WRIGHT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION M I N U T E S (Informational) The Wright County Planning Commission met January 11, 2018 in the County Commissioners Board Room at the Wright County Government Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. As Chairman, protem, Sean Riley, Zoning Administrator, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following Board members present: Dan Mol, Charlie Borrell, Ken Felger, Dave Thompson, Dan Bravinder and Patrick Mahlberg. Absent was Jan Thompson. Assistant County Attorney, Greg Kryzer, was legal counsel present. 2018 Organizational items: Nominations were opened. A nomination for Mol as Chairman, was made by Borrell. Bravinder seconded the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, a unanimous ballot was cast and Mol assumed the Chair. Mol opened nominations for a Vice-Chair. A nomination by D. Thompson to elect Felger as Vice-Chair was seconded by Borrell. Hearing no further nominations, a unanimous ballot was cast to elect Felger as Vice-Chair. Members were referred to a suggested 2018 Meeting Calendar for the dates and asked if there was any discussion on the date or time of the meetings. Felger moved to accept the meeting schedule as presented with the meeting start time of 7:30 p.m. Location is the County Board Room. D. Thompson seconded the motion. MINUTES Borrell accepted the amendment as suggested by Felger, to adopt the minutes for the meeting of December 14, 2017 with a clarification on page 18 to be made. Bravinder seconded the motion. 1. CITY OF MONTICELLO/WRIGHT COUNTY Cont. from 12/14/17 LOCATION: 10224 Briarwood Avenue NW Part of the SE ¼ of Section 8, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Monticello Twp.) Tax #213-100-084100,- 084300, -084302, -084400 &-084301 Petitions for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a land alteration to prepare site for future ball and soccer fields and request to extend the six month time period to begin/finish the project as regulated in Section 155.029, 155.030(D) & 155.101 of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. Present: Tom Pawelk, with the City of Monticello Parks; Angela Schumann, representing the Monticello Community Development
P a g e 2 A. Riley stated the hearing was continued to give time for a joint meeting with the Township and County on issues with Briarwood Avenue. He noted a Township representative is present. Although it is hard to tie specifics about that agreement to the land alteration request, they can recommend they continue working on a resolution on the road issue. He displayed maps and noted the property is Public Lands in Land Use Plan. The alteration is to prepare the site for ball fields, large pond, parking and trails, etc. B. Pawelk reported they had a good meeting with representatives present. Reached an agreement with the Township and County on having an analysis and study with traffic counts at different locations leading to the Park and trails. A traffic study will give them data needed to proceed with area adjacent to roadways and plan that they will come up with to arrive at a MOU with the County and Township. C. Mol opened the hearing to the public, hearing no response returned to the Commission. D. Felger moved to approve a land alteration in accordance with the plans submitted for the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Athletic Park, with the condition that the County, City of Monticello and Township continue to work on a road agreement. Borrell seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Bravinder asked what is the time frame for the MOU? Perrault hopes to have another meeting by the first of 2019 after they hear back on the grants applied for. Riley stated the Township has agreed to keep maintaining the road and the rest of the agreement is about improvements to the road. Kryzer the traffic study will take a full year. Need some data before this is completed. Bravinder stated he wants to be sure the Township s interests are considered. VOTE: CARRIED, Mahlberg abstained
