Laserfiche WebLink
.� --_- �'-.�-__�. ��-_. --- '_" -'�� ...�._ . ..---�`- <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />� <br />�- ti �i f : <br />' - = - � - ; �.�. � _ ,. � <br />-- -- --- ---- - ..: -r ----- - -�_--- -�- � <br />January 5, 2000 <br />Page 10 <br />Mr. Mistelske pointed out that if the DeGross' were to develop their land, �he ir_rtprrs``��ment of <br />Faber Street and Laport Drive would be a very time consuming project, �4gi�: �v �h�f wetlands, <br />which are far too close to construct a full-sized City street. �-I� ���,ted the d�s��c4 ��i���. E�;ppeared to <br />have been diverted from the direction he had anticipated, addi.�i� �.��.ti as a first �a�a��, k=��;�� ;(�r,�yer, he <br />simply wanted to build a house. �; ' , <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired who owns the property loc;:�4r��i �:o che north of the loe ��,�4r��+�;r.� �,y <br />Lund Construction Company. Mr, DeGross stated Lund ��`��r��i����r,b`iar� Company also ow���$ E�ii� <br />lot. Chairperson Peterson stated Lund Construction Corrapae�� €�c��.���� ����'r.e�tially build two homes <br />to the west of Woodlawn Drive, and south of Laport Dr�����, ea� �,������c �jrive was extended to <br />provide access. :,���. � <br />Mr. DeCrross stated this was correct, however, Lap�� ����r� ��vould havt, tt� �� �s�tended to Long <br />Lake Road. <br />Commissioner Miller inquired what <br />Planning Associate Ericson advised tha� <br />_<...;.::;<: <br />Study. He explained that this study�:�'� <br />�:Y;�:.:i'T.: .. <br />without substantial corrections, iu�;;<;�?vhi� <br />stated that without the com��l��r� st'udy, <br />Commis��c����c���: ,�ce <br />Associa�€* � ,�ik;�c���: <br />Commission�x� ;i����l <br />this matter. „ � ' <br />ictiOris would <br />of Laport Drive. <br />%��� <br />i:.f <br />i �:% <br />�e contingcx�c upoii the results of the Wetland <br />that the �ils could not support development <br />%!� :2i/ <br />1 devekqpment may be cost prohibitive. He <br />a �r�� �o deternune this. <br />ar� ���t��.ii��t� when th�< t�l�tland Study would be available. Planning <br />t��� �:���; ��,�is�y would possibly be completed in March. <br />;���i��d ii`t�a�� ��cir,�tc�`be the appropriate starting point for consideration of <br />ioner Stevensa�� ;�i��a.�y ��d;;;appeared that many of the decisions would be made dependent <br />findings of this �t����r, ���'terms of whether or not the property is developable. <br />ng Associate Eri��on advised that when this item went before the City Council both in <br />, :�. , <br />of the Wetland<f�uffer Permit and the Limited Use Agreement, the Council had considered <br />%;x' <br />;t ihat some:;fi►�ure development could occur. He explained that the Council felt that even if <br />,: �: thP ���3 if �would not prohibit the applicant from building on his lot, as he would have a <br />��� 1��+ �;gardless. He pointed out that this is simply a question of where the road might be <br />�:�� �� �7��;Y•e to be improved, and if it could not be, the issue would be moot. <br />Commissioner Miller inquired if there could be such questions relating to Faber Street as well. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this was probably less likely, in that it is located further from <br />the wetland to the north, the elevation changes, and there is less of an issue with regard to the <br />soils and suitability for improvement. He explained that without seeing a contour map of the area, <br />