HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-1975 TO 12-17-1975 PC 1110
AGENDA
(revised)
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
January 8, 1975
Special Meeting
7:30 P.M.
Items for consideration:
1 . Dennis Erickson. Property involved - 5235 Sunnyside Road
Variance requested to reduce required rear yard setback
by 2' 4".
2. Edward Paster. Property involved - Mounds View Square Shopping
center.
Review final plans for satellite building and parking
provisions. (see five attachments included)
3. Revision of zoning ordinance - work session.
•
111/0
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
February 26, 1975
7:30 P.M.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Kenneth Breault. Property involved - 5405 Adams Street
Variance request to add onto present garage
existing garage (24 X 26) proposed garage (24 X 28)
2. Robert Carlson, Brentwood Development Co. _ The West
375 feet of Lots 2, 3, 4, Auditor's Subdivision. 89.
Major subdivision request, preliminary plat of
White Oak Estates #4.
3. Richard Carlson. Property involved - The west 380 feet of
Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision 89. 380 feet X 268.05 feet
located West of Spring Lake Road.
Sketch Plan (Non-fee) item, Briar Lake Plat
111/0 4. Albert Hartinger. Property involved - 2375 Highway 10
Launching Pad Supper Club
Discuss possible addition of a 32 lane bowling alley
adjoining the Launching Pad Supper Club.
5. Harley Rasmussen. Property involved - 8380 Red Oak Drive
Major subdivision - Except Red Oak Dr. , the No. 202.5 ft.
of the So. 2430 ft. of the West 528 ft. of the NE quarter
(NE 114) of Section 6, Tnshp 30, Range 23, also except
therefrom the No. 95 feet of the East 236.5 feet; all in
111/0
AGENDA111/
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
March 26, 1975
7:30 P.M.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Albert Hartinger. Property involved - Ex N. 33 ft. for
County Road H2, Part of NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 NELY of
L PAR with and 150 ft. NELY from CL of STH 10/62 IN Section
8,TNSP 30, RNG 23
Rezoning for purpose of adding a 32 lane bowing alley
adjoining the Launching Pad Supper Club,
2. Alvin Hillsdale. Property involved - 7850 Spring Lake Road
Subdivision (minor)
3. Lloyd Bardwell. Property involved - 8493 Spring Lake Road
Subdivision (minor)
4. Charles Hall. Property involved - 2200 Highway 8, Mermaid •
Supper Club.
Discuss proposed addition of 24 lane bowling alley(non-fee item)
5. Francis Widger. Property involved - 8425 Red Oak Drive
Subdivision (major) discussion of possible subdivision -
(non-fee item)
6. Robert Carlson. Property involved - West 375 feet of Lots 2,
- , A Au.i or s -u..ivision
Subdivision (major) final platting of White Oak Estates #4.
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
April 23, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. (fee) Alvin Hillsdale. Property involved - 7850 Spring Lake Road
Subdivision (minor)
2. (fee) Al Hartinger represented by Nick Palaia. Launching Pad
Supper Club, 2375 Highway 10.
Rezoning - proposed bowling alley
3. (non fee) Mr. Keith Harstad. Property involved - Edgewood between
County Road I and Hillview.
111/0 Street surfacing. Council request for recommendation.
4. (fee) Timothy Lewis. Property involved - 8331 Red Oak Drive
Subdivision (minor)
5. (fee) Richard L. and Leipha J. Hull. Property involved - 8303 Red
Oak Drive.
Subdivision (minor)
6. (non-fee) Vilnis Vilinskis. Property involved - new Raymond Avenue
proposed projcct, (scc attached map) .
Discuss trailer sales lot.
7. (fee) Herwal Inc. , represented by Milton Glass. Unplatted Lands,
Ex S 2835 ft. and Ex W 2112 ft. the NE 1/4 (Subj . to Hwy. and Rds.) in
Section 6, Twnshp. 30, Range 23
Rezoning - proposed diesel repair shop
8. Notification of Permit Application, State of Mn. Dept. of Natural
Resources, Div. of Waters, Soils and Minerals
AGENDA
11111
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 28, 1975
7:30 P.M.