P a g e 3 2. JIM P. SEXTON Cont. from 12/14/17 LOCATION: 3295 Edmonson Avenue NE Gov t Lot 3 & part of Gov t Lot 4 and also part of the NE ¼ of SE ¼, Section 14, Township 120, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Washington Lake - Buffalo Twp.) Tax #202-000-144101 Petitions to rezone approximately 50 acres from AG General Agriculture and S-2 Residential- Recreational Shorelands to A/R Agricultural-Residential and S-2 and a two-lot unplatted subdivision (north ten acres to remain zoned AG General Agricultural and have the entitlement ) and the existing house on remainder parcel to be converted for use as a storage/accessory building before a new dwelling can be built as regulated in Section 155.028, 155.029, 155.047 & 155.057 of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances and Subdivision Regulations. Present: Jim & Maureen Sexton A. Riley summarized the previous hearing, site inspection and recommendation to approve the riparian portion (approximately 49 acres) to A/R and S-2. The County Board has taken action to rezone this part of the property. A survey shows the riparian lot of 49 acres and septic design shows sewer standards can be met. The Commission had a lengthy discussion about not developing this lot; language in the suggested motion defines any future attempts to try to develop that lot. B. Mol asked if the applicant has any additional comments. Sexton stated no, but would answer any questions the Board might have. Mol went to the public for comment, hearing no response returned discussion to the Commission. C. Felger asked the applicants what their plans are for the existing buildings. J. Sexton everything on the property will be removed. This will be done in phases, the silo, barn and kennel first. The house and Quonset building will come down after the house is built. D. Bravinder moved to approve the unplatted subdivision shown on project number 17-0261 by Otto Associates noting the 49 acre A/R/S-2 lot is riparian and found to be suitable for development and any future request to subdivide this lot that includes any non-riparian second tier lots would violate the land use plan. D. Thompson seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED, Mahlberg abstained
P a g e 4 3. MINNESOTA SOLAR CSG 5, LLC Cont. from 12/14/17 LOCATION: 7397 Eisele Avenue NE NE ¼ of SE ¼, Section 26, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, MN. (Monticello Twp.) Tax #213-100-264200 OWNER: Denn Petitions for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a solar farm, proposed is 5 contiguous 1 MW solar gardens as regulated in Section 155.029, 155.048 & 155.108 of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. Present: Reed Richardson & Frances Lea, Ron Denn A. Riley summarized the location, zoning and land use of the 40-acre AG property involved. The applicant worked with the Town Board and a detailed response was provided by the Town Board. The Township s input was worked into the proposed motion. B. Richardson - as indicated they met with some of the Commission, Town Board and interested members at the site and have worked with the Township. He referenced Item #5 on the setback and although they understand the intent was to increase the setback from the property lines to the buffer line. Measured from property line to trees as they grow, they would propose something more objective. Are suggesting a measurement from the fence that will be installed 20 from the property lines (previously 10 ) on the east and south side. There will be enough room for the landscape buffer outside of that. Would be easier to measure from a fence then trees. C. Mol asked for public comment. D. Brett Holker Township Supervisor responded to a change to verbiage. The intent was to get the buffer a certain distance from the property line. The neighbors wanted more. That does not address the brush or vegetation setback from the line. They spent a lot of time on it; noting the Township goal has been preserving agricultural land. But reading the Ordinance, what has been proposed and what they can do, they worked out language to fit into the Ordinance. Although the majority of the Board does not support it, they understand they have an Ordinance to work with. E. Dan Holker wanted the Commission to consider what will happen to this project over the next 15-20 years. Will funding for this project be there, or will it fall apart. The Township asked MN Solar to meet with him to discuss things. The applicant has not contacted him and felt as a future neighbor they should be able to talk. F. D. Thompson asked for clarification on the planting of the trees. The trees are being planted at 10. Riley - #5 is found on the Township response form, #14 in the proposed motion which was read. Closest point of any tree is 10 from the property line. Bravinder clarified that would mean the canopy. The applicant is proposing to put the fence at 20 but put the trees outside of the fence. That 20 would be open space. Borrell felt that is reasonable. D. Thompson would estimate 10 in diameter for a spruce tree. He would suggest planting at 5 from the fence. Riley would suggest the tree be planted as close to the fence as possible and then they can trim them. No one wants the field to be shaded from a tree canopy.
