My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006.09.14 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2006 PC Minutes
>
2006.09.14 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 2:26:09 PM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:43:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
9/14/2006
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Minutes — September 14, 2006 <br />Page 4 <br />Good said land used for access should not be included in the total acreage. <br />Bailly said she disagreed. <br />Good stated he had problems with the architectural covenants and said preserving natural resources <br />should not include agricultural operations since chemicals were used in farming. He also said he would <br />like to see all open space in a land trust. <br />Schumann said land trusts do not accept all land. <br />Hoffbeck added that the MN Land Trust is only one organization; there were many others. <br />Good said there should be a minimum lot size of one acre and a requirement that changes in the <br />Homeowner's Association needed to also be approved by the holder of the conservation easement, not <br />only the City. He asked what would happen should the HOA not keep up with the payments. <br />Schumann said the County would take over the land if the taxes were not being paid on it. <br />Helen Anderson, 15624 Jeffery Avenue North, was concerned the ordinance encouraged development <br />and would like to see a moratorium put on rural development. <br />The CDD pointed out the Council had decided there was no need for a moratorium and an ordinance <br />amendment could take place prior to future development applications being acted on. <br />Rosenquist commented there was no protection for on-going farm operations. <br />Anderson pointed out there were sounds, smells, odors, and flies from existing farm operations. <br />McRoberts said agricultural uses would be protected by current ordinance and it could be required that <br />developers inform buyers of the surrounding land uses. <br />Anderson asked that more thought be given to a moratorium. <br />Jan Good, 12581 Homestead Avenue North, felt a 100 foot buffer around a wetland should be a <br />requirement, not a bonus incentive. <br />The CDD informed the Commission there were no requirements in any other ordinances requiring a <br />buffer around wetland. <br />Sue Bragg, pointed out the water in the ponds was very low and asked how the wetland were determined. <br />The CDD explained the role of the Technical Evaluation Panel and how the wetlands are delineated. <br />Bragg said she would like to see an acreage minimum and would like to see a requirement for <br />community water and sewer with a backup system. <br />Kathy Scobie, 7676 120th Street North, said that some don't think `rural' should be included in the title <br />because `rural' means something different to everyone. She agreed with the additional bonus for open <br />space and community septic systems and that there should be a wetland buffer. She also said she would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.