Laserfiche WebLink
2/ <br />City Council meeting of 7/21/88 <br />T__:�iN, R21W, and approximately 2.1.' acres owned by Irene Arcand lying <br />north, northwest of County Road 10 in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section <br />5, T.:30N, R 1W. The property abuts on 125th Street on the north and County <br />Road 10 on the south. Agriculture zones require a minimum 10 acre lot <br />size while the developers are requesting RRI zoning which allows for three <br />acre minimum lot size. The applicant is proposing this rezoning with the <br />intent to subdivide said site into approximately 40 buildable lots and <br />construct homes in a price range of $,200,000 to $40O,0Oc_>. The applicant <br />has entered into a purchase aqreement to buy the lair acres in question if <br />the property is rezoned. The developers have indicated that they intend <br />to develop the land taking into account the wooded areas and lowlands as <br />valuable aesthetic features of the site. The property in question abuts <br />Grant Township to the south, agricultural zoned areas on the west and <br />northwest, SFE and RRII zones to the northeast, and an agricultural zone <br />to the east. The Hugo Planning Commission held a public hearinq on this <br />request February 24, 1988. The Planning Commission heard considerable <br />opposition to this proposal by property owners surrounding the site in <br />question. The major objections to this rezoning were as follows: <br />1. Could the soils in this area handle on-site septic systems? <br />2. Can the roads handle the increased traffic generated by this <br />development? <br />3. Would the taxes of adjacent property owners go up as a result of <br />increased property values? <br />4. The area in question should remain rural in nature. <br />5. Can schools handle the increased enrollment created by the <br />development? <br />b. This type of development was not consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan. <br />7. Concern that a precedent would be set allowing for further rezonings <br />to RRI in this area. <br />The developers argued that they came to Hugo because of its rural nature <br />and that they felt three acre zoning was rural, and the type of <br />development being proposed was very similar to the types of development. <br />around Sunset Lake and Round LaL.-e east of the site in question. They <br />stated that the type of development proposed would be a very high-quality <br />development which would be a significant increase to the city's tax base. <br />The road system and on-site drainage would be constructed as per city <br />subdivision regulations, and the design of the subdivision would take into <br />consideration the aesthetic features of the site. <br />Commissioners opposing the rezoning indicated the following as their <br />reasons for their position: <br />1. Lack: of a detailed plan of <br />2. Neighborhood opposition. <br />tip. Concern that the drop from <br />requirement was too great. <br />development <br />a 10 acre lot requirement to ? acre <br />The commissioners supporting the rezoninq stated the following,reasons for <br />their position: <br />1. A three acre development would not be significantly different from the <br />type of development occurring around Sunset. Lake and Round LaE::e in the <br />close proximity to the site. <br />