P a g e 5 G. Richardson they are trying to come up with an idea to prevent a scenario where there is an argument over a measurement. There is a 30 setback from the module and they are 50 or greater from the entire perimeter. They are meeting or exceeding the setback. A very clear condition is needed and felt a measurement from a fence is more objective. H. Brett Holker Township is suggesting they measure off the center of the tree, otherwise does not address the vegetation. Maybe, 15 from center of tree. I. Borrell moved to grant a Conditional Use Permit to locate a 5 MW solar farm in accord with the plans and narratives on file with the following conditions: 1) panels to be mounted using the existing conditions of landscape and limit the amount of service roads to what is shown on the plan noting all internal roads created will be created in a fashion to meet the standards of Subsection 155.108 (C) (12) of the Wright County Code of Ordinances and minimize impacts to return the property back to a similar condition and use at the end of project life; 2) the applicant must keep up with ongoing vegetative and system maintenance, noting that noxious weeds are not allowed in the project area under any circumstance; 3) proper building permits (along with any required State permits) are obtained prior to work started on the site; 4) proper access permits are obtained from the Township and a road use agreement is established in accord with Monticello Township policies and ordinances; 5) must conform to all setbacks noting current plans show it meets that setback requirements; 6) if drain tiles do exist on the property they must be replaced or maintained to allow drainage at the current capacity; 7) an agreement must be entered into with Wright County for decommissioning and financial security in accord with Subsection 155.108 (14) (a) (b)and (c) of the Wright County Ordinance, which must include an approved decommissioning plan in accord with 155.108 15(g); 8) the agreement shall take into consideration any potential Township pubic road damages; 9) the Conditional Use Permit for Solar Energy Farms shall expire at the same time the Solar Energy Farm lease, but in no case shall exceed 30 years; 10) the pole number and configuration on the plan must meet requirements of one pole per 1 MW and one overall general on-site utility pole, for a total of 6 poles; 11) onsite internal power and communication lines shall be buried underground; 12) the applicant is responsible in assuring all final utility interconnection approvals from Excel Energy are obtained and followed for this project and before obtaining a building permit; 13) Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District to review and approve the storm water and erosion protection plan prior to project commencement and all wetland regulations must be followed with Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District allowed proper access for project compliance; 14) the perimeter fencing in the plan shall be set back 20 from the east and south property lines and all buffer trees shall be planted at least 15 feet from said property lines; 15) annual Township review yearly unless schedule changed by the Township; and, 16) if there are substantial changes to the plans submitted and approved a new conditional use permit hearing would be required. D. Thompson seconded the motion. Bravinder asked for clarification on a one year Township review. Kryzer noted this was a request by the Town Board and timing of future reviews is set by them. VOTE: CARRIED, Mahlberg abstained
P a g e 6 4. DONNA J. DECKER New Item LOCATION: 5298 Quimby Avenue NW Part of the NW ¼ of SW ¼, Section 4, Township 120, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (French Lake Twp.) Tax #209-000- 043202 Property owner: Gilmer Petitions for a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation to locate her electrolysis business to the existing home as regulated in Section 155.029 & 155.047(D) Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. Present: Donna Decker A. Riley displayed maps to show the location along with zoning and land use. The property is zoned A/R Agricultural-Residential and has a single-family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a home occupation permit. B. Decker explained she plans to move her hair removal business to this location. She has approximately 5-15 customers a week. The business generates very little water. The location would be in the lower level of the home where there is a separate entrance for her customers. The electrolysis process uses electricity and there are no chemicals. C. Borrell stated he is familiar with the applicant s business at her current location. He has not heard of any complaints about the business. D. D. Thompson moved to approve a conditional use permit for a home occupation to locate an electrolysis business in the existing home in accord with the plans and narrative on file with the condition that the business cannot commence until the applicant resides on the premise. Bravinder seconded the motion.
P a g e 7 5. JAMES P. JURMU New Item LOCATION: Properties are located at the corner of Barton & Baker Avenues NW Part of SE ¼ of Section 23, Township 121, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Maple Lake Twp.) Tax # 210-100-234402; -234404; -234405 & -234403 Property owners: Applicant/Hatfield/Cruikshank Petitions for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a re-configuration of a property line approved for the subdivision granted in 2006 as regulated in Section 155.029 & 155.051, Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances and Subdivision Regulations. Property is zoned R-2a Suburban Residential Present: Jim Jurmu A. Riley reviewed the property location south of Eagle Lake. The zoning is R-2a and in the Plan for Rural-Residential. The existing lot layout was displayed. Two lots were not created with the proper dimensions for that zoning standard. The parties got together to try and take a portion of the larger parcel, adding part of the acreage to the west and south making all lots conforming to size and road frontage and also buildability. B. Mol asked would this adjustment create any additional building sites or just adjusting lines? Riley no additional lots, but the boundaries did not come out the way they were supposed to. The four lots previously approved are to be adjusted. C. Carol Abel pointed out her property that adjoins to the west. She was interested in knowing whether this will affect her property lines. Riley and Mol assured her it would not. D. Borrell moved to grant the change in lots lines as shown in project #17-0579 from Otto Associates with the condition certificate of surveys be submitted for each lot. Felger seconded the motion.