Items for consideration:
1 Howard Moechnig, Soil Conservation Service, will explain the
services available through S.C.S. (Non-Fee)
2 Harley Rasmussen, 8380 Red Oak Drive, requests major subdivision
to divide his parcel into three lots. (Fee)
3 James Vleck, 7920 Groveland Road, requests variance to erect 768
square foot residential garage. (Fee)
4 Kenneth Breault, 5405 Adams Street, requests variance to erect
residential garage addition which will create a 984 square foot
garage. (Fee)
5 Ronald M. Julkowski , 7989 Woodlawn Drive, requests variance
to erect 851 square foot residential garage. (Fee)
6 Ronald Michna, 2669 Scotlant Court, Apt. 112, requests minor
subdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Clearview Addition (corner of
111/1 7 Y Edgewood Drive and County Road H2) , to make three lots total . (Fee)
Ervin Herbst 2299 Count Road H, requests building permit to erect
Perkins Cake and Steak restaurant north of Mermaid Lounge. (Non-Fee)
8 Richard S. Carlson, Briar Homes Inc. , requests vacation of five
foot strip easement on Lot 2 of Block 1 and Lot 2 of Block 2,
Briar Lake Plat. (Fee)
9 Kenneth Kruger, 2900 County Road J , requests discussion of possible
subdivision. (Non-Fee)
10 Invald Johnson, 8384 Long Lake Road, requests minor subdivision.
(Fee)
AGENDA111/1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
June 25, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. (fee) Frederick McCluskey. Property involved - 8011 Long Lake Road.
Variance request to add to house
2. (fee) Robert J. Tieso, attorney for L. Skog. Property involved -
7465 Spring Lake Road.
Minor subdivision
3. (fee) Orville Morrow. Property involved - 7864 Long Lake Road.
Variance request to install second driveway
111/1 4. (fee) Ingvald Johnson. Property involved - 8384 Long Lake Road.
Major subdivision
5. (fee) Karl and Joyce Plasch. Property involved - 8255 Eastwood Rd.
Minor subdivision
6. (fee) K ? L Diesel 4 Development Consultants (Milton Glass) . Property
involved - Unplatted lands Ex S 2835 ft. and Ex W 2112 ft. the NE 1/4
(subj to hwy and rds) in Sec. 6, twnsp. 30, range 23.
S
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
July 23, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. (fee) Ingvald Johnson. Property involved - 8384 Long Lake Road
presentation of preliminary plat (Ingvald Johnson Terrace)
2. (fee) Michael E. White. Property involved - The E. 528 feet of the
W. 2112 feet of the N. 105 feet of the S. 2130 feet of the NE 1/4 of
Sec. 6, T30, R23 subject to Eastwood Road and Greenwood Drive
Minor subdivision
3. (fee) Donald Balk, Property involved - 2696 County Road J.
Major subdivision
111/1 4. (fee) Gerald Fields. Property involved - 2255 Lambert Avenue
Variance -lawn-garden building
X 20 lawn g
SPECIAL
Mr. David Licht, Midwest Planning
J
se
PUBLIC HEARING
111/1 Agenda
Mounds View's New Comprehensive Plan .
August 13, 1975
8100 p.m.
Mounds View City Hall
I. Introduction
A. What is a Comprehensive Plan?
B. Why is the Plan updated?
II. Community Goals and Policies (G & P)s
A. General Community G & P
B. Residential G & P
C. Commercial G & P
D. Industrial G & P
E. Transportation G & P
F. Community Facilities G & P
III. What does Mounds View have now? A visual inventory,
A. Existing Zoning
B. Development pressures and opportunities
C. Community Facilities
IV. Proposed Land Use Plan - visual
A. Conceptual Framework
B. Planning Districts
C. Proposed Land Use Map
D. Compariebn statistics from 1959, existing 1975 and proposed
1975 plans
V. Question and Answer Period
During presentation, write down questions you may have and
ask them here.
INTRODUCTION
111/1 The basic intent of the Comprehensive Community Plan is to provide
a coordinated decision-making framework to guide development and
change within the community. The result of the plan, properly
constituted and carried out, is a more desirable and functional
environment in which to live and work; it is a community with
better housing, better traffic circulation and in general, a
more desirable and efficient use of both public and private land.
