Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
16 <br />City Council meeting of 2/1/88 <br />5. There was no plan of development submitted by the applicant justifying <br />the need for the rezoning. <br />6. There are other commercial areas available in Hugo for development, <br />and that commercial development should be closer to the central <br />business district. <br />7. The timing of this request is not proper in light of the fact that the <br />city is currently considering amendments to its comprehensive plan <br />that may affect commercial along Highway 61. <br />Those commissioners supporting the rezoning indicated as follows: <br />1. This rezoning is consistent with the development in that area. <br />2. This type of zoning should not create any type of traffic hazard in <br />this area as originally alleged. <br />3. There is no other development likely for this site because of its size <br />and location. <br />The commission did, however, unanimously agree that it would be easier to <br />review this request if it was in conjunction with a development plan as <br />opposed to a speculative type rezoning. <br />Mayor Atkinson and Councilman Potts agreed that a zone of either RB or CB <br />would be a better use of this piece of property because of its location. <br />The Forest Lake State Bank: will not be developing this property, and felt <br />a RB district would make the property more marketable for selling purposes <br />and was more consistent with recent development along Highway 61. <br />Atkinson made motion, Peltier seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE 1988--246, AN <br />ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 320 OF THE HUGO CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING" BY <br />AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF A PART OF THE SE 1/4 OF <br />SECTION 5, T31N, R21W, FROM AGRICULTURE TO RETAIL BUSINESS. <br />VOTING AYE: Peltier, Potts, Olson, Vail, Atkinson <br />Motion Carried. <br />8.3 COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT (WASHINGTON COUNTY) <br />Washington County has taken the necessary steps to allow cities and <br />townships opportunity to piggyback on their maintenance contract taking <br />advantage of competitive bidding pursuant to M.S. (1969), Chapter 16. <br />Being that the city is contemplating the seal coating of the municipal <br />parking lot and possibly some city streets, we would recommend entering <br />into this cooperative purchasing agreement for the making of these <br />improvements or any other improvements during the 1988 calendar year. The <br />city will be responsible for making its own arrangements with the <br />contractor and payment to the contractor. <br />Atkinson made motion, Peltier seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION 1988-9, <br />RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF HUGE} TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE <br />PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR ONE OR MORE MAINTENANCE <br />CONTRACTS. <br />VOTING AYE: Peltier, Potts, Olson, Vail, Atkinson <br />Motion Carried. <br />