1991.04.24 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

P.C. Minutes - April 24, 1991 Pagae 2 The Planning Commisson reviewed the request of Lauren McCullough for rezoning. Lauren and Mavis McCullough have made application to the City of Hugo to rezone an 8.33 acre tract of land from Conservancy (C) to RR1. The purpose of this request is to allow for a subdivision of property for residential purposes. The property in question is located south and east of Goodview Avenue at the City's most southerly corporate limits. The area identified as Parcel B appears to be the location of the current residence and accessory buildings on the site. The entire tract in question is subject to the City's shoreland regulations. The only similar request of this nature that the Planning Commission has entertained in the last several years, is the request of Keystone Builders to rezone the Irene Arcand property to RR1. That request was denied by the Planning Commission and City Council citing Land Uses, Policy 2B, page 32 of the Comprehensive Plan, as the primary reason for denial of the rezoning. Notices of this rezoning request have been forwarded to Grant Township, as per City policy. The areas adjacent to the site are zoned conservancy and agriucultural. The public hearing was called to order. Mr. Robert Anderson, 12200 Goodview Ave., who owns 5.5 acres vehemently opposed the rezoning and stated _the area should not be regressive and supports the 20 acre, conservancy zoning. He did not feel the area could support additional on-site sewage disposal systems. Mr. Anderson felt Goodview Ave. was inadequate to sustain more traffic. After some discussion the Planning Commission concurred that the proposed rezoning was not consistent with the plans for the area and that it would likely be decades before the property would be served by sanitary sewer and water. Motion made by Henry, seconded by Mezzano to recommend denial of the request of Lauren and Mavis McCullough to rezone 8.33 acres, described as tax parcel (93032-2030) from Conservancy to RR1 for the following reasons: 1. The reduction from Conservancy (20 acre min.) to RR1 (3 acre min.) is too radical. 2. The proposed zoning is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The property in question is not within the MUSA. Members voting Aye: Mezzano, Davis, Henry, Thoreson, Barnes, Peltier. Members voting Nay: Oswald Motion passed.