|
,-
<br />_ � �
<br />' -_� " � -�_. - --- • _ _ �,.�� � ,. . : . °` ; _ .;;;�i k _
<br />. _ : , .<:- .� r - - '
<br />. _: _—,--- £ -_ - ' ' _
<br />_ -- - ----. .� . _-. __ ; �.
<br />E. - -- -=----_:___.�.-�=- _-
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />January 5, 2000
<br />Page 8
<br />of that indicated on the applicant's delineation, however, without seeing the r��,�,ii�s of ��� wetland
<br />study, it is simply an estimate on the part of staff and the City Engineer, ]�r: �r��^c�! �hat it is not
<br />believed that the lots located on the north side of unimproved Laport, Drive �r.r�.-e���fi ���; ��FV�lopable,
<br />even with a favorable delineation. .
<br />Commissioner Johnson inquired if this was due to the �i�a; oi' these ,�t��� � P1a��A��
<br />Ericson stated it was not, but rather because of the conditi�A�� �f the sciils, and theiY�
<br />the wetland, which would not support housing. He advi���� fi��<�i �,hs;se were City co
<br />and no development could occur without the City's interaci:����, -�.�: ;t>r.r��,� ��oint.
<br />Chairperson Peterson inquired who owned the land to t�±�°nor-th +�� �n�������ved Laport Drive.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson explained that the City cont.rols these loi�, �.�Y�i �����.��s Use Deeds on
<br />them for drainage purposes, however, the State of ir.i�ar��i�=;;�r��� pwns the �ii ���� a�pY, �
<br />Chairperson Peterson stated it was somewh�Z�� diffic�zl� a;� �e;,.�;r�xune t}�e highland trees from
<br />lowland on the aerial photograph, howeve�r;;1t appear�,�o ��Er��c:z,i� ��a�tural boundary line along
<br />the Laport Drive right-of-way. He statet� that smc� ��eY-e i;� ���t����l��y�1 for possible development
<br />f .<.
<br />and the improvement of Laport Dnve, further d�scussion shoc.�7c� talce place, prior to acting upon
<br />this matter. . .��rr '
<br />Commissioner Stevenson Al�c��a�, �� =�regardin�, `�,���� �.a��� t'r�me for consideration of this request.
<br />Plannin� �„��ociate Erics��� ��.�Q.F�cl in ordez` i.�� r�a��;�d �he 60-day requirement, the Commission
<br />should �a�..�; �?�?�i��a by Feb���,�����; ��? c�r 15 at whi��� �i���i� the City could request an additional 60-day
<br />extensie�aa� ��� ����?la�n�c? ������ �i�� �a��� no� anticipate there being a need for this, as there was
<br />certainly �ra�����:z���i ����7e zo�.- �r��dl��� ���������, prior to acting upon the matter.
<br />Commission�r T�a��ra' ���,�;��; �hat i� ����a�F�.��ed the DeGross' could develop the back portion oftheir
<br />lot, and,if��'�%�do sc�,!�����„ �� ��;ood ci�ance that Faber Street could be improved.
<br />,. :., __
<br />�person Peterson ��U�,��� �?���� �"_,und Construction Company owns one of the lots on Woodlawn
<br />e, and it was likely ��a�y �vor�ld be interested in developing this property as well.
<br />���
<br />1Vlistelske stated;;<�;t�at if the DeGross' build as they have indicated, and Faber Street and
<br />�-:::��:<
<br />>�:i A�rive were�;i�proved, they would both be assessed a very substantial amount for these
<br />, ,f ;:
<br />�y����� �7� ���i�d he would likely be unable to af%rd such an assessment.
<br />�t:d�a�u=�a ��:3����;�. Johnson stated if Faber Street were improved, it would be at the done so at the
<br />expense o�° the developer. Planning Associate Ericson advised that there are formulas to
<br />determine assessments, and because Mr. Mistelske would benefit from the frontage, which would
<br />be considered an improvement to his property, he would also be assessed for this.
<br />Mr. DeGross inquired if Tax Inerement funds could be utilized for such an undertaking,
<br />
|