2007.09.27 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes — September 27, 2007 Page 4 McAllister referred to the 1986 Comprehensive Plan and said Hugo had not proceeded by that plan; west Hugo was manufactured by the City of Hugo. He said when the Council had sent the ordinance back to the Commission, the Council never put a time constraint on the revisions, so the City should take the time to send out cards and a survey to get the community's opinion. He said he recalled the City doing that in 1985 and there was a 20-25% response rate. He also questioned what open space would do to the tax base. McRoberts said he thought more would be preserved by allowing one home per five acres than allowing non -buildable land as open space. Doug Hoffbeck, 8110 120th Street North, said that at the last meeting, there were more people speaking against the ordinance than for it, and he thought people were getting confused on the definition of open space and rural character. He said when they moved there, they knew what the rules were, and now the rules were changing, and they will lose the rural character. Victoria Hoffbeck said the Met Council's Mission Statement had a one home per ten acre rule, and only a finite number of homes would be allowed. Cluster housing by some individuals would prevent others from subdividing their property. She agreed a survey needed to be done. Steve Stoner, 8520 140th Street, said he lived on a ten -acre parcel and that's why he moved here. He was not in favor of cluster housing. Kathy Scobie, 7676 120th Street North, commented that those against the ordinance had not been paying attention to the comprehensive plan updates; preserving open space was one of the goals. One home per ten acres creates open space but does not preserve it. She agreed a strong conservation easement was needed. Yvonne Stoner, 8520 140th Street North, had concerns about what was considered open space. She said there was a lot of flat farm land in Hugo, and one home per ten acres or five acres was the better way to go. Schumann left the public hearing open and asked the Commission for comments. Weidt indicated he was undecided. Moore questioned whether eight units per forty acres would be feasible economically. Kleissler said the ordinance needed to be tightened, and more public input was needed. McRoberts said he was in favor of recessing the public hearing. Bailly said she thought eight homes per forty acres did not seem like too many units, but she was unsure the ordinance would be used. She liked the setback requirements and questioned what types of driveways were being used in existing cluster developments. McRoberts had concerns there was no requirement that buildable area be preserved, and there