1988.03.21 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3,2, City ,2 - City Council meeting of _/11'88 That this is the type of development the City of Hugo should be promoting. The soil conditions on site could handle on-site septic systems without any major problems. 4. There were adequate roads in the area to handle the type of traffic volume increase generated by this size of development. The Planning Commission seemed in agreement that profitability for the developers should not be a consideration, either for or against the rezoning in question. The commission also appeared in agreement that there is a need for more RRI and RRII types of development in the city of Hugo. The question is, "Where is the appropriate location for the smaller rural lot?" If the developers adequately address the concerns and questions raised by neighborhood opposition to the project, I would suspect that the big issues for the City Council, in addition to constituent pressure, will be as follows: 1. Is there a need for high-quality residential development in the City of Hugo? 2. Is there a need for more RRI and RRII zoning districts? 3. Is a rural residential district in fact rural in nature? 4. How does an RRI district compare to an RRII district in terms of permitted uses under our city zoning classifications? S. Is the rezoning to 3. acre lots consistent with the development trends of the community south of County Road 8A in recent years? b. Is the minimum lot size for rural areas 10 acres or five gross acres as identified in the comprehensive plan? On March, 1988, the developers formally requested that the City Council table this request to the March 21, 1988 City Council meeting allowing them additional time to gather information necessary to respond to the concerns and questions raised at the Planning Commission hearing. This request was tabled by the City Council to the March 21, 1988 regular meeiinq. Joanne Swanson, spokesperson for citizens against the rezoning, read from a prepared text outlining reasons why the city should deny the application for rezoning. Some of their concerns as are follows: considerable number of swamps and ponds, spot zoning, adjoining community (Grant Township) requires 10 acre lot size, altering of terrain, no Environmental Impact Statement, already over crowded schools in district (Mahtomedi.), developer does not care about community, only profit. Steve Sondrall, attorney for F=:eystone Builders, approached the Council with his presentation and reasons why they should approve the rezoning request. Mr. Sondrall submitted numerous copies of documents to substantiate his position, and the following is a list of his findings: 1. The comprehensive land map indicates the land is not prime agricultural land, as it is presently zoned, but better suited for rural residential development.