HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.12.19 RESO 2005-0072RESOLUTION 2005-72
APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT DENYING THE REZONING
APPLICATION FROM RS, RESIDENTIAL SERVICE TO C-1, CENTRAL
BUSINESS FOR TERRY MONTPETIT FOR A BAR AND RESTAURANT
LOCATED AT 13891 FOREST BOULEVARD NORTH
WHEREAS, Terry Montpetit, has requested approval of a Rezoning application to allow
for the development of a bar and restaurant at13891 Forest Boulevard North, and;
WHEREAS, Terry Montpetit has applied separately for a Liquor License 2 a.m. closing
and said applications are incomplete.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for a Rezoning at a
duly called Public Hearing and recommends denial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the rezoning,
based on the findings contained in the staff report dated December 5, 2005, including the
following:
I. The requested amendment is not in compliance with the City's
Comprehensive plan. Specifically because the plan envisions three types of
commercial development as reflected in the zoning regulations; a downtown
commercial area, a regional commercial format, and a neighborhood
commercial format. This property, being outside the downtown, being only
three acres in size, being directly adjacent to residential, and near the entrance
to several residential neighborhoods is suited best for a neighborhood
commercial format.
2. The requested amendment does not comply with the intent of the C-1 District,
which is intended to "provide for the establishment of a downtown which is a
blend of cultural, recreational, civic, entertainment, retail, sales, and office
uses." The property is not located within the downtown area but is adjacent to
residential uses on its east and south boundaries and is separated from the
downtown by additional property that is zoned in the Residential Service
District and by 14& Street.
3. The requested zoning would constitute an isolated spot of C-1 zoning that is
not contiguous to any other C-1 zoned property. Zoning and planning goals
would be better served by having C-1 zoned areas located nearer to
commercial or industrial uses and not directly adjacent to residential uses.
4. The uses allowed by the C-1 District, including taverns and restaurants -the use
contemplated here, will have unreasonable negative impacts on adjacent
properties. This is particularly the case here because the adjacent properties
consist of residences that would be impacted by noise, light, loud music,
crowds, vehicle traffic and other activities that would be anticipated with the
uses allowed by the C-1 District. In comparison, a residential service use
Page 2
typically would not operate at the late hours and involve the noise and
disruption typically produced by a C-1 use, including a bar.
5. The reduced setbacks allowed in the C-1 District, when compared to the RS
District, are not compatible with surrounding land uses and anticipated
development patterns. Specifically, the C-1 setbacks of 10 feet on the front,
and zero feet on the side yards, reflect an intense urban development pattern,
as opposed to the 30 -foot front and side yard setbacks for RS zoning, which is
reflective of a less dense, suburban style development.
6. Approval of C-1 Zoning on this property will likely lead to requests from
other property owners to the north of this site for the same zoning designation,
thus exacerbating conflicts between residential properties lying to the east and
the properties immediately adjacent to TH 61.
7. It is reasonable to expect the property to develop under the existing zoning in
a number of uses which are complimentary to the site and adjacent
neighborhoods. Under the prevailing zoning, these uses may include daycare
facilities, public services, offices, clinics, professional services, and retail
uses.
8. The existing zoning is compatible with the neighborhood, and is adjacent to
other property that is also zoned Residential Service.
9. The Residential Service District is the appropriate zoning classification for
this property.
ADOPTED by the City Council this 19th day of December, 2
r
M yor
ATTEST:
Mary reager, City Clerk