My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002.10.24 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2002 PC Minutes
>
2002.10.24 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2015 10:59:26 AM
Creation date
2/23/2015 9:06:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
10/24/2002
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.
/
5
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 Meeting October 24, 2002- page 2 <br />Schumann opened the public hearing. <br />Len Kijenski, 14244 Hyde Ave. N., was one of the property owners who did not receive notice of <br />LeMoine's request and said he did not have adequate time to consider it but felt the lot was <br />unbuildable. <br />Charles Schwaab, 14278 Hyde Ave. N., said he felt there was not enough information to justify <br />approving it as a buildable lot. <br />Don Waller, son of Margaret Waller, 14310 Homestead Ave. N., had concerns regarding the <br />culvert, forested areas, water runoff, and assessments that were not paid at the time the <br />improvements were constructed. Waller questioned what the hardship was to justify the granting <br />of a variance. <br />John Waller, 14010 Homestead Ave. N., recalled an agreement that was made declaring Outlot A <br />as a scenic overlook and since the park fee was never paid; the agreement should still be in effect. <br />Waller was concerned about the increased impervious surface and that LeMoine should not <br />benefit from the ditch since he had not paid for improvements. <br />Kleissler asked what the City Attorney's opinion was and the Community Development Director <br />replied that the Commission should consider what the original of intent of Outlot A was. <br />Peltier, who was on the Commission at the time of the original plat, said she didn't remember the <br />circumstances. <br />Bailly said she was against it because it was granted as a scenic easement and there was a non - <br />development agreement made. <br />Kleissler said it was unfortunate the easement was never recorded but felt there was enough <br />evidence to deem it a scenic site. She also said there was no evidence of a hardship. <br />Malaski said she believed it was the Council's intent at the time to leave the Outlot as open space <br />and it was consistent with keeping the rural atmosphere in Hugo. She also said there was no <br />hardship to justify granting the variance and a home on the property would block the view of the <br />lake and possibly create water problems on neighboring properties. <br />Rosenquist said he couldn't see the hardship and found nothing that showed the lot as being <br />buildable. <br />There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. <br />Malaski made motion, Rosenquist seconded, to recommend denial of the variance and final plat of <br />Outlot A because it was the City's intent at the time the property was platted for Outlot A remain <br />as open space, and a variance from 10 acre minimum to 4 acres was too great. <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.