Laserfiche WebLink
6 s� <br />City Council meeting of June b, 1388 <br />Page 7 <br />year, the applicants submitted a request to rezone the same tract .-'If land <br />to RR1, and said request was subsequently denied by the Ci.ty Counci1.. .1_h <br />property in question abUtS on an RR2 zoning district to the north, and isin close proximity to 700 acres of RRA' property located to the east and <br />northeast. In a memo to the Hugo Planning Commission, the city staff <br />noted that the request in question appears consistent with the city's <br />comprehensive plan, land use section, policy 2B (page 2). RR2 zoni.nQ <br />districts allow for single family residences, and urban agriculture as <br />permitted uses. <br />Mr. Mike Massie appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of <br />residents in the area, and he indicated his concern regarding this type of <br />development. He stated that he disagreed with the staff and commission <br />assessment that the property in question was consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan. He stated that a more detailed study should be done <br />on the site to determine whether the site is capable of handling this type <br />of density. Mrs. Kathy Scobie addressed the Planning Commission and <br />stated that when the City Council adopted its comprehensive plan in 1985, <br />that the Metropolitan Council recommended ten acre dwelling sites outside <br />of the urban service area as opposed to the five acre sites approved b,,., <br />the City Council. Most of the arguments made in opposition to the <br />rezoning request were similar to those made at the previous public hearing <br />regarding the rezoning to the RR1 (`3 acre lot size). The applicants <br />argued that the request in question is consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan, and the lot sizes proposed are larger than many of the lots in the <br />areas west of Sunset Lake and Round Lake. They stated that the proposal <br />in question is definitely rural in nature, and the land in question is not, <br />regarded by Washington County as farmland, and is more appropriate for <br />residential development than agricultural uses. Following a. lengthy <br />public hearing, the Hugo Planning Commission (5 members present) <br />unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning stating that they now <br />feel that the proposal in question meets the criteria usually cons-iderec <br />for requests of this nature. The Planning Commission chairman reminded <br />the audience that the questions raised regarding roads, lot. layout, <br />wetlands,and whether the site would pass percolation tests, will be <br />addressed at the time a development plat-, or subdivision plat is submitted <br />for city review. <br />Mayor Atkinson stated that the Council would allow a maximum of 'ti minuten <br />for the spokespersons, pro and con, to make their comments. Steve <br />Sondrall, legal counsel for k::eystone Builders, reiterated the following <br />comments supporting their request for rezoning: <br />1. Rezoning to 5 acres would not adversely change the environment or the <br />community. <br />2. Rezoning to RR2 is consistent with comprehensive plan. <br />3. The applicants can demonstrate that the site is capable of handling <br />on-site septic systems and wells for approximately 32 building sites. <br />Mike Massie, speaking in opposition to the rezoning, stated that the city <br />had failed to notify Grant Township of the proposed rezoning, and his <br />comment was noted for the record. He and Kathy Scobie expressed concern <br />