01-05-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission January 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 hand. He advised however, that simply being aware that these possibilities exist might shed light on the request before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Hegland inquired if Lot 5 was developable. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is a house on Lot 5. He explained that a number of lots in the City which were developed many years ago do not meet the current minimum lot size requirements. Commissioner Miller inquired if a cul-de-sac would be necessary, if Faber Street was developed. Planning Associate Ericson reiterated that any number of possibilities exist. Chairperson Peterson stated since Mounds View is primarily developed, the issue of re- development also arises. He indicated that re-development is an area the City has become involved in, and that is also another possibility that should be considered. Mr. DeGross stated his proposal completely eliminates Faber Street. He suggested another possibility would be for the applicant to sell half of Lot 2, and move the proposed location of the house. Commissioner Kaden inquired if Mr. DeGross’ proposal indicates three new houses constructed on one half of their existing lot, along Laport Drive? Mrs. DeGross commented that if the applicant’s proposal is approved, and Faber Street is not developed, they would simply construct a house in their back yard. Chairperson Peterson advised that houses could only be constructed upon established, improved roads. Mrs. DeGross remarked that the applicant was not building on an improved road. Commissioner Johnson advised that the applicant was not proposing to build three houses, and subdividing property. Mrs. DeGross stated the applicant was proposing to build a 400-foot driveway. Chairperson Peterson advised that it is typical for the developer to be responsible for the initial costs of constructing a street, when more than one house is built on that street at the same time. He explained that after that point, the City pays all of the maintenance costs, with possible assessments to the property owners. Planning Associate Ericson reiterated that this is discussion for another meeting, and the fact that these possibilities exist should provide sufficient information to direct staff to draft a resolution of approval or denial of the variance request. Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding the amount of wetland in the area. Planning Associate Ericson explained that he had drawn in a loosely defined boundary of the City controlled wetlands on the plat map contained in the Staff Report. He stated this boundary is within two or