Laserfiche WebLink
' . � R .�.- .,�� � �. �- .. � 1 -.'T - `- . . . � _ . . ___��_.""-`_.__ __ � <br />�.. � . :._a- -,�� � ' _ - .:, ' _ r ''' � - _ �?� .� ..v '" ' '_ _ .-... _ .. . .' _'_ _- ` ' I..�, <br />i: <br />� ="'_„ �.____�__ ' . _ " _` __ "' " � '. '__' ." " .. <br />Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 �- <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br />hand. He advised however, that simply being aware that these possibilities <br />on the request before the Commission that evening. � <br />,�:H. <br />Commissioner Hegland inquired if Lot 5 was developable �*�'��ttning <br />there is a house on Lot 5. He explained that a number of 1��5`in the ( <br />many years ago do not meet the current minimum lot size �-�t��.��rements. <br />Commissioner Miller inquired if a cul-de-sac would be nec� <br />Planning Associate Ericson reiterated that any number of po <br />Chairperson Peterson stated since Mounds View is primarii� c�eve�le�� <br />also arises. He indicated that re-development is an arPa �kae �ity has <br />is also another possibility that should be considered. , <br />Mx. DeGross stated his proposal com <br />possibility would be for the applicant to <br />house. <br />Commissioner Kaden stated Mr. <br />one half of their existing lot, alon <br />Mrs. De�'�r����s comment�c� <br />develo�����, +.���� would sa�a�� <br />ChairpeY-�or� �� �E��',.•t��� ac�vi <br />roads. Mrs. �����°a,�. �'��;�<' <br />Commis�cirier "rohn����; �.c� <br />� �,. . <br />subdivi�li'ng proper�y. ���� <br />te1y;;;;�1in�ina <br />��<I�alf of Loi <br />,�: <br />:•3:,r� <br />.:�:. <br />% h9 <br />� __...a..�„i . <br />ort I�r <br />nigh� �hed light <br />;; ,<,� <br />r:;}`t�;n�n stated <br />�.���`� ���,��t�1o��d <br />ab�r Street was <br />re-development <br />,ved in, and that <br />'�e suggested another <br />roposed location of the <br />new houses constructed on <br />�,� �� the applir;��n�'Q� pr�pnsal is approved, and Faber Street is not <br />r;������ruct a hou�� a� ��i�ir back yard. <br />����� �a.r�����;�;_could only be constructed upon established, improved <br />d���,� ����;1����licant was not building on an improved road. <br />�}�at t}i'e applicant was not proposing to build three houses, and <br />;��"���oss stated the applicant was proposing to build a 400-foot <br />�rperson Peterson at�vised that it is typical for the developer to be responsible for the initial <br />� of constructing;a;:street, when more than one house is built on that street at the same time. <br />�:�:.. <br />explained that: �`�`er that point, the City pays all of the maintenance costs, with possib e <br />ti �k� <br />����3���,tc t��h��ironertv owners. <br />������f;�g��; �.�sociate Ericson reiterated that this is discussion for another meeting, and the fact that <br />these possibilities e�st should provide sufficient information to direct staff to draft a resolution of <br />approval or denial of the variance request. <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the amount of wetland in the area. Planning Associate <br />Ericson explained that he had drawn in a loosely defined boundary of the City controlled wetlands <br />on the plat map contained in the Staff Report. He stated this boundary is within two or three feet <br />