Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br /> <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Planner Prososki explained that Staff developed an alternative plan to address some issues of the <br />neighbors but the applicant did not support the alternative plan. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki pointed out that the Staff proposal is a loss of 3 units and reorients the buildings <br />so that all units would be facing in and not facing into backyards and allows for additional <br />buffering. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn asked if the Applicant has agreed to address the front of the units looking <br />into existing backyards. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated there are things that can be done but where there are two story units <br />looking into backyards even a privacy fence would not work. She then said that this is a concept <br />plan and can be changed but she is not sure how far the applicant is willing to modify the plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Meehlhause commented that the City has had issues in the past with private <br />streets and asked why this development proposes them. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated that if the private streets are not maintained properly they can cause <br />issues but a public street requires 60 feet of right of way and there is not room to do a public <br />street. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked if there are concerns with the fire department with not having an <br />emergency exit. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated she would need to check with the fire marshal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller asked how many townhomes can be together per City Code. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated that if this is zoned PUD that would be consistent with an R3 district <br />of medium density and that district does allow townhomes up to 6 units. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked how much of this property would have to be rezoned to meet R3. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki explained that a PUD is a rezoning and it is consistent with R3. She then said <br />that right now one of the parcels is B3 and the other two are R1 so they all need to be rezoned to <br />PUD. She further explained that there would need to be a major subdivision because it is not one <br />parcel right now. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller asked what happens with the Comprehensive Plan and future design to <br />have the area as a mixed use PUD with business fronting on Highway 10. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated that in the mixed-use designation the Comprehensive Plan states that <br />it would be a mixture of commercial and residential uses. <br />