P a g e 8 6. VERIZON WIRELESS New Item LOCATION: xxxx Aetna Avenue NE Part of the N ½ of NW ¼, & SW 1 /2 of W 4 rods of N ½ of NE ¼, except... Section 7, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Monticello Twp.) Tax # 213-100-072200 Owner: Ursula Armstrong Petitions for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless communication tower and related equipment on an area of the property to be leased as regulated in Section 155.029, 155.048 & 155.106, Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. Present: Rob Viera A. Riley reviewed the location on an air photo, along with the zoning and land use maps to show the property is zoned AG General Agriculture and the location of the tower is in the Plan for A/R (Rural-Residential) and has an entitlement. B. Viera explained the site plan was provided to show the tower location, the contours and access to the road. A landscape plan was viewed noting the 150 cell tower does not have guyed wires. The platform is 10 x 15. The tower will fill in an area that has poor coverage because it is over capacitated. The tower will accommodate other carriers. C. Mol asked if this project is speculation, one in his area received all the permits a year ago but was never built. Viera stated this will be built, but it is possible it will be moved to 2019. Mol asked for public comments, hearing no response returned to the Commission. D. Riley referred the Commission to the Town Board response. They would like notice when the work is completed to inspect the ditch. He assumes there is an agreement in place. E. Bravinder moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a 159 cellular antenna tower in accord with the plans held on file and specifications submitted by the applicant, with the condition that all performance standards in the ordinance are met and the proper building permit is obtained noting this use must remain in conjunction with an entitlement or an existing home and proper access permits are obtained and the Township is notified when the work is completed for an inspection of the right of way/ditch. Felger seconded the motion.
P a g e 9 7. ZEKE BERG New Item LOCATION: 7385 Jason Avenue NE Part of the NW ¼ of SW ¼, Section 28, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. (Monticello Twp.) Tax # 213-000-283201 Petitions for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a corn maze and related seasonal activities as Commercial Outdoor Recreation and also a Christmas tree sales lot as regulated in Section 155.029 & 155.048, Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. Present: Zeke Berg A. Riley reviewed the location of the property, site plan and zoning map and plan is for Ag. The site plan shows the proposed corn maze and Christmas tree lot. The County Highway Department response was noted, Riley has not had a chance to review this with the applicant. The Highway Department is suggesting access off the town road and the applicant might want to consider how this changes the layout. B. Berg the access issue off Jason Avenue is new to him. They could move the access if needed. The request is to have a corn maze, sale of pumpkins, have a food truck come out. That vendor would have their own State permits. The Christmas tree sales, would allow sales of a few hundred trees. C. Mol opened the hearing for public comment, no one responded and brought discussion back to the Commission. Mol asked if the applicant has done this before. Berg purchased the property a year ago and want to start selling vegetables from their gardens. Want to open the property up to provide a country experience. Starting small, a month in the fall and see how they might expand. Mol suggested the Commission may want a site inspection. D. Thompson drives past the site and is familiar with it. Borrell suggested if the applicant would prefer the access off the County Road, the Planning Commission could look at the property to see it. A continuation would allow the applicant to pursue his preferred access and see what the concerns are. Bravinder from his experience with the County Highway Department, he would not want the motion to restrict the location of the access because it might be something that can be worked out. Mol agreed considering where the house is, they should look at the site. There will need to be drives and parking areas built and the Commission can go out and see some of these things. Gives the applicant time to look into this. Riley agreed they do not need to restrict it, but allow some time for them to work it out. Borrell suggested they might get someone out from the Highway Department. E. Borrell moved to continue the hearing to February 8, 2018 for a site inspection. Bravinder seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Felger asked who contacts the Highway Department. Riley indicated he will inform them of the discussion and would suggest the applicant contact them directly.
