2003 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

. . ,, .. . ._ : : . _ , . , , � . ^:,..�� —�--_.� .�, _ _ _ � �; : . � �; _ , _ ^ . � .�, . L ... .� ,__ ..� �.�� Longview Estates Neighborhood Meeting May 22, 2001 Page 2 together, depending upon the offers received. Many of the residents commented that higher valued homes would be out-of-place in the neighborhood. The Mayor asked Mr. Harstad to respond to that that issue as to how he planned to address neighborhood "continuity." While not necessarily prepared to discuss the continuity or potential discontinuity of the project, Mr. Harstad explained that these kinds of developments, barring the imposition of restrictive covenants, were driven by the free marlcet. If people want to build more expensive homes, they will. I also explained that there is often a cycle by which over time, some neighborhoods evolve from predominately smaller homes to larger ones that more efficiently utilize the larger lots. A new development such as this may generate renewed interest in expanding upon or otherwise making improvements to the existing homes, which is a benefit to everyone in the area. One resident asked about the property tax consequence of living next to more expensive housing. A few residents wondered about the role the City had in protecting the interests of the new homeowners and the existing residents. I explained that our building official would be onsite to perform all necessary and required inspections and would ensure that the structures were being built in complete conformance to all applicable City and state building codes. Granted, the inspector cannot be on-site eight hours a day to ensure that no corners are cut, however, as Mr. Harstad interjected, we live in an increasingly litigious society and if tl�e new house were deficient in any way, the builder and contractor would be held liable. It would not be in anyone's best interest to put forth a substandard product. One resident felt that there wouldn't be a problem making sure all the codes were adhered to as they had just done an addition and the City inspector was always there checking on the work and performing inspections. Other questions were raised about the "buildability" of this lot and the fact that many years ago some residents were told the lot was unbuildable. Someone aslced about when the property was rezoned to allow construction of any lcind, as it had been zoned "wetland" at one time which prohibited any construction whatsoever. I explained that to my recollection, the lot was never "prohibitively zoned" and that it was originally zoned single family residential based on a 1961 zoning map. A few long-term residents recalled a point when the strip fronting Silver Lake Road was zoned Commercial while the interior part of the lot fronting Longview had been zoned Multi- family. Mr. Harstad confirmed this recollection. It was not known however when the land was rezoned back to single-family residential. As for the suitability of the soils and "buildability" of the parcel, I explained that many lots in Mounds View had at one time been considered unbuildable, but due to market conditions and metro-area land shortages, these lots thought unsuitable for development are now being developed. The following list recaps soine of the issues raised by the residents, in no particular order: ?? Tree loss within 90 feet of Longview Drive ?? Water table & flooding, wetland buffer ?? Existence of a creelc? ?? Potential high-valued homes out of place with existing homes ?? Intrusive truck and construction activity ?? Restrictive covenants? ?? Assurances and Controls, adherence to City and state building codes ?? Examples of flooded basements, sinlcing driveway