Laserfiche WebLink
February 28~ 1979 <br />Paqe 3 <br />aeaeesed. Having the 85' requiremonL, the Counoil thAn enacted <br />~~hat ~art of the zoning code which allewed any Eu~h 1G0' lote <br />to be eubdivided equally in half, thun giving residents a chance <br />to recoup aesasement ooete, also allowing t1iQ anbdivision witihout <br />granting a variance. <br />OfEicial Rose further etated thaL• he had recommended that Baypurt <br />Aaree come in undor the major subdivision ragulations, usinq the <br />fant that the Planning Comm~.esion and City Counail would want ta <br />look at the wholo area before taking any action on it and, under a <br />major eubdiviaion, the City could require develapment controls. <br />The old zoning coda eection about 160' inte wasn'f. included in <br />the natr coda beoauAe it wae Eorgotten. The City hae a hiatorical <br />sequence of allowing theee eplite. <br />Chairperson Haake stated ehe did not realize the eubjeet section <br />ha4 b~en dolated Erom the new zonirg code. She etate3 that after <br />conversin~ with some long time reeidents of Mounds Vtew, ahe learned <br />the reaeon for th< 160' lota w$s that Mounds View required 4 acres <br />at one timo, than 2 acrea, then 1 acre atid whzn it came down to <br />a minimum, it onded up at 166 foot lots. <br />Commisaion Member 8urmeieter etated the concern was the 75' l~te, <br />not the 80' lota. The 150' lot subdivisicn is a neceesi.ty f~r <br />garcels that are landlockedi but that aection of the new code <br />~--, eeems to he npen to misuse by devolopera owning several 130' <br />i j late in ona area. <br />~~ <br />Commiseiott Member Eedor questioned whether a developer who owns <br />5 nP the 150' lots could requesL• 5 minor aubdiviaione in a row? <br />Official Rose indicated there ia much more criteria to meet <br />than just t.he 75' frontage -- aquare fooCage, setbacke, loE <br />must be interior, etc. <br />Commisaion Member Fose stated the Commisoion must guard against <br />rewriting ihe ordinance everytime somethinq comea up. On the 75' <br />lota, 8U-906 are not ~evalopera, they ace individuals who own <br />big lots. mhe 150' split wae approved to allow the homesteadera <br />with hig lot~ and big assesaments to sabdivide., mhare aren't many <br />lote left like that. <br />Commiseion Membe: Burmeister agreed, but stated we're alao op~ning <br />it up for dev~lopers to use the C:odo the way we did not intan3. <br />Offi.cial Rose pointed out thst the subflivislon ordinance etates <br />iand muet be subdivi3ed to ita maximum and sai3 he sees no o~ay <br />to stiffen up the minor subdivision coae. <br />Chairparson Haake asked if Chapter 4p.04 Subdivision C(3) etatee <br />th~ sAmA thing as the old zaning code polic,y. Official Rose indicated <br />~ that section refers to lots being buiidahle, not to eubdlvision. <br />~ <br />;- <br />r <br />x <br />