Laserfiche WebLink
- 5 - <br />Milton Stole, planning commission chairman asked if it was the intent of the <br />ordinance to allow substandard lots. He stated the parcel of land should be <br />large enough for code size lots. He said the major opposition to the original <br />plan seemed to be the position of a townhouse facing Long Lake Road. <br />Attorney Meyers read from the Zoning Ordinance in reference to P.U.D. Section 9. 1 -2. <br />He stated the plan would have to go back to the Planning Commission for their approval <br />if he wanted to use P.U.D. P.U.D. has never been used in Mounds View before. Attorney <br />Meyers stated that under P.R.D. (Planned Residential District) given certain factors, <br />you can have smaller lots. <br />Attorney Meyers asked how many building lots Mr. Harstad would lose on his 3rd. <br />proposal. Mr. Harstad answered 5 lots. <br />Mr. Harstad stated that if he could not get one of the proposals approved tonight <br />he would have no alternative but to run the streets straight out to Long Lake Road. <br />Mr. Perkins, 2559 Woodale wanted to know where the land donation would be if the <br />streets are run straight out. Mr. Harstad answered that it would be a 158 foot <br />strip on the end between the drainage ditch and Long Lake Road. <br />Mr. Tom Erwin, inquired if there were any plans for the proposed drainage ditch <br />at Highway #10 and Long Lake Road. Engineer Boehm answered yes, there was a <br />ditch but there were no plans for conduit at this time. When more development <br />takes place there would be more run off and a need at that time. <br />Mr. Harold Hjelle, 5161 Red Oak Drive asked why the sublot problem again at this <br />time. Mayor Neisen stated that it was news to him tonight. Attorney Meyers stated <br />it had been in the ordinance since 1960. <br />Councilman Johnson asked if Mr. Harstad had recently read any of the real estate <br />development trade magazines regarding residential development planning. Councilman <br />Johnson stated he thought the proposal had to many straight lines and square lots. <br />He suggested cul -de -sacs or cluster housing. <br />Tim Kishel, 5242 Long Lake Road stated he agreed with some of Mr. Harstads things <br />but didn't think the 158 foot strip was a good idea. He thought a 300 foot plus <br />area for parks would be better. He didn't object to living across the street from <br />the park area. He liked Plan 2 and found no objections with the 80 foot lot plan. <br />Mayor Neisen reminded us that the park plan had been defeated last fall. <br />Mr. Harstad stated this park would belong to the Home Owners Association and would <br />be just for the people in the area. It would not be a public park. <br />Mayor Neisen stated that the private home is a burden on the Village, it doesn't <br />pay its own way. <br />Mrs. Barbara Haake, a planning commission member asked if the private park would <br />meet the ordinance for land or money donatinn to the Village. The answer was that <br />it would. Mr. Harstad stated he would be willing to spend more than 10 %. <br />Mr. Perkins was not in favor of a private park. The kids have just as much fun <br />playing in the weeds. He felt the people would like open space area. <br />Mr. Harstad was asked why it was economical to run the streets thru when he <br />'wouldn't develop that lower area. Mr. Harstad answered there would be four to <br />seven more lots. He would bring in turnapoles to dig out the peet. <br />