Laserfiche WebLink
: . . _ . _ !. .. _ . . .. . . . .. <br />� � .. �. �_ ,.., . .. .- . . � - <br />. -.�,��:� - � _ � � :: . , .... - :_ �..�.�......�. <br />:..::. . ...-... ... <br />. . . . . . ..�. <br />.. - .. . . � _�. . ,.. .. { . . . .� . <br />Mounds View <br />Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />Aagast 1, 2001 <br />Page 4 <br />has taken so long, he felt he has lost this prospect. He felt that this loss ,of sale should be <br />considered a hardship. <br />Mr. Gustafson noted in a prior request to the Planning Commission he had proposed the <br />construction of duplexes along Long Lake Road but the Planing Commission had"'strongly <br />opposed this proposal. He stated that his new plan proposed three single-family homes along . <br />Long Lake Raad, not duplexes. <br />Mr. Gustafson felt that, without performing an actual measuremeni, a,person would not be able <br />to discern whether Lot 3 was 95 feet wide or 100 feet wide. <br />� } <br />�.: � <br />Mr. Gustafson noted thaf Community Developmen� Director Ericsonliazi aecommended that his <br />lot, Lot 4, be reduced in width by five feet on the west si�e'�f the propertpto allow Lot 3 to meet <br />the i00-foot width requirement. He stated that thts would be;problemati� d�e'to the location of <br />�.�� }R <br />his sewer and water lines and the minimal dis��nc� "tlus�would allow for working on the service <br />, �: � � , <br />lines. � � �« <br />Jeff Westlund, 7720 Long Lake Road, stated he supported the comments and recommendations <br />of City Staff He questioned whether �T�ot 3 could be rezoned��to R-2 if it met the minimum lot <br />width requirement. Chairperson Stevenson stated that this was�a possibility. <br />�, i,�,, <br />Mr. Westlund asked what :the minimum lot: s�ze ;:requirement is for the R-2 zoning district. <br />Chairperson • Stevenson stated that a lot in the R 2;-zoning district must rneet a minimum size <br />requizemerit of 12,500 sqlaar's feet'=� . - <br />Mr. Westlund: expressed concem that if:.Lot 3 could he rezoned to R-2, then a duplex may be <br />constructed. Chaiip,erson Sfievenson noted that the Planning Commission had previously <br />required that ariy .�uplexes"pwithin this development face County Road I and that none sha11 face <br />Long Lake� Road. "T'lier��'oie,,any duplex structure on Lot 3, a comer lot, would have to face <br />County Road T. He no'te�,; hov�e�er, an actual subdivision plan has not yet been submitted for <br />any proposed development`o�'=t}ie snbj ect property. <br />� <br />.��i <br />of <br />Westlund requested';confirmation that an applicaiion could be made to rezone Lot 3 to R-2. <br />irperson Stevenson stated this was correct. Commissioner Miller noted the lot would hawe to <br />t the criteria of tfi� R-Z zoning district. <br />Hk��...�... _ <br />�nzssi�ner :Kaden noted in June the City Council approved the first reading far the rezoning <br />.e property to R-2. <br />Mr. Westlund believed that the City Council had only approved the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2. He <br />reiterated concern about the possible construction of a duplex on Lot 3, regardless of which <br />direction the building would face. <br />Planning Associate Atkinson noted the approval by the City Council in June was far only four <br />' _, <br />-. f <br />