Laserfiche WebLink
City of Mounds View Staff Report <br /> September 17, 1999 <br /> Page 2 <br /> house to be constructed, albeit within the 100-foot buffer. Then examine the map that staff <br /> created, labeled"Laport Meadows Development Project". This map shows the two lots in <br /> question outlined in a heavy dashed line and the wetland outlined further away from the lots than <br /> indicated in the wetland zoning map. The presumed location of the wetland however is based on <br /> staff, SEH and other consultant's best-case estimations and again should not be assumed to be <br /> survey-accurate. <br /> There have been some discussions regarding the redevelopment potential of this area in <br /> conjunction with an HRP property the City owns at 8283 Long Lake Road and also in <br /> conjunction with potential expansions at the golf course. The allowance at this time of a driveway <br /> as indicated on the plat map would not in staff's opinion deter from any possible redevelopment in <br /> this immediate area. All of the properties to the north of these two lots, with the exception of one <br /> not having access to Laport, are controlled by the City of Mounds View through Ramsey County <br /> use deeds. That would prevent the possibility of another property owner in this area attempting <br /> to take access to a private driveway. It is also thought that these properties are in all likelihood <br /> unbuildable due to the presence of poor soils and wetlands, and as such would remain in one form <br /> or another open space. <br /> In terms of allowing such a use of unimproved City right of way, there is a previous example of <br /> this being done, and staff has attached for your reference this limited use agreement, which was <br /> signed by all parties in 1996. <br /> Recommendation: <br /> There are three courses of action with this request that the Council could choose to pursue. Staff <br /> would recommend that the first option be considered over the second option, as allowing for a <br /> street to be installed prior to having a long range redevelopment plan would seem premature. It <br /> would also be easier and less costly to remove a driveway than a street in the event a different <br /> street configuration is sought. The last option, while certainly a choice the Council could make, <br /> would not provide a timely response to the potential property owner. <br /> A. Direct staff to work with the potential buyer of these lots in drafting a limited use <br /> agreement to allow for a private driveway over and across unimproved Laport Drive. <br /> B. Agree to allow for a deviation from the City's standard street requirements, the specifics <br /> for which street would be jointly agreed to and determined by the director of public works <br /> and the potential property owner. <br /> C. Take no action on this request and instead wait until more information is available with <br /> regard to the potential long-term redevelopment of this area. <br /> James Ericson, Planning Associate <br />