My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Council_Minutes_1986_10_13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
Council_Minutes_1986_10_13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 9:55:19 AM
Creation date
2/7/2011 2:28:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
10/13/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 City Council October 13, 1986 <br />Regular Meeting Page Seven <br />Mr. Johnson stated they could have chained accesses, <br />or break -offs, or something similar, for emergencies, <br />and they do not need a through access street. He added <br />the City could use condemnation to acquire the vacant <br />property for this development. <br />Mayor Linke stated that in addition to part of it <br />being in litigation, the land next to the motel is <br />used as a holding area for the motel. <br />Laurel Larson, of the Mounds View Mobile Home Park, <br />stated they do not have two accesses, and instead <br />have a crash gate as their emergency exit. <br />Russell Paul, 7940 Greenfield, stated he agreed that <br />high berming would be beneficial, and he would like <br />to see a horseshoe effect for the streets, and close <br />off access on County Road H2, and have two signalized <br />intersections on Highway 10. <br />Director Thatcher explained MnDOT will allow only one <br />additional signal on Highway 10 between County Road H <br />and County Road H2. <br />Duane Nelson stated he does not feel one stop light <br />on Highway 10 would be adequate for the amount of <br />traffic going in and out, as is proposed, and many <br />of the people would end up going north to County Road <br />H2 instead. <br />Mrs. Ratlinger stated she feels access onto County <br />Road H2 and north onto Quincy would benefit the <br />developers only. <br />David Mitchell, 5493 Quincy, stated he feels the <br />developers are deliberately trying to get people to <br />turn out onto Quincy as they leave the development. <br />Mrs. Mitchell stated she feels the community would be <br />too disected with the additional traffic on Quincy. <br />She added there are meetings and activities going on <br />at Pinewood School during other than school hours, <br />and she feels the developers are thinking only of <br />themselves and recommended they be required to cut <br />out one building, to have room for a turn- around. <br />Jack Johnson, 2211 Highway 10, stated he owns the home <br />adjacent to the proposed development, and he wanted it <br />known that his property is for sale for a fair market <br />value, and he is concerned with being land locked and <br />devaluation of his property. <br />Joe Ratlinger, 2199 County Road H2, asked who is accountable <br />at the City, as he was told before purchasing his home that <br />no access would be allowed onto County Road H2 when the <br />property was developed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.