My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1980-03-27
MoundsView
>
City Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1980-03-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2022 12:21:41 PM
Creation date
9/5/2014 9:25:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Documnet Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MpUNVS N�f.'� p�ANNING COMMISSIDN Regular Meeting � <br />Page.s_�__•__..�-'---'-"-'°°-'---------------------°--°-'°-'-----°Mareh_ I��_IS80 <br />Sktba sE�te3 his concerns had been answered. 6. PRELIMINARY CONCEP� <br />' REVIEMAL P.U.D. <br />NcGrtAy quest6oned the feaslbil(ty of [he office (continued) <br />bulldings on the marginsl land above County Road I. <br />Further, where would the existtng ponded water drain to. <br />loxrud, of Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, stated that the <br />area would draln to the lake and that there ass capacity <br />for tha 260 scre drainage district to meet the require- <br />ments of Resolution �983 with the Applicant's report. <br />McCarthy further questioned the control of Kraus- <br />Anderson over the land they might sell to another <br />developer. <br />traners stated that Kraus-Anderson would exercise the � <br />controls of the ftnal P.U.D. approval documents. <br />Glazer stated he could appreciate Kraus-Anderson's effort <br />in thts tro years of planning, but that this was the first <br />Planning Commission review. Glazer asked Cremers if <br />there was a need for elderly housing tn Mounds View. <br />:remers stated he was under the belief that there was and <br />that flnancing tould also be obtained. Glazer further <br />questloned whether or not we gain s[orage capacity comparing � <br />[he existing pond with the proposxd one. lo:.rad stated � <br />that the City gatns storage. Glazer then as4ed if, with � <br />the enl+rganent of the pond, the nutrient balance needs <br />would stay the same. Boxrud stated that he thought there <br />would be �deqwte vegetatton around the perimeter of the <br />pond but thst if the DNR or RCVO wanted more, the L{ty <br />could Just repuiea less exc�vation in cert�in ereas. <br />Furth�r discusslon centered around the need for open space <br />and the fealing that the proposed l�ke/pond met that <br />raquirament. <br />Mountin questioned the feesibility of the sw �ning beach. <br />Rose referred to S.E.H.'s report stating ehat there were <br />a number of f�ctors. The final plan for the lake and <br />beach should be pl�nned in tha P.U.D. process. Boxrud <br />added that an add�tionel study m�y be necessary, de- <br />pending on haw the proposal is cha�yed by outside <br />�yanctes. �f at •11. <br />Maake questfoned the need for a beach with Spring Lake <br />so na�r. The zoning of the middle 22.9 residential <br />noted aeres was asked. Cremers stated that he would <br />be wllliny to yo medtum density. Haake felt that at <br />this t�me maybe everytbing should be noted R-I. <br />touncll m«nber Farslund spoke and asked that the ! <br />ilanniny Caimisslon qive tbe Applicent direction so � <br />that h� can continue. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.