Laserfiche WebLink
September 14, 197~ Paqe 8 <br />Commissian htember Fedor pointed out thal between ZO-40~ of the signatures on Lhe pstlBton <br />~ were from residents outside Mounds View, such as f.ambridge, Minneaoolis and Coon Rapids. <br />MSP (Fass-~iacket2n) to table the issue until the next Ptanning Commission meetih9. 5 ayes <br />MINOR SUNOIVi5IQN REQUEST QF CHARLES_NUTCNiNSON,_290Q ARUAN_AVENUE <br />OfficiaT f~se reportad that the applicant has requested to com6lne two lots to make <br />twQ 'ots. A corr.~r 1ot whici, r;~uld frant proposed Knollwood Drive and Ardan Avenue <br />wouid be 127' x 96' respectiv~ly anJ one fnterior 1ot frcnting Ardan Avenue would <br />be 84' wide x 131' deep. <br />Planning considerations include that the Planning Commission and Council reviewed the <br />issue in Apr11 of 1976 and approved lhe coiicept. 7he property has since changed ownar•• <br />ship and the new owner requests to complete the subdivision. The interior lot mcets <br />area square fooY.age requirements, while Lhe corner iot is 204 square feet short. <br />Bn`,h lots do not mset frontage requirements. The corner lot is 4' short of the <br />minimal 100' requirement, and the interior 1ot is 1' short of the 85' requirement. <br />~oth lots could be served with sewer and water tocated fn Ardan Avenua. <br />Ken Thcrton ihtr•uduced himselF as the new owner of Lhe property and stated that h~ had <br />~ust closed on the Hutchinson property and was presently in court closing on the State <br />owr.ed property. <br />MSP (Hanke-Foss] to approve the reyuested subdivision of Mr. Hutchinson for making two <br />lots into two lots, with the east 1ot being 127' x 96' and the west iot being 84' by <br />131'. A varianco of 4' 9s granted on the east 1ot. and a 1' variance on the west lot <br />6ecause of the total frontage faaing Ardan Avenue since the subdivision is making use <br />of thr, land. There is a slight ~og on the south lot line oP the propose~ east 1ot. 5 ayes <br />Comm9ssion Member Zepper ~oined the meeting at 9:35 PM and Comnisston Member Foss <br />excused himself at 9:35 PM due to a conflict of interest on the next issue. <br />REZONING RE~UEST OF GEORGE PAYNE. 7664 SILVER LAKE R~AD <br />OiFiciai Rose exptained tFiat Mr. Payne has requested to rexone two lots whlch front or <br />corner on Siiver Lake Road and Couroty Road i for duplex development from N-1 to R-2. <br />PTanning considerat9ons include that rne corner lot fronting 6qth County Road I and <br />Silver Lake Road has 208.6' and 100' f~ontc~z measurements respectivety. The lot <br />has both tha reyu9red fro»tages and square footages for R-2 constructian. The interi^r <br />lot frontfng 511ver Lake Roud measures 132' wide and extends to Groveland Road. The <br />5taff hes found nn record the the 1ot being subdivided, The subdivision must take <br />p7ace before Council could appr4ve the rezoning. A su~divisinn uf equai hatves wou)d <br />be in correspondence with earlier subdivision and produce a 1ot which meets code cize <br />requirements for duplex construction. Also, the present zoning is R-i, wh11e the <br />Lnnd UsE Plan denotes the area us low density. Sewer and water ser~aices are not <br />avai7able off Silver Lake Roed. The corner 1ot could be serviced oti Coanty Road I, <br />- but the appllcanC musC submit a petition for services or enter into a deed covenant' <br />restM cting development until services are available. <br />'tiJ <br />Mr. Fayne stated that it wautd be expensive to br•ing the scrvices down Sitver Lake <br />Road and perhaps too expensive for a single family homa. However, if a duplex were <br />