2000.02.23 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MINUTES FOR THE HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 23, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Vice chairperson Schumann at 7:03 p.m. PRESENT: Kleissler, Malaski, Schumann Deputy Clerk, Michele Lindau City Planer, Jeff Lutz ABSENT: Kellison, Peltier, Puleo Minutes of January 26, 2000 Malaski made motion, Kleissler seconded, to approve the minutes of January 26, 2000, as amended. AYES: Schumann, Malaski ABSTAIN: Kleissler Motion carried. Rezoning (Bernston) The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the request of Brudette Bernston, 12686 Ethan Ave., and Gabriel Bernston, 672 West Berwood Ave., Vadnais Heights, to rezone their property at 13845 Forest Blvd. N. from Residential to Residential Service to allow the present structure to be used as a small office building. The property is generally located on the east side of Hwy 61, south of CSAH 8. The Planning Commission considered a report by the City Planner on the proposed rezoning, recommending denial of the zoning amendment because the parcel does not meet the minimum lot parcel size requirements for the Residential Service Zoning District, nor would it meet the minimum lot width at the front setback line. Schumann asked if proper public notice was given, and the Deputy Clerk stated it was. Schumann opened the public hearing, but there was no comment. Brudette Bernston stated he felt his intended use of the property would not be intrusive to surrounding zoning, and because of the adjacent commercial use, the property is not a desirable location for a residence. Malaski felt the Bemstons' intended use of the property would be o.k. but was concerned with what future property owners would be permitted to do should the property be zoned Residential Service. Schumann agreed that the property was unsuitable for residential use, and cautioned Bernston that a service road may be constructed in front of his property along Hwy 61 sometime in the future. The City Planner stated the current building did meet the setback requirements but not the lot width requirement, and Bernston stated he was pursuing the possible purchase of the adjacent property to the south, which would put him in compliance with the ordinance.