Laserfiche WebLink
-4- <br />Mr. Fahrmann asked regarding the low areas -- are they going to be <br />filled in? Mayor Johnson replied that many low areas have been <br />designated as flood plain areas so cannot be used for development <br />purposes. <br />Paul Veneen, Roseville, stated that his land is zoned commercial. <br />In looking at a copy of your comprehensive plan it appears to be <br />changed and he very much objects to that. Mayor Johnson stated <br />that this does not change any zoning at all. From a planning <br />standpoint it tells us what really should be the uses of the open <br />land in the city. He illustrated on the map to familiarze the <br />people with what they were trying to obtain. <br />Robert Glazer stated that he would like to see the City take a <br />more forceful position in opposition to any future upgrading of <br />Red Oak Drive, along with construction of an interchange at Red <br />Oak on new Highway 10. Mayor Johnson stated that future development <br />of new Highway 10 is still in the planning stages and, apparently, <br />some time away. He indicated that the Council has on several <br />occasions written to the various local and state officials indicating <br />the City's opposition to any plans for an interchange at Red Oak. <br />Mr. Gustafson inquired as to how much control does the Metropolitan <br />Council have? Mayor Johnson replied that this plan has been <br />reviewed and approved by them. As a practical matter they had <br />little to say about it. <br />Councilman Baumgartner stated that if someone wanted to build a <br />500 home development without a sewer that would be significant <br />and the Metropolitan Council would look into it. Changing water <br />courses would be another item. Councilman Shelquist stated that <br />the legislature has instructed them to help communities develop <br />comprehensive plans. They demand that every community within the <br />7 county district come up with a comprehensive plan. Our plan <br />reflects what we think Mounds View should be doing in the next <br />few years. <br />George Gustafson asked when the open meetings were held and Barbara <br />Haake replied that letters were sent to all land owners, notices <br />were put in papers, etc. In total about 125 citizens availed <br />themselves of the public hearings. We were only required to have <br />one hearing. <br />Mayor Johnson stated that the Metropolitan Council has indicated <br />that there are certain things we should be changing, so we will <br />have to have another public hearing to talk about the changes. <br />It is better to adopt the plan conditionally upon the changes being <br />put into it, thereby not having to go through another public hearing. <br />Councilman Shelquist stated that the Planning Commission should <br />change it as changes are merited. If it requires another public <br />hearing then we should hold one at that time. <br />MSP (Shelquist - Baumgartner)to adopt the revised Comprehensive Plan, <br />Resolution #727, as submitted to us in the printing of July, 1975, <br />by Midwest Planning and Research. A roll call vote was requested: <br />Councilman Shelquist - aye <br />Councilman Baumgartner - aye <br />Mayor Johnson - aye <br />Councilman Hodges - aye <br />Councilman Pickar - aye <br />5 ayes <br />