HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090-000028_pg51- 5 -
Milton Stole, planning commission chairman asked if it was the intent of the
ordinance to allow substandard lots. He stated the parcel of land should be
large enough for code size lots. He said the major opposition to the original
plan seemed to be the position of a townhouse facing Long Lake Road.
Attorney Meyers read from the Zoning Ordinance in reference to P.U.D. Section 9. 1 -2.
He stated the plan would have to go back to the Planning Commission for their approval
if he wanted to use P.U.D. P.U.D. has never been used in Mounds View before. Attorney
Meyers stated that under P.R.D. (Planned Residential District) given certain factors,
you can have smaller lots.
Attorney Meyers asked how many building lots Mr. Harstad would lose on his 3rd.
proposal. Mr. Harstad answered 5 lots.
Mr. Harstad stated that if he could not get one of the proposals approved tonight
he would have no alternative but to run the streets straight out to Long Lake Road.
Mr. Perkins, 2559 Woodale wanted to know where the land donation would be if the
streets are run straight out. Mr. Harstad answered that it would be a 158 foot
strip on the end between the drainage ditch and Long Lake Road.
Mr. Tom Erwin, inquired if there were any plans for the proposed drainage ditch
at Highway #10 and Long Lake Road. Engineer Boehm answered yes, there was a
ditch but there were no plans for conduit at this time. When more development
takes place there would be more run off and a need at that time.
Mr. Harold Hjelle, 5161 Red Oak Drive asked why the sublot problem again at this
time. Mayor Neisen stated that it was news to him tonight. Attorney Meyers stated
it had been in the ordinance since 1960.
Councilman Johnson asked if Mr. Harstad had recently read any of the real estate
development trade magazines regarding residential development planning. Councilman
Johnson stated he thought the proposal had to many straight lines and square lots.
He suggested cul -de -sacs or cluster housing.
Tim Kishel, 5242 Long Lake Road stated he agreed with some of Mr. Harstads things
but didn't think the 158 foot strip was a good idea. He thought a 300 foot plus
area for parks would be better. He didn't object to living across the street from
the park area. He liked Plan 2 and found no objections with the 80 foot lot plan.
Mayor Neisen reminded us that the park plan had been defeated last fall.
Mr. Harstad stated this park would belong to the Home Owners Association and would
be just for the people in the area. It would not be a public park.
Mayor Neisen stated that the private home is a burden on the Village, it doesn't
pay its own way.
Mrs. Barbara Haake, a planning commission member asked if the private park would
meet the ordinance for land or money donatinn to the Village. The answer was that
it would. Mr. Harstad stated he would be willing to spend more than 10 %.
Mr. Perkins was not in favor of a private park. The kids have just as much fun
playing in the weeds. He felt the people would like open space area.
Mr. Harstad was asked why it was economical to run the streets thru when he
'wouldn't develop that lower area. Mr. Harstad answered there would be four to
seven more lots. He would bring in turnapoles to dig out the peet.