Laserfiche WebLink
1 : _ <br />;� - _ - - -� — - - - - == - - - -_ -- - - - - .. _ - . <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />_ _. <br />January 5, 2000 <br />Page 6 <br />be determined. He stated the applicant would bear a portion of the re� <br />construction of the street. <br />, <br />.�: <br />_:;.:.: _�> <br />Mrs. DeGross stated their land is fronted on three sides by p�tt+�d streets, ti��� <br />also be responsible for the majority of the assessment. ��� <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the City is considering �� <br />this area, and staff has explored different possibilities, and � <br />explained that given that information and the intent of the <br />might desire to entertain another discussion of this mat� <br />Commission feels that action is appropriate at this pomts ;I <br />resolution of denial. He pointed out that the i�fc�rr <br />appropriateness of granting a variance, however, +f�,��f����.A� <br />reference, the discussion of different developmez�t �'���b� �,����Y��a� <br />Commissioner Johnson inquired if the City; <br />future. Planning Associate Ericson statec} � <br />Corrunissioner Johnson advised that_„t�:.1ig1 <br />costs of developing Faber Street;:�;;�rhich is <br />explained that if the DeC� o Yc' v;`�belivide t; <br />the respo��i�.A�ity for deve�c3����i� ��e street, <br />street wer� s:� ��t�� ��;v��rop�c�, <br />it would. <br />CO1T11711SSt4yTlE',i �0�;�dX�(� ,r� �tj <br />DeG.r,.,t3�s''� lots could ��� r�r-;i, <br />.,,. <br />sta���i this was correcc, �x��a�� <br />�ai}s,�r Street, simply to ���,��v <br />the <br />would <br />�ot c�ritk�l >for future deve�r������g k�:i; <br />�,����j���'r,'�his with the DeU�as�', r�� <br />:�>�����>`� ��la� Planning Commission <br />i,�€ ����:� ihat if the Planning <br />✓ r;cy@41� ;�� ��J�,.-e�t staff to draft a <br />ioxt pr€�;������t� '�a�ald impact the <br />; berleiit: c��' c���;' �,v�tland study for <br />� �`rrnply �,ntrx;���uz��. <br />� no plan� �o r.��'�f�yl_�'��a ��s��'Street at any time in the <br />was c�i�recti. <br />is, the develi�per would be responsible for the <br />� ci proced��e with any large development. He <br />, :;�;� <br />;�o� ��t�n "of their property, they would assume <br />�i �rtg� developer. <br />�� ,�af the question at hand relates to the setback, and if the <br />l i.����� ;���:.rback cause a problem. Commissioner Johnson stated <br />la�ting of� this area appears to convey the assumption that the <br />�;d in the manner they have indicated. Commissioner Johnson <br />, the City should not be responsible for the cost of constructing <br />i,he subdivision of this property. <br />ioner Heglaiit�" stated the City's only responsibility would be related to Lot 4. <br />; <:�;. <br />ioner Joh.�;�n stated Lot 4 was not buildable. Planning Associate Ericson explained that <br />ubsta�ac��rd lot, which does not meet the square footage requirement for development. <br />1���� i� �°,J§��� � stated her in-laws own the adjoining property. She commented that they could <br />purchase theii- in-laws back lot, and could access Faber Street from this property as well. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated many possibilities exist; however, Lot 4 is currently not <br />developable. He pointed out that the applicant could also utilize 1000 to 1500 square feet from <br />the back half of one of his lots, and it would be developable, however, that is not the issue at <br />