Laserfiche WebLink
, . , - _-- ---- --- <br />_ - _ - ---- - <br />, _ � = - - <br />-.: _ __:- - - <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />January 5, 2000 <br />Page 9 <br />Planning Associate Ericson advised that certain grants could be requested, <br />sources could be examined, however, it was not likely that the City would <br />Increment funds for the construction of a street. ,�><-`;« -;; <br />Mrs. DeGross stated they were required to build appro�mately 30 %�i ` oi ,r°a <br />Woodlawn Drive, at a cost in excess of $5,000, when they �a�isYructed,.the'ir home, <br />. :�. <br />aware of the costs involved. She indicated that sewer anc�'$�r�s�r amentttes were al <br />along Faber Street. <br />Chairperson Peterson pointed out that the reason the few rearrtairaa���; ��� <br />developed is because there are quite a few development limi��tions, �;� <br />stated many lots were developed, which should not have �c;��. He e»j <br />not an actual wetland boundary, or standing water �t� ���e� ����, there i <br />are not sufficiently stable for a roadway or a��ttn� �����+��4������ ���►d <br />some excavation in order to establish a road : <br />Mr. DeGross stated his father has owne.d;;�this prop,��y for- <br />,;. :,;>; � ,�,£�,' <br />reason it has never been developed. ,,;<;;f�;�;<<>' _��;,�° <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if �1 <br />unsuccessiul attempts to dev�lop t,� <br />was ref�rz���,to Lots 2 ar�c� t, ��h.�����%{ <br />generally, � <br />did not un� <br />be done, it <br />izing Tax <br />long <br />�unds View are not <br />we:tland issues. He <br />i'f���� even if there is <br />� c���''conditions that <br />�x:��ent may require <br />50 years, and that is the <br />r. ��DeGy c�q .y �iad prPVi,�usly indicated there have been many <br />property'xr� �:Fa� ��� y`�j'years. Mr. DeGross explained that he <br />are at a�����:�i. l+��fK��'`?]evation than his property. <br />on advis�� ��ust �Ni1Pr� 'r1�eA-e is development, expenses are involved, and <br />��er absorbsy �;k��s� {��:��3. �'. DeGross commented that this was the reason he <br />R;�af; ���ic in rega�'{� �:t� ����-''proposed driveway. He added that if this is going to <br />,ociate Et-�c <br />, thereforP, <br />Peterson i� <br />,< <br />i. as indicai <br />rrectly` <br />that the proposed driveway has already been approved by the <br />not debatable at this point. <br />ired if the land in the vicinity of the City controlled lot was fairly clear <br />on the aerial photograph. <br />ned that there were currently grasses and some large trees in this area. He <br />higher in elevation, and sloped downward. <br />Chais�ei�son �'eterson reiterated that he did not believe the Commission could take action upon <br />this request at this time, and suggested the matter be tabled until their next meeting. He reiterated <br />that the best solution would appear to be for all interested parties to discuss the matter, and <br />attempt to deternune some solution <br />