My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1985-06-05 PC Minutes
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1985
>
1985-06-05 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2009 3:46:17 PM
Creation date
8/28/2018 8:25:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View Planning Comnieaion June 5, 1985 <br />~egular Meeting Pase Two <br />---^-'-°--------------------^---------------°-~------°-----°°-°---- <br />,~ Chairman ~ountin edvi~ed the Co~nisaionero ra proceed <br />~ i very carefully ae ~hey would be oatting preeedence tf <br />" they allowed the 12 1ota. Bha etat~d eho would ~ueCify <br />11, but 12 would be a gray area, <br />Mr. Haae rEminded the Planning Commiaeiou they orould <br />be reducinA the deneity with 12 eingle £cunily homea <br />varsue 16 twin homee, He etated they have ample <br />equaro footabe in the rxrea, it ,~ust muet be avereged <br />out. <br />Diractor Thtacher pointed out that hed the area been <br />plannad differently fxom the etart, they could iiave <br />held Y2 uniCS there, coneidering the total develop-• <br />mettt, but muah of tha area has already been planned <br />ar~d conatrncted as a PUD. <br />Thor Winetrom, of Kraue/Ander.son, st~ted it was their <br />feel3ng that twin ho*aee would nut be attdactive and <br />urgad the Planning Co~isaion to accept the 12 units, <br />ae it would ba a decreasa in deneity and more <br />deeirable. He addad tho exietittg homo ownars are <br />opposed tn the twin home concept. <br />Mr. Aaae atated he knows of 15 residente of the <br />~. development who are opposed to the twin home idea, <br />aad wi11 be atten;~i.ng the Cuuncil meer,~,ng to voioe <br />~' their opinion, Ae also pointad out that the E'UD <br />ullowe for change as e development proceeds. <br />Co~isai.oper M3.ller arrived at 7eS9 PM, <br />After discuseion among the Coumtiseioners, it was <br />agreed that while the Council ie itttereeted in <br />seeing it go to aingle family, the Plsnning <br />Co~ission has mixed feelin~s on allowing 12 <br />units, while ll units cen be supporced by cne i,oun, <br />w1Ch variances for 3 lote required £or 11 lota, <br />but a significant nuraber more if 12 lots are <br />allowed. <br />Mr. Hase reemphasized that they meet the requira- . <br />ments for tl~e lots sizes under the PUD with the <br />exception,of needing square foota~e variances for <br />8 loCe, but have the neeeasary total equara footage. <br />He eCSted that th~ 12 lots wnuld be very buildable <br />LUi.B. <br />Chairman Mountin atated ehe raould liF;e to see a <br />reoolution writtan out, us3.ttg a mathematiaal <br />fnrmula, specifyin~ each lot and what atze iC <br />"'~, woixld be and whnt variance would be required for it, <br />r <br />~ Mr. Haas reminded the Planning Co~niseionere that <br />thay had to give up an additional 14' right of way <br />along the eaet eide of Silver Lake Raad, and had <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.