Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 1988 <br />Page 5 <br />to the northeast and an Agricultural zone to the east. With the exception <br />of the one acre zones to the north, most of the development in and around <br />Round Lake and Sunset Lake are in the RR2 district, subject to additional <br />shoreland ordinance requirements. It appears that the development in <br />question is somewhat consistent with recent developments in the areas <br />south of County Rd. 8A and east of Trunk Highway 61. Based on previous <br />development and the City's comprehensive plan the staff could not <br />recommend approval of any type of rezoning that would allow for any less <br />than 3 acres in lot size for the area in question. The application <br />before the commission is for a general land use change and if approved the <br />detail of how this property would be subdivided and developed would be <br />handled through the formal platting process. <br />Mr. Steve Sondrall, attorney for Keystone Builders was present and stated <br />the applicants have expressed a desire to maintain the integrity of the <br />land and they intend to comply with all City requirements. The applicants <br />have stated they would have varied lot sizes, from 3 to 5 acres. They <br />stated this development would be an asset to the City in that it would <br />increase the tax base and only high quality homes would be constructed. <br />Applicants stated the area is quite suitable for on site septic systems <br />and they would be responsible for installation of the streets in the <br />development. <br />Residents from the surrounding area were strongly opposed to the rezoning <br />because they felt it would set a precedent for subdividing other large <br />tracts in the area. Most people moved to this area because it was rural <br />in nature. Other concerns expressed were: <br />1. Could the soils in this area handle on site septic systems? <br />2. Can the roads handle the increased traffic generated bny this <br />development? <br />3. Would the taxes of adjacent property owner go up? <br />4. the areas in question should remain rural in nature. <br />5. Can the schoold handle the increased enrollment created by this <br />development? <br />6. This type of development was not consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan. <br />Commissioners opposed to the rezoning felt that there should be some <br />detailed plan for the property and stated that this is not what most of <br />the surrounding neighbors want for the area. They did not feel that <br />profitability should be an issue for approval or denial. <br />Commissioners in favor of the rezoning indicated that this would be a <br />valuable addition to the City's tax base. It is compatible with 5 acre <br />zoning and consistent with other development in the area. Soil conditions <br />are excellent for on site sewer systems. The county road adjacent to the <br />site should be adequate to handle increased traffic. Members felt we must <br />provide areas of less than ten acres in size in the south end of Hugo and <br />3 to 5 acre lots are still rural in nature. Troy Sonnenfeld felt the <br />rezoning request was compatible with the area and is the type of <br />development Hugo should be encouraging. <br />