P a g e 10 8. JURGEN A. PREUGSCHAS New Item LOCATION: 1903 10 TH St. SW Lot 7, Block 1, Outlot A, Deer Lake Orchard; and also SE ¼ of NW ¼ and N 33 of W 544.39 ft. of the NW ¼ of SW ¼ ; and part of NW ¼ of SW ¼ lying east.. also, the NE ¼ of SW ¼, all in Section 11, Township 119, Range 26, Wright County, MN. (Marysville Twp.) Tax #211-030-001070 & 211-00-113201; -112400 Petitions for a conditional use permit to allow Commercial Agricultural Tourism as regulated in Section 155.003(25), 155.029, 155.048(D) & 155.059(J), Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances includes the existing apple orchard, buildings and outdoor activities on associated and surrounding land. Planning Commission to review and determine allowed uses on 213-030-001070 (Platted lot) which is a restricted parcel and contains existing house, out buildings and orchard use. Activities to include large events such as weddings for up to 275 people with the use of the barn, a cider tap room cider processing, corn maze and other outdoor events associated with an orchard. The associated agricultural parcels contain one building entitlement and Planning Commission will review if all parcels need to be owned together for the Conditional Use Permit and status of entitlement. Present: Yuri & Jill Preugschas A. Riley displayed location, zoning and land use maps to show the location of the property, zoned A/R PUD that includes the orchard, original AG building and dwelling and additional land to the south outside of the plat zoned AG General Agriculture. When the property was developed the Ordinance did not allow Commercial Agriculture Tourism. Pointed out the area that is one of the platted lots in the Deer Lake Orchard, and is a restricted outlot. That lot has the original apple orchard from the 1970-1980 s and structures. The Ordinance does not allow commercial activity on restricted outlots. Restricted outlots usually do not have houses on them. The Commission needs to make a determination on this Outlot that has the house and requested use and whether it can have this use. Perhaps the unique nature of the outlot and the orchard being in existence when developed, along with the additional land that does have an entitlement and is the AG zoning would be things to consider. Part of the proposal is to have some of these activities take place on the agricultural land that has an entitlement. The applicant was unable to schedule a meeting with the Town Board because of the holidays. Knowing that, the suggestion was to come in for discussion because the Commission would likely be continuing for a site inspection. B. Y. Preugschas stated his request is to continue operation of the orchard, offer to the public other activities such as a corn maze, wagon rides, weddings, fall festivals and other attractions. They have also started making hard cider and opened a tap room for people to enjoy. There is a pumpkin patch. Parking has been a concern expressed and they have been adding area for this each year. Will need to cut down some trees and add some gravel. Mol asked if they are expanding into the open field to the back. Y. Preugschas responded yes. They have planted 6,000 trees in the 40 acres of field, put the corn maze and pumpkin patch there. There is a wagon trail cart path and another option is for additional parking in that area to accommodate times when there is a high volume of traffic, they could park them in the tillable field.
P a g e 11 C. Borrell the parking is a problem, they cannot have parking along the County or township roads. The business is growing and causes conflict with neighbors. He would seriously be looking at that when they go out for a site inspection. D. Mol opened the hearing for public comment. E. Fred Bonk lives three-quarters mile west of the property. His concern is about parking and knows the applicant has indicated they are trying to address that. Both roads have been plugged up with cars and his concern is for safety. There are no shoulders on these roads and the speed limit is 55 mph. The permit states up to 275 people for a wedding and that is a lot of cars. New parking lot on the Ag parcel would require them to use Clementa Avenue. He wants this to go back to the Town Board as they need to address the proposed traffic. This is a small town road and they may need to provide dust control for those neighbors. Some of the neighbors have asked him to speak for them. Some residents do not want to come down to the County hearing, but they will go to the Township. Mol assured him the Commission would prefer a recommendation from the Town Board, even if it takes them a couple meetings to work things out first. F. Tom Okerstrom stated they live at 1709 Clementa Avenue pointed out his property to the south on the end of the town road. Their daughter was married a couple years ago at the orchard. They are new residents, just a couple years and during a short period of time things have gotten much busier. Did not know when they purchased they were moving into a commercial area. The recent purchase of 80 acres that has a farmstead with a barn, a house that he has been told they have people from the wedding parties that come down and get ready for the wedding. Not sure if they are sleeping there, but it has been remodeled. With a Conditional Use, they could use this location for weddings also. The music is loud. This is a minimum maintenance road and they do not get the mailman to come down, or garbage pickup etc. The big concern is parking also, he reported people have been parking on the single-lane road and with a lot of people parking along