The City of Mounds View undertook its first comprehensive planning
effort in 1959. Since that time significant changes have occurred
within the entire Metropolitan Area. The Planning Commission there-
fore has undertaken the task of preparing an update of the original
Comprehensive Plan. This update involved a complete rexamination
of all areas that affect future development patterns in Mounds View.
The process utilized in undertaking this task is illustrated in
both written and graphic form as follows.
Elements of the Planning Process
Community Inventory. This constitutes the groundwork of research
and analysis of past and existing conditions which characterize
the community. Such information, although useful, by itself
can be meaningful for planning purposes only after systematic
interpretation. Although the bulk of this work takes place
111/1 during the initial stages of the process, it also occurs during
all subsequent stages through continuous reinterpretation.
Community Resources. The most important element of the planning
process is the contribution from the community itself. This
contribution takes place at all stages and levels. The planners
who undertake a comprehensive plan effort are to be considered
as technical assistants who offer the various tools and alter-
natives of the planning process to the community. Decisions,
in all instances, are made by the community itself. Although
various groups and individuals are offered the opportunity to
contribute, the bulk of the goundwork in the formulation and
effectuation of the *Ian is done b the Planning Commission
which is considered to represent all diverse opinions of the
larger community. -
111/1
Goals and Policies. Goal determination is inherent in the
definition of the planning process. Realization of an end
111/1 requires clear definition and understanding of this end.
A goal is the end toward which all effort is directed, while
a policy is a definite course of action which leads toward
a goal. Goals and policies are set relatively early in the
planning process, however, this does not preclude that they
cannot be revised at any later stage.
Functional Plans. The several components of the plan have to
be analyzed and developed independently before they can be
synthesized into the final development plan. The components
of the plan vary with each community. Relative to Mounds View,
the significant functional plans include: (1) land use, (2)
transportation, and (3) community facilities. The synthesis
of all functional plans produces the overall development plan.
Effectuation. As any other public document, the plan is only
as good as its implementation. It is in the effectuation of
the plan that the community at large assumes its most signifi-
cant responsibility in the planning process. Through the tools
at its disposal, the community may apply the policies that it
has developed.
•
SOME FIGURES-- -
111/1 The 1959 Comprehensive Plan for Mounds View stated: 2,607 Acres of land in
Mounds View. (Approximately 20% of the land goes for roads, or 521.40 Acres.)
There are 2,085.60 Acres of developable land in Mounds View.
The 1959 Comprehensive Plan suggested a population for Mounds View of 17,000-
the proposed 1975 Comp. Plan suggests a population of 21,000.
Below are some comparisons all approximate:
— 11959 Comp. Plan y Existing, 1975 Proposed, 1975
IR-; (ld) 1,228 Acres , 1,430.98 Acres* 1 1,373.63 Acres*
jR-2 (md) ° 22 24.06 144.04**
T
R-3 (md) 78 167.04
R-4 (hd) 78.12
R-0 18.66
B_1) 48 28.80
IB-2) -(hc) 9 7.93 115.90
B-3) 126 205.50**
(nc), 4.15
111/1 a
I-1) 237 221.29 244.61
_(I,
I-2)
(PUD) i 106.49
Public 206
Lands
i
kOTAL 1,954 Acres 2,085.60 2,085.60 Acres
*These R-1 acreages include the below listed Parks and Schools:
• - - . .
Lambert, 3.2A; Oakwood, 2.4A; Woodcrest, 2.8A: Groveland 4.1A;
Lakeside, 11.0A; Silver Lake, 16.6A; Ardan, 8.8A; Total, 99.6 Acres.
Red Oak School, 4.0A; Pinewood School, 9.1A; Edgewood School, 36.0A.
Total, 49.1 Acres.
**Includes Mobile Home Park Acreage of: 19.13 (Mounds View Mobile Home
Park) ; 38.49 (Towns Edge) ; 25.21 (Colonial Village) . Total, 82.83 Acres.
Still undeveloped land in Mounds View:
R-2 15.75 Acres
R-3 79.33
111/1 B-1 28.80
B-2 5.28
B-3 73.46
LI 194.68
397.30 Acres
a
DEFINITIONS--
Comprehensive Plan: Basically, a Comprehensive Plan is an official public
111/1
document adopted by a local government as a policy guide to decisions about
the physical development of the community. The plan is both general and
long range in nature. "General" means that the pian summarizes policies and
proposals and does not indicate specific locations or detailed regulations.
