1978-01-25 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

danuary 25, 1978 the cattails in the marshy nrea. Official Rose replfed that the acreage is below ~°'ithe requirement for ONR approval and that the cattails are actualiy on Mr. Narstad's ~property, not Mr. Eigenheer's. Chairpersnn Haake stated that she felt the two biggest problems would be to decide where the road would go through and to get the lots to the 85' code requirement. Commission Piember Burmeister stated that she could not yo along with the R-2 zoning as the rest of the area was R-1 and that it should be maintained, as it is called fnr in the Comprehensive Ptan. Comnission Member Glazer asked why the particular lots were selected to be R-2. Mr. Eigenheer replied that he had selected the tots since they face County Ruad 1 and there is a stcre across the road from where he would 11ke to put them in. P~ge 3 Comnission Member Glazer asked if they would be rental property. t4r. Eigenh2er rcpN ed that theY wouid be mostly'owner occupied. Comnission Member Glazer stated that he was concerned with lot 21, fronting Edc~ewood. Mr. Olson replied that with the traffic on County Road I, they would like to havo the homes face County Road I but hava the driveways coming in from the back, from the cui-de-sac. He also stated that while the lacation does not dictate which lots sl~ould be R-2, he felt they have selected the best lots. He a7so stated that the R-2 homes would be in a higher price range and tax bracket. Mr. Eigenheer pointed out that two famTly homes are becoming very popular, due to inflation. ~'~~ Commission Member Fedor questioned why lots 10 antl 11 wou7d be Facing County Road I ,~.~rather Chan the cul-de-sac. Mr. E9genheer replted that it would be mm•e des9ra61e for the rest of the homes. Commission Member Mackeben stated khat he felt the R-2 property would provide an exce77ent buffer zone but did not see the feasibi7ity of lot 21. He also stated that neariv 50 percent of the lots would need some type of variance and that he did not dgree with tl~e long cul-de-sac. Chairperson Naake stated that she felt lot 21 should not be R-2 and recomme~ded that the ~avElopers get together with the Staff and work out tfie road system and bring the lots up to aode. She also stated that the generat cansensus of'the Planning Commisslon seemed to be that R-'L would be epproved. Kfr. Olson pointed out that the MeCro Council believes in smallar lot sizes, making >peas more dense und ttiat the proposed lots would be approved in nine out: of ten communities and that he was concerned with the economics of liaving to eliminate sane lots in order ta meet code requirements. Chairperson Hnake replied that Mounds View is very aware of the Metro Councii's position on lot sizes but that Mounds View has a set code, with 85' frontage requlrements. MSP (Haake-9lazer) to table the request of Eigenheer Bui7ders unt11 the pr•oblems ca,~ 6e wnrked out. 6 ayes Commission Member Mackeben stated that the Planning Commission is not necessarity opposed to variances or smaller lots with limited useage but that a hardship must ~ usually be showA. Commission Member Glazer stated that the decisions made on this particular development