Plan, I would like to present some of my thoughts on the Plan itself plus some comments on the 4/14/98 meeting and the discussions during the meeting. page 2 Initially, I don't agree with the 114 units per 40 acres", concept which is evidently being forced upon the Township by the County and the Metro Council. The 5 acre density concept gave the land owner more choices and better flexibility; it should remain this way. This is my biggest objection to the Proposed Plan; the landowner is losing his/her right to do what they want to do with the property that he/she owns (owned for may years in some cases). Personally, I don't care if any landowners would choose to keep their land intact, subdivide into 10 acre parcels, or subdivide into 5 acre parcels. The main thing is that the landowner should be able to make that choice, not "big government", or other Township residents that moved in more recently and who often reside on small parcels themselves. During the Public Hearing, we heard from three Township residents (Robin Booren, Myron Lindgren and Joyce Heinish), all of whom own sizeable land parcels in the Township. I felt that each gave a very sincere and poignant "speech", relating to his/her own view and situation. I would like for all of you to remember and reflect on what they had to say. Many facets of the Proposed Plan will penalize landowners such as these three greatly (and unjustly!). It was evident that there were some audience members who really don't care about the plight of the landowners in the Township. Why should landowners be made to sacrifice without compensation? Many of the landowners in our area are land rich and money poor; their main net worth is the land they are living on (and have struggled to maintain for years). To paraphrase Robin Booren, "It's my retirement and I don't want anyone taking it away from me!" Why do you want people like Robin to sacrifice, without compensation, so that some Township residents (living on small parcels) and outsiders driving through can enjoy the "rural atmosphere" as they call it? There was talk at the Public Hearing of making 5 and 10 acres minimum for lakeshore developments which I think is ridiculous. Just think how this would affect a landowner like Robin Booren. Let's keep the lakeshore minimums the way they are so that more people can enjoy living on our lakes rather than making parcels so large and expensive that only the super rich could afford to live on the lakes. Lot sizes from 1 to 1 1/2 acres on recreational lakes and lot sizes from 1 1/2 to 2 acres on environmental lakes are reasonable as long as the septic systems can function properly. Much talk was presented about giving bonuses for clustering on acreage parcels so I think the landowners with lakeshore should be given the same consideration. Key factors such as distance from the lake itself and "community drain fields" (if the lots cannot provide for on -site septic system areas) ensure us all that the lakes will not be abused or page 3 or misused. When discussing the concept of clustering, its proponents often say that the open space can be used for farming. Ms. Heinisch alluded to the difficulties of maintaining a family farm, the work day and the expenses related to the return. Myron Lindgren hit the nail on the head when he said that the reality of it all is that Scandia is no longer a "farming community" as it was in the past. Those who propose continued farming want someone else to do it, not themselves. How many of our younger people, who grew up on the farms and worked seven days a week at farming, have wanted to keep doing that in their adult lives? Only a handful at best have continued farming, while most have gone on the other occupations. Land prices have escalated to such high levels that one cannot buy land with the main purpose of making a living by farming it. I am opposed to the Standard Lot Averaging concept as proposed at the Public Hearing. It's hard for me to believe that the Township/County leaders feel it is all right to dictate to a landowner that he can only give a 2 1/2 acre or a 20 acre parcel to a son or daughter, but not a 5 or 10 acre parcel! This strong arm tactic/concept should be abandoned immediately. Our basic freedoms are being threatened by these irrational ideas. Four scenarios for subdivision of land were presented at the Public Hearing. The lead-in statement to the paragraph at the bottom of page 4 of the your pamphlet states "The choice of approach to land subdivision will depend on the wishes of the seller and the desires of the buyer." IF THIS WERE ACTUALLY TRUE, OUR PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED!!!!! However, the Proposed Comprehensive Plan does NOT consider the wishes of the seller. The seller is told, "You can do it your way as long as you do what we want you to do." Scenarios 1 and 2 show developmental plans that will end up with 4 driveways from an original 40 acre parcel. The aesthetics of these two plans are not appealing at all. Scenario 3 illustrates the bonus concept, 8 building sites on 40 acres. Assuming that the Township would still require the new road to be blacktopped, this scenario shows a plan that would be costly to the landowner to develop as a five acre plan. So, while everything should be the same, it isn't to the landowner. He is NOT going to be able to sell eight 1 acre sites for the same price as he could sell eight 5 acre parcels. The vast majority of buyers would much rather be on a 5 acre parcel in Scandia rather than a 1 acre parcel, rubbing elbows with their neighbors. Again, the landowner suffers as his equity position page 4 is less than it should be. Given the choice soil -wise, most of the clusters proposed in scenario 3 will end up close to the main road in order to save on road, utility, survey and engineering costs. In most cases involving scenarios 1, 2, and 3, the end result will be that when you dive by the areas, you'll see clusters of 1 to 2 acre developments. So much for the beauty of rural Scandia! One person stated at the hearing that she disliked driving by homes that are on 5 and 10 acre parcels. I would much rather drive by 5 and 10 acre parcels rather than 1 and 2 acre parcels. I have lived in Scandia since 1971 and I feel it's a great place to raise a family; it's a beautiful area. Even though I have been selling real estate since 1972, I wouldn't care if not 1 more lot were developed in New Scandia Township, AS LONG AS THE LANDOWNERS WANTED IT THAT WAY!! That's my main theme: Let the landowners have choices as in the past; don't penalize them without compensation/ Sincerely, Robert W. Brunfelt