"Long range" indicates that the plan looks beyond the foreground of pressing
current issues to the perspective of problems and possibilities 10, 20, and
30 years in the future. While it is long range in nature, it is also used
to shape current development so the community might approximate in 20 years
the appearance of the comprehensive }plan.
R-1: Single Family Residence District.
R-2: Two-Family Residence District.
R-3: General Residence District.
B-i: Limited Business District.
B-2: Retail Business District.
B-3: General Business District.
I-1: Light Industrial District.
ld (R-1) : Low density single family detached residential dwelling units.
and (R-2) : Low to moderate density, single and two-family residential district
of one and two unit dwellings.
~gid (R-3) : Medium Density Residentail District, multiple family structures
• ranging up to and including six (6) units.
hd (R-4): High density, multiple family & ellings.
R-O: Residential-Office District, for high density residential use and for
the transition in land use from residential to low intensity business
allowing for the intermixing of such uses.
hc(B-1) : Neighborhood Business District, to provide for the establishment
of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service out-
lets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or
services are furnished.
hc: (B-2) : Limited Business District, to provide for low intensity, retail
or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whoa the
goods or services are furnished.
hc (B-31: Highway Business District, to provide for and limit the establish-
- n'enL of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service
activities.
nc: Small neighborhood convenience grocery stores or dairy stores, etc.
I (I-i) : Light Industrial District, to provide for the establishment of
warehousing and light industrial development and use and to provide
for a transition between retail and service type of commercial activity
and heavy industrial use.
I (I-2) : Heavy Industrial District, to provide for heat!), industrial and
111/1
manufacturing development and use which requires isolation from
residential or commercial.uses.
110
PUD: Planned Unit Development. To provide for the grouping of land parcels
for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to
traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporatic and unplanned approach
to development. It is intended to introduce flexibility of site design
and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through
clustering of buildings and activities through conditional use provisions.
It is further intended that Planned Unit Developments are to be charac-
terized by central management, integrated planning and architecture,
joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space and other
similar facilities, and a harmonious selection and efficient distri-
bution of uses.
11111
1110
PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda
Mounds View's New Comprehensive Plan
August 13, 1975
800 p.m.
Mounds View City Hall
I. Introduction
A. What is a Comprehensive'Plan?
B. Why is the Plan updated?
II. Community Goals and Policies (G & P)11
A. General Community G & P
B. Residential °G & P
C. Commercial-G & P /
D. Industrial G & P
E. Transportation G & P
F. Community Facilities G & P
III. What does Mounds View have now? A visual inventory,
A. Existing Zoning
B. Development pressures and opportunities
111/1 C. Community Facilities
IV. Proposed Land Use Plan - visual
A. Conceptual Framework
B. Planning Districts
C. Proposed Land Use Map
D. Compariabn statistics from 1959, existing 1975 and proposed
1975 plans
V. Question and Answer Period
During presentation, write down questions you may have and
ask them here.
111/1
MEMORANDUM111/0
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Staff
DATE: August 22, 1975
RE: 1. Donald R. Balk, 2656 County Road J .
2. Sylvia Thomas, 5323 Jackson Drive
1. As of this morning, August 22, 1975, we have not received a preliminary
plat from Mr. Balk. Therefore the staff, city engineer and other
approving agencies have not been able to review the plat prior to
the Planning Commission.
2. This individual initially tasked to be on the agenda but paid no fee. He
may still come to the meeting and ask to be heard.
A contractor applied for a permit to build a garage for Sylvia Thomas,
5323 Jackson Drive without indicating there was an existing garage.
Ther permit was made out and the contractor laid footings and it was
not until the building inspector went to inspect footings that it
111/1 was discivered there was already a garage. (12 X 20 approximately) .
The owner came into city office to apply for a variance to have the
new driveway closer than five feet to the lot line (she had permission slip
from her neighbor and thought that was all there was to it) .
