Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View city Council %@ %' 1:,t, i •-f � % y —,� + April 22, 1985 <br />Regular Meeting 'v6' s� d G . ,� �...Li Page Six <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />the rational used by the City of Bloomington in <br />granting the change and variance required for lot <br />sizes. <br />Mr. Haas presented sketches of the proposed lay- <br />out of the homes, as well as pictures of the homes <br />they built in Bloomington and the layout of the <br />Bloomington area. He explained that each lot <br />would have 50' of frontage at the building line. <br />He also added that the current residents of the <br />Mounds View development have expressed concern <br />in having double family homes built there, as they <br />feel it would detract from their homes. He also <br />stated the yy would be able to lower the cost of <br />each home by approximately $5,000 if granted the <br />smaller lot sizes. <br />Director Thatcher stated the developer has not <br />taken the density bonus on the lots in question. <br />Attorney Meyers reviewed the list of reasons for <br />granting variances and stated they could amend <br />the PUD. <br />Mr. Grueling explained that when Bloomington <br />approved the plan, they averaged all the lots <br />together, to come up with the sizes. <br />Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the options <br />available to the Council and stated that Staff <br />recommends they reject the appeal and send the <br />developer back to the Planning Commission to <br />amend the PUD. <br />Motion/Second: Blanchard/Quick to deny the <br />appeal or Resolution No. 129-85, regarding 14. H. <br />Anderson Construction. <br />5 ayes 0 nays ?lotion Carried <br />Councilmember Blanchard stated her reason for <br />the denial was the same as the Planning Commissions, <br />to uphold the zoning code. <br />The Council reviewed the requirements that <br />would have to be met by the developer, of 3 acres, <br />200' frontage and a ten percent density bonus. <br />Motion/Second: Quick/Haake to refer back to <br />the Planning Commission Case 165-85 for N. H. <br />Anderson Construction, with the recommendation <br />that they amend the PUD with the ten percent <br />density bonus, to be considered at the next <br />Planning Commission meeting. <br />5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br />