Laserfiche WebLink
__ _ <br />_' ; :_ <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />_ _ _____ _ _� <br />- :-- -: ._. __ :� . — <br />January 5, 2000 <br />Page 5 <br />back yard, and he had advised them that if all went well at the meeting, he <br />proceed with this. <br />-f�<<::. <br />�.. <br />Mr. DeGross suggested that if the property along Laport Drius ��re �vic <br />of the property owners would have larger lots. Mr. Mistel��e stated he <br />therefore, had no control over it. He added that he did ni�� believe �t>ry <br />inquired regarding its size. <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the 75-foot frontage width w <br />the lot does not allow for sufficient square footage. Planni <br />lot is approximately 9,890 square feet in size. <br />Mr. Mistelske stated the wetlands were a major cc�A��.���s� <br />explained that the wetlands are in very close pr���g�r�t�' <br />would not be feasible, unless the wetlands rec,�ele"'a� so��r� <br />�n�hen <br />> <br />to <br />, all <br />and <br />W� <br />; however, the length of <br />��icson advised that this <br />i��`�<�E;ed his land. He <br />r�or�structing a street <br />Chairperson Peterson advised that wetla�.t� boundar�� are r�of r��I��i�,ii l�y their present location, <br />but rather, are examined on an histo���l bas�s ��Te explain�d that soil borings are taken to <br />determine the soil types and the ty�es tif vegetatapn� that hava grown in the area for in the past 50 <br />.... , <br />years or so. - �' �' ' <br />;, <br />Comrra.ics�����x ICaden inqu�d .'�k �� �. delineatio�+.'��� ����, �7.j���lands had been performed. Mr. Mistelske <br />prese����:;�� ���' �ommissi�3�� ������� ��;����~ �w�ilar►ca �'�€��1�xa������tion. Planning Associate Ericson explained <br />that t}��; ����� ���«����dicat� � X1�� �.���3�c�i�a�a��c location or the 100-foot wetland buffer line. <br />Mrs. DeGross ���� <br />easement on ��aF�� �`�� <br />�:,h=:::: <br />t�;$' Associate �.ric<>�� <br />� from this area, a��r <br />3 take access at thi�;;;I� <br />oulc� ���`��!i���y encounter difficulties in attempting to obtain an <br />vev✓:�y, a� ii is proposed to be located on a potential City street. <br />that the Limited Use Agreement allows the applicant to take <br />�lse. He stated it is not contemplated that any other parties <br />;��i::;. �eGross stated _��at because this proposal has come forward, they would build on their <br />�t°���a�t-�:y, and the stz���t would have to be developed. She inquired who would be responsible for <br />���r, €,��<;a, �f c����lt�ping the street. Planning Associate Ericson stated the developer would be <br />E;��a,,�,s��4;,��,�v ���� ih� development of the street. <br />__ _ _ _ _ <br />iVlrs. 1�eGx�oss inquired why the applicant would not be responsible for this, as he would be <br />developing his land, and using the road as his driveway. <br />Planning Associate Ericson explained that pursuant to the agreement, when the street is <br />constructed, any and all appropriate fees would be assessed to the applicant, however, this was to <br />