Mrs. Thomas was informed by staff that in addition to a variance she
would also need to apply for special use permit to have present garage
for an amount of time deemed reasonable to remodel as part of house, which
she indicated as her intention. After further discussion it was discovered
that she really wanted to use the first garage for the car in the winter
because the new garage would be hard to get to in the snow and she doesn't
bikes, snowmobiles, etc. , which they do not have room for in present
garage. They also have an accessory building at the present time.
AGENDA111/1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
August 27, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION.
1. Public hearing 7:30 p.m. on comprehensive plan and proposed
resolution recommending plan to City Council
2. (fee) Marvin Schluter. Property involved - 8312 Spring Lake Road
minor subdivision
3. (fee) Jerry Ackermann. Property involved - 8454 Spring Lake Road
minor subdivision
4. (fee) Donald Gimpel. Property involved - 7500 Knollwood Drive
minor subdivision
5. (fee) Richard Carlson. Property involved - Briar Lake major subdivision
111/0
on new Pleasantview Drive
major subdivision
•
4
REVISED
AGENDA
11111 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
September 24, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Donald Balk. Property involved - 2656 County Road J (fee)
major subdivision
2. Marvin Schluter. Property involved - 8312 Spring Lake Road (fee)
minor subdivision
3. Arlue Smith. Property involved - 8461 Groveland Road (fee)
minor subdivision
4. Ione Anderson. Property involved -7310 Silver Lake Road (fee)
minor subdivision
11111 5. Gerald Thomas. Property involved - 5323 Jackson Drive (fee)
variance
6. Larry Brogger. Property involved - 8316 Spring Lake Road
minor subdivision
7. Leroy Gunderson. Property involved - Colonial Village Trailer Court (no fee)
pole type garage (12 X 22)
g . :iem ons ruc ion ompany. reques or c ari Ica ion o i ems
regarding updated Comprehensive Plan (letter dated 8/22/75) .
Beim Construction Company
6750 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 123
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
Telephone: (612) 920-1556 Rt,yJG�:-;�,
August 22 , 1975 gl %
cO VoCC:1\1V c
1411
vtoiyaDS
`tJ�+
�,a
Barbara A . Haake
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Moundsview
2401 Highway 10
Moundsview, Minnesota 55112
Dear Mrs . Haake :
We believe that the Planning Commission has done a fine job
for the city with the new master zoning plan , but it does
present some problems and questions for us . We realize it
will take some time to implement the plan into actuality and
we have some planning to do ourselves , but we would appreciate
the present views of the Planning Commission on the following
410 items :
1 . The road system is being changed and the use of the land
is intended for a different purpose , so we assume the
parcel will have to be replatted.
a . We would like some latitude in helping to locate the
exact location of the roads and the boundary between
the commercial land and the light industrial land.
b , Since the city instituted this change , we would expect
no subdivision tax to accrue .
2 . Access to and egress from the commercial land must involve
the NW bound lane of Highway 10. Is there any way to give
access to the SW bound lane of Highway 107
3 . We would like to confirm the use on our signs of the words
"planned for" commercial and light industrial zoning.
4 . Assuming that first class buildings and grounds will be
built and maintained , the following would be among our
prime prospects . Are these classes of users objectionable :
a . New car agency
41/1 b . Insurance company home office
c . Discount or furniture store
d. Drive-in theater
e . Motel (chain)
Barbara A. Haake
1111 City of Moundsview
August 22 , 1975
Page Two.
If there are any questions you have , I can be reached by
phone or will be happy to meet with you or the commission .
Yours truly,
PINECREST PROPERTIES
(//:;/.. ///('X
by : ' '/0JY
411/ W . H . Beim, Partner
410
Beim Construction Company
6750 PRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
0 SUITE 123
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435
Telephone: (612) 920.1556
/ E`er
August 22 , 1975
\\\ z"i
o .®1154 �1��i 4.,,1 :
Barbara A. Haake _..,,-'
'''' .1_t-,:L,_ '
aake ` '' ' T
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Moundsview
2401 Highway 10
Moundsview, Minnesota 55112
Dear Mrs . Haake :
We believe that the Planning Commission has done a fine job
for the city with the new master zoning plan , but it does
present some problems and questions for us . We realize it
will take some time to implement the plan into actuality and
we have some planning to do ourselves , but we would appreciate
the present views of the Planning Commission on the following
items :
4111
1 . The road system is being changed and the use of the land
is intended for a different purpose , so we assume the
parcel will have to be replatted .
a . We would like some latitude in helping to locate the
exact location of the roads and the boundary between
the commercial land and the light industrial land.
b . Since the city instituted this change , we would expect
no subdivision tax to accrue .
