Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kostuch's revised plan includes a proposed pond in Block 1, where lots <br />3,4, and 5 will be combined into 2 lots one of which a holding pond will be <br />placed on. It is noted that the holding pond will be on private property and <br />shall be maintained by the property owner. No specific sizes have been <br />determined on these lots but they will be able to meet ssubdivision <br />requirements. Mr. James Olson has agreed to dedicate a roadway on the <br />eastern portion of the subdivision. The lots on the east side of Fenway <br />Ave. would have driveways located over the Metro easement which crosses all <br />of these lots. <br />Motion made by Ray Olson, seconded by Jesinski to recommend amendments to <br />the preliminary plat (dated Aug. 24, 1987) for John Kostuch/Cheryl Bernier <br />to subdivision addressing all issues listed previously and including the <br />following; <br />Lots 3,4, and 5 to be reduced to two lots, one with a holding pond. <br />All lots must meet road frontage requirement. <br />142nd St. be included in plat <br />All aye, motion passed. <br />qp (Todd Beecroft) <br />Mr. Todd Beecroft has made application to the City of Hugo to install two 4' <br />4' X 8' signs on his property located at 9365 122nd St. No. in the City of <br />Hugo. Mr. Todd Beecroft is not the fee owner of the property in question <br />and we did advise him that the fee owner of the property should be the <br />applicant. Commercial greenhouses or nurseries are permitted in an <br />agricultural district by a special use permit. Mr. Todd Beecroft opted not <br />to apply for a special use permit to operate a commercial greenhouse or <br />nursery and is requesting a special use permit to advertise a landscaping <br />business that he claims does not exist. We have advised Mr. Beecroft that <br />this is not the procedure to follow to get the permission he is requesting <br />however, he insists on in coming before the planning commission to review <br />his request to install the two signs requested. We cannot make an <br />intelligent recommendation regarding this matter as the proper procedure is <br />not being followed and we do not understand how Mr. Beecroft can advertise <br />for a commercial enterprise that does not exist and if it did exist would <br />have to be approved by Special Use Permit. <br />Mr. Beecroft returned an application signed by his father as the fee owner <br />of the property. Todd Beecroft again stated that he will not be operating a <br />business and only intends to advertise for future purposes. Mr. Beecroft <br />was again told that to advertise a business that requires a special use <br />permit would constitute a violation of city code unless a permit was issued. <br />Mr. Beecroft felt it was unreasonable to expect him to draw a plan which he <br />wasn't sure would ever exist. Mr. Beecroft was advised that he need only <br />apply for the business he wishes to conduct now but chose not to. <br />Motion made by Senkler, seconded by Henry to recommend denial of the <br />application for a special use permit for Todd Beecroft to install 2, 4 X 8 <br />advertising signs because no permit has been issued to operate a nursery <br />business. <br />