Laserfiche WebLink
PROCEEDINOS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />~ CITY Of MOUNDS VIEW <br />"~iSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA <br />A regular meeEing of the Mounds View Planning Commission was called to urder at <br />8:~5 PM on February 8, 1978 at the Mounds View City Na11, 2401 Highw~y 1~, <br />Mounds View, Minnesota 56112 <br />Members Prssent: <br />Acting Chairperson Meckeben <br />Ca~imission Member Fedor <br />Comnission Member G7axer <br />Comnlssion Member Burmeister <br />Comnission Member Foss <br />A1so Presento <br />Councilmember Baumgartner <br />Building end Zoning Official Rose <br />Absent: <br />Chairperson Ilaake <br />Coimiission Member Blanchard <br />7he min~~tes of the January 25, 1978 Plann9ng Cormnission meeting were apprnved as <br />presented. <br />MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF EIGENHEER BUILOERS, I~C. <br />Official Rose reported that Mr. F.igenheer had redrawn the plat with a looped road <br />r.fystem wM ch co~nects to Edgewood Drive and County Road I, creating 22 1ots. <br />( lot 6, 8locks 1 and 2 could be suhdivided further, and in the case of Lot 6, <br />'+~81ock 1, two conforming lots cau7d be created. In the case of Lot 6, 87ock 2, <br />the lot, if subdivided~ wou7d create two substandard frontage lats at 77,8'. <br />Officlal Rnse recommended that thls iot be split with 7ots 5, 7 and 8 to creaCe <br />conform9ng and buildable 1o~s. <br />Lot 5, Block 1 is one foot shor~t of the min7mum corner frontage of 100 feet each <br />direction. Lot 8, 81ock 2 is four feet short of the minimum corne~^ 4'rontage of <br />100 feet each direction. Lot 7, B1ocY. 2 is f9ve feet short of the minimum interior <br />frontage oi' 85 feet. Offic?al Rose stated that variances would be required for <br />lats 5, 7 and 8, if approved as presented. <br />Official Rase stated that the drainage easements would be adequate, as presented. <br />and that the extension of the road ea,ement into the proposed cui-de-sac of the <br />northern property requires a varia~ce as it is only 50 feet {60' requirsd). StaFF <br />recormends the variance so as to create nearly standard iats. The servlces and <br />roadway can easity be piaced on that width, This wnuld 6e an exceptional case and <br />would not allow development of the property to the noreh. The water system would <br />aiso be required to be loo~ed. <br />Rcting Chairperson Mackeben pointed out that Mr. H genheer was leaving Los o at <br />755' in hopes that the ordinance would eventually be changed ta allow less than <br />85' minimum frontages. <br />Conmission Member B~rmeister s*ated that she did not see the herdship involved <br />ith the 5' that were missing on Lot 7 as Mr. Eigenheer would make the lot standard <br />~f he took 5' from l.ot 6. Sha also stated that sne felt the Pianning Commission <br />shouid ;nake their recarmendations based on present day ordinances, not what might <br />happen in the future. <br />