|
. . � � ., ._ �� _ . �.,. Y . � r � . _ . . I
<br />- < -- =� � .�� '�.-' _„r - ' ' % E , _' � � 4 - -- �� -
<br />_ ; , i --� -' ---•- - ; t - - - _ - - - " - � - -
<br />--- -- -- - _ : - .: . ; ' . `
<br />---- � - =°--- -=-� . - , ;
<br />- _ . , -- -- - - � `- -- '-. , � .
<br />i� .
<br />� Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000
<br />Regular Meeting Page 4
<br />Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the circumstances leading to the
<br />4.
<br />!�'�,.
<br />;: �,.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson explained that when the SMUDER�:;;�t�dition v�
<br />was assumed that the property on this side of Laport Drive vu�t��i1d be similar
<br />'s con��ti`I of Lot
<br />� 96�, it
<br />fi`a�r� �I]�t
<br />an additional 30 feet of nght-of-way would be platted as ;��ll. He pottited out ti��ai �Ik�� -�n����1�1
<br />have resulted in a standard size right-of-way, however, i�' �^�,���r o���irred. He irndic;��c�r�' �.,�,� ��
<br />went tax-forfeit a number of years ago, and ownership i�e���x��a��'�;E� tlie County. He advi��-,�� �1��t
<br />the City does not own the property, however, no develo��r��r�� �:���1 �c�ur on the lot withouti the
<br />City's interaction.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that if the DeCi� o�s' decid� Yc� �r
<br />property, and choose to dedicate an additional 30 f�aC t��'x��f���,� o� way t:o
<br />would be unwise to grant a variance to allow far t��;� 1��°��ar3� �F.E��a _r,lc on
<br />He explained that although there is no guara,z�`t��`tha� ���,� �i�d� ��r����r., �h�
<br />exists may create sufficient reason to preve� granting ����� i��a�:�: ar� ���� ��
<br />Commissioner Kaden inquired re
<br />Street. Planning Associate Ericsc
<br />feet of frontage.
<br />Mrs. ���������� �tated
<br />foun c�as� ��t� �� ��� cor
<br />Commissio��:s� - �� ������ irnqui
<br />weeks earlier. �� ���x��ups�, ���1,:
<br />permitted to �i:iliz� �.%�a :� ����:�
<br />:ra ,.��� ����tr p�
<br />�q i�� ���c, ��:
<br />SO('iGli:f- z�`,1`l�?
<br />��»y �y � ����
<br />" 3�.
<br />���J'
<br />�"sioner Mille�- irrr�u���-,�� i�`
<br />variance.
<br />:�� or develop their
<br />L��r Laport Drive, it
<br />�,:�licant's property.
<br />that the possibility
<br /><.
<br /><
<br /><: �.,.:<
<br />..��4>
<br />�:
<br />ze amou���of fronta�� the DeGross' own along Faber
<br />�hat a��ording to,,�h'e half-section map, they own 220
<br />f %-�
<br />,,. ,:,
<br />l��d, �������a� �hat they have already selected plans for
<br />had requested a variance on this property a few
<br />°d this was correct. He stated the applicant was
<br />Use Agreement.
<br />configuration of the house might prevent the necessity
<br />�n�er Mistelske, t}��;:�applicant, stated the only other configuration discussed was possibly
<br />�,. ..
<br />ing the structure;:;�' degrees, however, this would not make sense, as the house would face
<br />pf:.:.,:
<br />����osite direct[o;�� He explained that if the area were developed, most of the homes would
<br />at ����; �.�a,�lt3� Di1Ve.
<br />stated they plan to build two houses facing east, and two houses facing north.
<br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if Lot 2 was also available to the applicant.
<br />Mr. Mistelske, stated he was the owner of Lot 2, and at this time he was uncertain regarding his
<br />plans for this lot, which were somewhat dependent upon what occurred that evening. He noted
<br />that the neighbors to the east of his property were interested in purchasing this lot to expand their
<br />
|