Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MOUND9 VIEW PLANNING COMMI3STON <br />Page 4 <br />'____`__~^__-___`-__"_"________________`___~~_~___ <br />- What is the developern proportiionste ehare oF <br />^ r~eponaibi].ity to prutect and pzeeerve tihe <br />~ 1 watland area per UNR and Rice Cxeek Watershed. <br />- Cancerne over the pra~ervation of R-1 zoninq <br />north of CounCy Rond I. <br />- Diecuseion of the Eeanibility oE try3nq the <br />developer'e request for rezoning to the r~queet <br />for ma~or eubdivieion. <br />Ragular Meeting <br />Oatober 15, J,980 <br />'__-......"'-"..-'.,_e_ <br />Mr. Eiqenheer indicated that Lot 6 on County AoaR T <br />could remain R-1 ehould the City detr~rmine that tha <br />lot Erontaqe is insufficient. Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, an@ 9 <br />will front on Couaty Road I and the homee will be <br />eet ba~;k even uith tho exlatinq home aebbaak as indi- <br />catefl on the draw3nga~ <br />Keith Nelson, Chiaf Engineer Eor the develoPar„ state3 <br />that he had conCacl•ed the DNR and that they havQ no <br />juriadiction over the property. He aleo atatfl3 that <br />th~e Rice Creak Waterahed Hoard is more interested in <br />the final streat layout and the eEforts of run-cif.f <br />an$ ero~~on than in the pra~ueed lnyout. <br />Commiesion Miller le£t - 9:30 p.m. <br />MOTION/SECONDs <br />;~~i Glazar/MCCarthy moved to recommend to the Council <br />`~~% that the requaet of Robert Eiganheer for a ma~or <br />subdiv3sian (1 lot into 20) in the property Located <br />north of, County Boad I and eaet oE Edqewood Dri've <br />be denied. <br />The reason for this negative reaommendatiox is <br />f.ounded on the undesired portion of the plan which <br />calla Por the rezoning of Eive lots along County <br />Road i from R-1 to R-2. Such rezoning aonverking <br />8-1 zoaed ]and into R-2 rent land does little tc <br />aoneerve existing opportunitiee Yar the ownerehip <br />of pr:ivate property by prospective home seekera <br />an4 will noti aomplimant tne adjacent R-1 homes. <br />The rational of creat3ng rontal. uni.ts to absorb the <br />negative impacte oP higher use J.and acrose the <br />street is not in keeping with our Compreheneive <br />Plan'e goalo and poliaiea. The Eaot that rezoninq <br />of R^I lote hae been granted in part on the north <br />aide of County Road I or bhe preeent proapeat of <br />greater r.eturna to the developer from an R-2 zoning <br />is aoaeidered poor justiEiaation Eor recommending <br />approval. <br />Ayea-4 Naye-2 (Warren, Mauntin) <br />-- Reaeon for Nay vota - Warren: The motion is unalaar, <br />but ik appeare that the plet ie being denied only <br />beaeuee of the R-2 zoning. Meuntinr Conaure with <br />Warren. <br />MOTION CARRIE6 <br />