2 . Access to and egress from the commercial land must involve
the NW bound lane of Highway 10 . Is there any way to give
access to the SW bound lane of Highway 10?
3 . We would like to confirm the use on our signs of the words
"planned for" commercial and light industrial zoning .
4 . Assuming that first class buildings and grounds will be
built and maintained , the following would be among our
prime prospects . Are these classes of users objectionable :
a . New car agency
b . Insurance company home office
4111 e . Discount or furniture store
d. Drive-in theater
e . Motel (chain)
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
October 22, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
1 . Donald Balk. Property involved 2656 County Road J.
major subdivision (lot variances)
2. Patrick Pellgrino. Property involved - 2848 Woodcrest Drive (fee)
variance request
3. Timothy Lewis. Property involved - 8331 Red Oak Drive (fee)
. minor subdivision
4. Ralph Forsberg. Property involved - 8081 Red Oak Drive (fee)
III/0variance request -
5. Ernest J. Danielson. Property involved 8445 Eastwood Drive (fee)
minor subdivision
6. Duane McCarty. Property involved. 8060 Long Lake Road (fee)
variance request
NON-FEE ITEMS
1 . Lorraine Bonin. Property involved - 8380 Spring Lake Road
requests review of sketch plan for possible major subdivision
111/0 AGENDA
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
November 12, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Brentwood Development Company. Property involved - The West 375 ft. of
Lots 2, 3, 4 Auditor's Subdivision No. 89.
Major subdivision, White Oak Estates No. 3 (18 lots) , original approval by
city has elapsed.
2. Leon Jacobs. Property involved - 5544 St. Michael Street
Variance request to install driveway two feet back from property line.
3. William Litwiller. Property involved - 5055 4 5057 Sunnyside Road.
Variance request to install garage three feet from property line.
III/0
4. Robert Hanson. Property involved - 8408 Groveland Road.
Minor subdivision (2 lots)
5. Gene Schouweiler. Property involved - 8265 Eastwood Road.
Minor subdivision (2 lots)
6. Marlowe Johnston. Property involved - 7841 Spring Lake Road.
Minor subdivision (2 lots)
7. David Jahnke. Property involved - 8408 Eastwood Road.
Minor subdivision (3 lots)
8. Patrick Pelligrino. Property involved - 2848 Woodcrest Drive
Variance request to install oversized accessory building (480 square feet) .
9. Minnesota Department of Highways' comments on Mounds View Comprehensive Plan.
AGENDA111/1
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
November 26, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Arthur J. Spagenski. Property involved - 8231 Eastwood Rd.
Major subdivision (3 lots) .
2. David L. Bissonnette. Property involved - 8312 Red Oak Drive.
Minor subdivision (2 lots) .
3. Schulter & Brogger. Property involved - approximately 8312 $ 8316
Pleasant View Drive. The south 3 feet of Lot 7 and all of
Lot 8 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
lying westerly of the center line of Pleasant View Drive as
now laid out and travelled.
Minor subdivision (2 lots into 3 lots) .
• 4. Metropolitan Council staff recommendation regarding Mounds View
Comprehensive Plan Update.
5. Marlow Johnston- 7841 Silver Lake Road. Subdivision request
concerning the extension of Knollwood Drive north of Oakwood.
S
AGENDA1110
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
December 17, 1975
7:30 p.m.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Patrick R. Novak. Property involved - 8368 Groveland.
Minor subdivision (2 lots) .
2. Delmar Ford. Property involved - 8378 Groveland.
Minor subdivision (2 lots) .
3. Marlowe V. Johnston. Property involved - 7841 Spring Lake Rd.
Minor subdivision (2 lots) . (Continued from 11/12/75 meeting.)
4. Memorandum regarding Council review of new Chapter 40.
111/0
5. Memorandum regarding Metropolitan Council action on City's
Comprehensive Plan Update.
•