here. This could prevent them from getting in and out, let alone access for emergency vehicles. They support owning a business, but did not know they were in an area that would allow something this big. G. Tammy Pfeifer - pointed out their adjacent property and location of their home. The additional corn maze is in their backyard. The land they purchased they have spent thousands of dollars to convert much of the additional land into prairie land. The applicant has been having weddings and the parking has been crazy. Now they want to add these uses to an agricultural field which is directly behind them. They have been living out here twenty years and did not think they would see and hear people screaming and running around a corn maze. The noise is late at night. When there are weddings there is a lot of noise and music. The apple orchard was a nice quaint small operation, now with the tap house, weddings and other activities it takes away from the rural quiet community. H. Linda Marquette - own 50 acres and they been here 24 years and are well aware of the orchard. They love the orchard and business and she had worked for two of the previous owners. The volume has increased tremendously because of the recent added activities and parking is a huge problem. She feels 275 is too large a number for the property and is concerned about using the town road. The only place that is safe to walk is the township road. This fall there were customers of the orchard who would not get off the road when
P a g e 12 trying to travel through; and she is concerned about the safety of these events and the frequency of the events. I. Jean Hafften lives in the area and has worked for the last two owners. She hears the concerns about the traffic; but the owners are trying to do something about that. She wanted to point out the positive things. The business employs many local people, brings families out to enjoy the outdoors. The day the town and county roads were plugged, was a perfect storm, there were 7 inches of rain and the parking lots were quagmire of mud. The Sheriff s Department had shut down Apple Jack Orchard and that business was sending customers over here. No place to park because the cars were stuck in the mud. The applicants have put in a lot of blood sweat and tears into this business while raising six children and are part of the community. Feel they should try to work something out. This barn is over a hundred years old, is a gem that should be preserved. Growing the apple trees and a corn maze is agricultural. In order to make a living they have to expand, the maze and weddings are what keeps their doors open. She felt they should try to solve each problem and let them continue. J. Mol hearing no further comments asked the applicants if they want to respond or try and address the concerns at the Town Board meeting or when they are back at the next meeting. Mol stated he used to deliver pumpkins to this Orchard about the time this applicant purchased the property. He also had a Commercial Outdoor Recreation permit up to four years ago and understands the need to provide parking and it takes a lot of land to do that. He felt the applicant should provide some plans to show where the parking can take place to show the Town Board and Commission. He would suggest they show how they would access the roads. This is agricultural land and the uses are compatible. With the expansion brings the issues. K. Felger moved to continue the hearing to February 8, 2018 for a site inspection and to meet with the Town Board. Borrell seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Town Board Clerk present indicated they will meet on January 29. Kryzer the applicant should review the letter from the Building Inspector dated December 26, 2017. The conditions spelled out by the building inspector are not varied and the building would have to be sprinkled. There are significant restrictions on use of the barn. Y. Preugschas - felt they could use tents for the weddings. D. Thompson noted he has seen signs posted restricting parking along roads. Kryzer agreed, in other instances it has been a condition and is at the expense of the applicant.
P a g e 13 SITE INSPECTION On a motion by Borrell, seconded by D. Thompson, all voted to schedule site inspections on January 23, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. WORKSHOP Riley suggested setting a date for the Commission to meet and discuss the issue on storage units and consider a zoning and land use plan, at the request of Silver Creek Township. Mol noted a letter was received from Silver Creek Township and provided the Commission. Riley noted some of the discussion may lead to future meetings. Mahlberg questioned what has come up on the storage buildings. Mol there were a couple of requests to put in storage units in an AG zone and required a rezoning. Riley stated they were not in the Plan to rezone. Borrell noted there are a number of places in barns etc., and they want to look at whether it can be allowed under certain conditions. Commission scheduled a workshop on Thursday, January 25 at 1:00 p.m. This is an open meeting if the public wants to attend. DISCUSSION: Felger asked the Commission take note of a resolution passed by the Rockford Town Board. Kryzer noted this is about a gravel pit that was granted in November. Felger this was a result of that hearing and would like the original conditions upheld. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sean Riley Planning & Zoning Administrator SR:tp cc: Planning Commission County Board of Commissioners Kryzer Twp. Clerk Applicant/owners