1988.04.04 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3�/ MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS_ FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 4. 1988 The regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Atkinson at 7:00 PM. PRESENT: Peltier, Potts, Olson, Vail, Atkinson City Administrator, Ken Huber City Clerk, Mary Ann Creager Peltier made motion, Olson seconded, to approve the minutes for March 21, 1988 as submitted. All aye. Motion Carried. Vail made motion, Peltier seconded, to approve the General Claims for April 4, 1988 in the amount of $11,989.64. All aye. Motion Carried. Olson made motion, Peltier seconded, to approve the Utility Claims for April 4, 1988 in the amount of $4,796.05. All aye. Motion Carried. REZONING REQUEST (ARCAND/k::EYSTONE BUILDERS) The matter before the Council is a continuation of earlier -Council meetings dated March 21 and March 7. The request involves a petition by Mrs. Irene Arcand and keystone Builders Corporation for the rezoning of 160 acres from agricultural to RRI residential. The property in question is described as the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 33, T31N, R21W, and the western 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 34, T31N, R21W, and approximately 2.13 acres owned by Mrs. Arcand lying north, northwest of County Road 10. The property abuts on 125th Street to the north and County State Aid Highway ltd on the south. Agricultural zones require a minimum 10 acre lot size while the developers are requesting a minimum lot size of 3 acres. The applicant is proposing this rezoning with the intent to subdivide the property into 35 to 40 lots, and construct homes in the price range of $200,000 to $400,000. Both the proponents of this development and opponents of the development have had an opportunity to present their positions to the Planning Commission and City Council at previous meetings. The applicants requested that this matter be tabled to the City Council meeting of April 4, 1988 so that a decision can be made with all Council members present. The developers have argued that the proposal in question: 1) is consistent with -the comprehensive plan, 2) is consistent with development in the surrounding area, and 3) that the site in question can accommodate on-site septic systems and the traffic that could be generated as a result of this type of rezoning request. The opponents have argued that this type of rezoning will allow for development that: 1) is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, 2) is inconsistent with development in the surrounding areas, 3) will overload classrooms in the school district that serves that area, 4) will raise tastes, 5) is a spot zoning, and 6) jeopardizes environmental concerns.