Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 11-14-98 <br />PRESENT: Peltier, Kellison, Puleo, Schumann <br />City Administrator, Robert A. Museus <br />ABSENT. Malaski, Rubenzer <br />Chairperson Peltier called the special meeting of the Hugo Planning Commission to order at 1:15 <br />P.M. to conduct a public hearing on revised Comprehensive Land Use Regulations for the City. <br />The Planning Commission meeting was preceded by a public workshop in which the proposed <br />ordinance was explained and discussed. <br />Mr. David Buller, 13615 Elmcrest Avenue N., informed the Planning Commission that he does <br />not want his property zoned for urban residential use. He and his neighbors desire to preserve <br />the ecological role of their property and wildlife habitat, and that rezoning their property for urban <br />residential use would increase the development pressure in the area. He also stated that he <br />prefers to keep Elmcrest as a gravel road to help reduce speed and reduce storm water runoff. <br />He recently installed a new septic system and does not feel that hooking up to the municipal <br />waste water system would be a good investment at this time. <br />Thomas Bina, 7115 Oneka Lake Boulevard, stated that he desired to keep Oneka Lake <br />Boulevard preserved from development, and requested that the urban reserve boundary, <br />currently running along the centerline of Oneka Lake Boulevard, be moved to the west side of <br />Oneka Lake. Schumann supported this idea stating there was not much more urban <br />development taking place in that area, and felt a plan amendment would be necessary. <br />Cathy Scobie, 7676 120th Street N., stated that she does not feel that a density of one home per <br />ten acres will keep the City's rural area viable for agriculture, and that one home per forty would <br />be a better housing density. She also stated that outlots created as part of cluster development <br />should have some conditions recorded against their deed maintaining the property as permanent <br />open space. <br />Larry Ehret responded that the value of property in rural areas is based on the parcel, not on the <br />size of the parcel, and that a property owner could expect to be paid the same for ten acres as <br />forty for rural residential use. He also stated that given the requirements of the City for public <br />improvements, it is not economically viable to subdivide property into parcels greater than ten <br />acres. <br />Ron Gray, 6275 Oneka Lake Boulevard, commented on the importance of improving all roads <br />as part of the development. <br />Bonnie Weber, 7222 Oneka Lake Boulevard, questioned whether the City was going to allow <br />grading of development sites after preliminary plat approval. She was informed that the City had <br />returned to its past practice of not permitting site grading for development until after final plat <br />approval. <br />Marvin LaValle, 3282 Velvet Street, Hinkley, MN, expressed concerns involving the following <br />sections of the proposed ordinance: <br />Section 1.7c requires contiguous parcels or lots owned by the same person to be combined prior <br />to development if both parcels do not meet the minimum standards of the City's zoning <br />ordinance. <br />Sections 4.4. The City has not yet prepared the implementing map for its well head protection <br />district. It is unclear who is bound by the rules found in section 4.4. <br />Section 3.17. A special planning district has been established which covers a portion of his <br />family's property, though no regulations have been prepared for the district. Also, a portion of <br />