My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1980/02/28
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
Agenda Packets - 1980/02/28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2025 12:36:35 PM
Creation date
3/31/2025 12:32:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/28/1980
Description
Regular Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Regular Meeting <br />Page-6---------------------------------- <br />___-_March_19,_1980 <br />Fedor asked what was being done about existing <br />6. PRELIMINARY CONCEPT <br />drainage ditches. Rose replied that any existing <br />R£VIEWAL P.U.D. <br />drainage facilities would be respected, modified <br />(continued) <br />or Improved, but that the system would continue to <br />work under the criteria of Resolution N983. <br />Burmeister asked if the swimming beach was a high <br />priority. Anderson stated it was. She further asked <br />Kraus -Anderson if the middle 22.9 acres could not have <br />a mixture of R-I to R-3 uses. Cremers, for Kraus - <br />Anderson, stated he thought the tract was too small for <br />a good mix. <br />Glazer asked if the pond was necessary regarding Resolu- <br />tion #983. Boxrud stated possibly not all of it. Glazer <br />then stated he would like to preserve the natural setting <br />as much as possible, to protect the water as it exists. <br />McCarthy asked what density Kraus -Anderson had planned <br />for the southwest corner. Cremers, for Kraus -Anderson, <br />stated single family dwellings. That they wanted to <br />protect and preserve the rolling character. McCarthy <br />also stressed the need for minimum access to existing <br />arterials and the use of an interior road system. Cremers <br />agreed that this was important and was in their plans. <br />McCarthy asked to what extent were Kraus -Anderson's lake <br />development plans; were they going to seed and provide <br />bank control? Cremers said that it was mandatory by <br />outside agencies. <br />Chairperson Mountin asked if there were any more <br />questions. There were none. <br />Haake presented the following motion, seconded by <br />Burmeister. <br />Whereas, the City has indicated its desire that <br />the site known as Kraus-Anderson/Miner property be used <br />as mixed zoning, i.e., commercial, R-4, R-3, R-2 and <br />R-l; and <br />Whereas, the City desires to swap the park land <br />consisting of 16.9 acres on the southwest corner to <br />the northwest corner and to acquire an additional pur- <br />chase of park land with L.A.W.C.O.N. funds; and <br />Whereas, the developer will satisy Resolution <br />No. 9� the development of Oak Park Lake; and <br />Whereas, the developer will adhere to a ring road <br />concept; <br />WE MAKE THE MOTION to recommend to the Council the <br />approval of the Preliminary Concept Proposal as presented <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.