My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006.10.12 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2006 PC Minutes
>
2006.10.12 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 2:26:31 PM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:44:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
10/12/2006
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.
/
4
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 —October 12, 2006 <br />Page 3 <br />Rosenquist questioned what the price range would be. Matthews replied it would be approximately <br />$800,000 for the package. <br />Hoffbeck reminded them to be watchful of changes to the ordinance, specifically density changes. <br />Schumann summarized the comments from the Commission saying they generally approved of the <br />design but they needed to look at road access, consider possible wetland setback requirements, and shift <br />the lots to conform to staff's criteria. He reminded them the comments were informal, not binding. <br />Rural Preservation Program Ordinance Amendment (Continued) <br />The Commission continued consideration of revisions to the Rural Preservation Program (RPP) <br />Ordinance. At its September 14, September 21, and September 28, 2006 meetings, the Commission held <br />public hearings to consider revisions to the ordinance and tabled the item. <br />The CDD provided direction to the Commission on how to proceed with revisions to the ordinance and <br />outlined the items that specifically needed to be addressed. <br />Hoffbeck said she talked to someone form the Metropolitan Council regarding the System Statement for <br />Hugo and was told the rural land had to be one home per ten acres. Anything besides that would go <br />against the System Statement. <br />The CDD replied that the Met Council did have a policy, and they also recognized that it is not a good <br />way to develop. The Met Council had not objected to these types of ordinances. <br />Hoffbeck stated the Met Council System Statement and the Comprehensive Plan do not agree with the <br />ordinance. <br />Schumann recalled that a representative from the Met Council had attended one of the Committee <br />meetings when the ordinance was first drafted. He pointed out that representatives of the Met Council <br />often had different beliefs, and he was not aware of any Met Council Representatives attending any other <br />meetings regarding the ordinance or had any knowledge of the Met Council objecting to any rural <br />preservation ordinance. <br />Hoffbeck said the Comprehensive Plan was designed around the System Statement and the ordinance <br />was contrary to that. <br />Rosenquist suggested obtaining a written opinion from someone at the Met Council. <br />McRoberts agreed. <br />Weidt's opinion was that it was a guiding document and the City was not bound to it. <br />Weidt made motion, Bailly seconded, to table until clarification was obtained from the Met Council. <br />Ayes: Bailly, Kleissler, McRoberts, Schumann, Weidt <br />Nay: Hoffbeck, Rosenquist <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.