My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
2001 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/29/2012 9:14:03 AM
Creation date
2/27/2012 4:13:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
932
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
� >'J <br />, : . .:: .. . <br />Mounds View Planning Commission June 4, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />Jeff Westund, 7720 Long Lake Road, asked if any property is residential, but not zoned <br />correctly. He added that he is concerned about maintenance. Mr. Westlund stated if the property <br />owner lives on the property, it seems to be taken care of better <br />Chair Stevenson acknowledged that maintenance can be a cor�cern and that issue wili be taken <br />into consideration. 6�; ��� � <br />Mr. Westlund inquired whether there is a method in place to�control�the maintenance issue: . ` <br />N � <br />�Y € R <br />Chair Stevenson explained that this is discussed at the Development �tage. The developer and <br />the type of home that is being developed can help control the situ�.tion ��Chaiz Stevenson added <br />that there are nice townhomes in Mounds View. <br />Mr. Westlund stated there may be an issue of the "doin�o `�ffect". He questioned if apartments <br />�� - <br />may be allowed next. ' <br />� 3 <br />Chair Stevenson responded this Commission wouid not consider more than an R-2 designation. <br />Mr. Westlund questioned that if this area does become three lots, what would the Iimit be for <br />what could be built. � � �k'�` <br />Director Ericson explained tliexe are mi �� <br />Iat on Long L-ake Road that cbult���upp� <br />Erme Giis�afson, ���25 Courif�R+�ad T,': <br />house to the north �Ie would like'to �x <br />would be the sarne squ�re footage:: <br />requirements. There will be one <br />as well as single-family homes. <br />l he made a change in his proposal concerning the <br />the lot to the east property line. Lots 2, 3, and 4 <br />Mr. Gus��fson stateci�th��iie's�gned a document many years ago that allowed the dog kennel <br />f: , - <br />across'��ie street to be �the,�ares '�The owners at the time said they would be there a year, hut the <br />kennel is still there. Mr �ustafson added that all around him is commercial and he felt his <br />dup�lex should be allowed: I�e also mentioned an article in the Star Tribune of May 30 in which <br />the Metropolitan Caunc�l said there was an unusual demand for housing and land for developers. <br />�.':Tfie article also mentioned that the Metropolitan Council was strongly encouraging high-density <br />development on tra�sit lines. <br />�� <br />D�ve�DeLaria,,�7767 Long Lake Road, stated he vvas against any duplexes on the Long Lake <br />Road ,side: He would be satisfied with duplexes along County Road I. <br />Robert Moore, 7777 Long Lake Road, stated that the Sham-O-Jet access is on County Road T, <br />not long Lake Road. He also stated the he felt the zoning should remain R-1 on Long Lake <br />Road. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.