01-05-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the circumstances leading to the City’s control of Lot 4. Planning Associate Ericson explained that when the SMUDER Addition was platted in 1968, it was assumed that the property on this side of Laport Drive would be similarly developed, and that an additional 30 feet of right-of-way would be platted as well. He pointed out that this would have resulted in a standard size right-of-way, however, it never occurred. He indicated Lot 4 went tax-forfeit a number of years ago, and ownership reverted to the County. He advised that the City does not own the property, however, no development can occur on the lot without the City’s interaction. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that if the DeGross’ decide to subdivide or develop their property, and choose to dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way to improve Laport Drive, it would be unwise to grant a variance to allow for the 10-foot setback on the applicant’s property. He explained that although there is no guarantee that this will occur, the fact that the possibility exists may create sufficient reason to prevent granting a variance in this case. Commissioner Kaden inquired regarding the amount of frontage the DeGross’ own along Faber Street. Planning Associate Ericson stated that according to the half-section map, they own 220 feet of frontage. Mrs. DeGross stated they would definitely build, adding that they have already selected plans for four houses to be constructed on their property. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the applicant had requested a variance on this property a few weeks earlier. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He stated the applicant was permitted to utilize the roadway by Limited Use Agreement. Commissioner Miller inquired if a different configuration of the house might prevent the necessity for the variance. Spencer Mistelske, the applicant, stated the only other configuration discussed was possibly turning the structure 90 degrees, however, this would not make sense, as the house would face the opposite direction. He explained that if the area were developed, most of the homes would likely face Laport Drive. Mrs. DeGross stated they plan to build two houses facing east, and two houses facing north. Chairperson Peterson inquired if Lot 2 was also available to the applicant. Mr. Mistelske, stated he was the owner of Lot 2, and at this time he was uncertain regarding his plans for this lot, which were somewhat dependent upon what occurred that evening. He noted that the neighbors to the east of his property were interested in purchasing this lot to expand their