Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission minutes for 10/24/90 <br />Page T <br />11. Developer shall comply with all requirements and restrictions <br />applicable to identified wetlands. <br />12. The developer shall permit access to the referenced site for periodic <br />inspections to assure conformance with this special use permit. <br />All aye. Motion Carried. <br />REZONING REQUEST (M._WEGLEITNEF) <br />Mr. Martin Wegleitner has made application to the City of Hugo for the <br />rezoning of an 60 acre tract of land from SFE to SFU. The property in <br />question consists of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 20, <br />T31N, R21W, and the east 1321 ft. of Gov't Lot 2, Section 20, T31N, R21W, <br />in the City of Hugo. It is our understanding that the applicant intends <br />to subdivide this property at a later date for residential lots of less <br />than one acre in size. The property in question is located east of Geneva <br />Ave. and north and south of 145th St. The property owners have been <br />informed that if they are desirous of subdividing this property at a later <br />date, access to the site must be provided by bituminous roads, the <br />extension of sewer and water to the site, and an acceptable stormwater <br />plan will be required. It has been brought to our attention that the site <br />in question is currently located adjacent to a licensed shooting <br />preserve. The primary responsibility of the Planning Commission is to <br />determine if the request in question is consistent with our comprehensive <br />plan for development in the surrounding areas. The majority of the area <br />north of the site in question is zoned SFU, while the area to the east is <br />conservancy, and the areas south and west are RR1. The Comprehensive Plan <br />revisions, discussed by the Planning Commission at earlier meetings, did <br />call for higher density residential development in the area in question. <br />City Administrator, k::en Huber, reviewed the site in question, and Jim <br />Merila, prospective developer, submitted visuals for review. There was <br />discussion about the shooting preserves on the property in question, and <br />on property to the east of the property to be rezoned. The DNR has not <br />clearly defined the distances of shooting from residences. The distance <br />varies depending on the use of land. Chairman Senk:ler stressed several <br />times that Mr. Wegleitner may lose his "grandfather" rights for the <br />hunting preserve should his property be rezoned, and Mr. Wegleitner stated <br />that he understood the possible consequences. Mr. Senk.ler also stressed <br />that the Planning Commission would be dealing strictly with the rezoning, <br />land -use issues, and not development of the property. <br />Chairman Senkler opened the meeting to public comment, and the following <br />concerns were addressed by many of the residents in attendance: <br />1. Moved to the area because of rural atmosphere and wildlife. <br />2. Who was going to pay for extension of City improvements? <br />3. Run-off from development would flood their property. <br />4. What type of homes will be constructed. <br />5. Lots smaller than one acre. <br />The public hearing was closed, and the Planning Commission discussed the <br />rezoning as it related to the comprehensive plan, the availability of City <br />