1988.02.01 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

/S City Council meeting of 2/1/88 assessment hearing. Mr. Huber stated that the city had sent notices to current owners of record, and that the change would be noted. John Tschida, 1855 Homestead Drive, voiced his approval of the project. t-=:athy Quinlan, 12842 Homestead Drive, asked what could delay the project at this point. Mr. Huber stated that any major objection to the project could jeopardize action. City engineer, Howard Kuusisto, discussed construction aspects of the project as well as drainage and culvert locations. Mayor Atkinson asked of the audience present if there were any objections to the bituminous prosect and no one present voiced any opposition and no written objections were received. Olson made motion, Peltier seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 1988-8, RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR HOMESTEAD DRIVE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #1987-30-0. VOTING AYE: Peltier, Potts, Olson, Vail, Atkinson Motion Carried. 8.1 REZONING REQUEST (FOREST LAKE STATE BANk::) As per the petition from the Forest Lake State Bank, a request has been made to rezone a 8.9 acre tract of land from agriculture to RB in the City of Hugo. The property in question is located at the NE corner of Highway 61 and 170th Street, and is generally described as follows: A part of the SE 1/4 of Section 5, T31N, R21W. The property contains approximately 308 feet of frontage on Highway 61 and approximately 571 feet on 170th Street. The property abuts the agricultural zone on the east, west, and south. The zoning districts to the north are agriculture and retail business. In January, 1987, a similar request was made of the Planning Commission and subsequently denied on a 4-3 vote. The Planning Commission's recommendation was forwarded to the City Council, and the City Council also denied the request to rezone this property in 1987. The petitioners are once again making this same request of the city stating that a retail business district is the highest and best use of the property, and said use is consistent with surrounding property and uses. The proposed rezoning request would be consistent with other uses of property to the north of the property in question, however, would be inconsistent with property uses to the east, south, and west of the site in question. Uses currently permitted in the RB district consist of offices, business schools, medical uses, photographer's studios, retail florists, beauty and barbershops, libraries, urban agricultural and retail shopping. This request was reviewed by the Hugo Planning Commission at a public hearing on January 27, 1988; their recommendation being as follows: On a 3-2 vote of the Planning Commission, a motion to deny the rezoning request in question was approved based on the following: 1. There is no buffer from the proposed RB district and the residential property to the south and west. 2. There are no utilities in the area to serve additional commercial development. 3. Continued expansion of commercial in this area would constitute commercial/urban sprawl. 4. Development of this property as commercial is not called for in the comprehensive plan.