My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Council_Minutes_1985_04_22
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
Council_Minutes_1985_04_22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 9:55:04 AM
Creation date
2/7/2011 2:28:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
4/22/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council April 22, 1985 <br />Regular Meeting Page Six <br />the rational used by the City of Bloomington in <br />granting the change and variance required for lot <br />sizes. <br />Mr. Haas presented sketches of the proposed lay- <br />out of the homes, as well as pictures of the homes <br />they built in Bloomington and the layout of the <br />Bloomington area. He explained that each lot <br />would have 50' of frontage at the building line. <br />He also added that the current residents of the <br />Mounds View development have expressed concern <br />in having double family homes built there, as they <br />feel it would detract from their homes. He also <br />stated they would be able to lower the cost of <br />each home by approximately $5,000 if granted the <br />smaller lot sizes. <br />Director Thatcher stated the developer has not <br />taken the density bonus on the lots in question. <br />Attorney Meyers reviewed the list of reasons for <br />granting variances and stated they could amend <br />the PUD. <br />Mr. Grueling explained that when Bloomington <br />approved the plan, they averaged all the lots <br />together, to come up with the sizes. <br />Clerk /Administrator Pauley reviewed the options <br />available to the Council and stated that Staff <br />recommends they reject the appeal and send the <br />developer back to the Planning Commission to <br />amend the PUD. <br />Motion /Second: Blanchard /Quick to deny the <br />appeal of Resolution No. 129 -85, regarding M. H. <br />Anderson Construction. <br />5 ayes <br />0 nays ?lotion Carried <br />Councilmember Blanchard stated her reason for <br />the denial was the same as the Planning Commissions, <br />to uphold the zoning code. <br />The Council reviewed the requirements that <br />would have to be met by the developer, of 3 acres, <br />200' frontage and a ten percent density bonus. <br />Motion /Second: Quick /Haake to refer back to <br />the Planning Commission Case t(,� -g� for M. H. <br />Anderson Construction, with the recommendation <br />that they amend the PUD with the ten percent <br />density bonus, to be considered at the next <br />Planning Commission meeting. <br />5 ayes <br />0 nays Motion Carried <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.