1974.02.25 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

s< • 4,,A\ IN. DESIGN PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC. C IN (IØ �$. 4826 Chicago Avenue So. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417 Phone: (612) 822-2106 February 25, 1974 To : Planning Commission and Council City of Hugo, Minnesota From : Carl R. Dale, A1P Planning Consultant • Subject : Plan and Zoning Status According to our schedule, we will meet with you Thursday the 28th of February for a work shop meeting . The meeting was scheduled to finalize a zoning document for presentation at another public hearing yet to be scheduled . As background , however, I would offer the following points due to what appears to be some confusion in policy, procedures, and program status : I .. The Comprehensive Municipal Plan has been finished , cleared through the Metropolitan Council , and approved by all concerned ; required public hearings have been held and no further action is necessary. Current activities are not intended , in any way, to amend the Plan . The Plan is quite valid . 2. At the present time, we are concerned with only one Plan Implemen- tation mplementation question - proper zoning to reflect the Plan which has already been adopted . Even that has been narrowed down to really only one policy issue - "What is the proper minimum lot size to utilize in the rural areas of the Community?" 3. Our continued involvement and costs are due only to Community in- decision or lack of concensus on suitable and proper minimum lot sizes and at your request for continued assistance in resolving this matter. As stated above, no changes are being made in the Comprehensive Municipal Plan which calls for retention of major areas in a rural or semi-rural state of development; the only changes being considered are appropriate minimum lots sizes implement the Plan as adopted . So long as the final minimum lot size selected is two and one-half (2 1 /2 ) acres or more, there would appear to be no reason that the Metro Council or anyone else should become further involved i n the Plan . 4 . The - issues seem quite clear - a) What minimum lot size in the rural areas is proper and can we satisfy two opposite interests - those who wish to continue farming without undue intrusion by non--farm development and those who do not wish to continue farming and prefer to se l l land for non-farm development? b ) What areas should be pre-zoned at this time for commercial and industrial development.