Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Avon Hills topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends denial of 10‑acre rezoning in Avon Hills overlay, 4–1
Summary
The commission voted 4–1 to recommend denial of Ken Hansen’s request to rezone roughly 10 acres from AG‑40 to R‑10 in Collegeville Township, citing inconsistency with the Avon Hills conservation overlay and concerns about setting precedent.
The Stearns County Planning Commission on Dec. 19 voted 4–1 to recommend denial of a rezoning request by Ken Hansen to change about 10 acres from AG‑40 to R‑10 in Collegeville Township.
Staff introduced the request and noted the property lies within the Avon Hills conservation overlay and on the county’s future‑land‑use map as a natural‑resources area. Hansen described a multi‑decade conservation and restoration effort on the parcel and said he planned to site a single house "tucked back in the pines" and was willing to limit future development. He told the commission he had discussed the request with township officials and conservation partners and argued the parcel’s current condition made the rezoning reasonable.
Collegeville Township and the township planning commission recommended denial. Alan Schmitz, speaking at the hearing as a member of the Collegeville Planning Board, urged denial and said the overlay’s intent was to preserve natural systems and guard against precedent that would gradually erode the overlay. Staff summarized five written correspondences received (mixed support and opposition) and confirmed the overlay and ordinance sections applicable to the commission’s findings.
Commissioners debated whether the request was consistent with Stearns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance 439 and with the county comprehensive plan’s nature goals. Several members said the parcel’s neighborhood character could support a single home, but others said rezoning a substantial tract within the Avon Hills overlay could establish a precedent and would be inconsistent with conservation objectives. A motion recommending denial passed 4–1; the item will go to the County Board, with a board hearing scheduled for Jan. 7.
