My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
1998 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2018 10:25:19 AM
Creation date
2/22/2012 8:14:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
882
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
i_ <br />- - - - <br />--. = --- . _ ,-.: . <br />_ ,. - ° � � <br />, -- - -�- . -� �" - <br />�. _ _ _ � --. - <br />__ - �-- -- <br />- � -- -- - --- -- 1 �_ �_.- . ..:�_--._..: <br />Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />March 18, 1998 <br />Page 6 <br />TOLD is recommending that funds be set aside in an escrow account to construct the <br />traffic calming devices. Input from the Greenwood neighborhood residents will be <br />encouraged. <-,<;:, <br />, �� ,>_` <br />Associate Ericson requested that the Commission review the o� r� abF���c� �s it was drafted <br />and review Resolution 536-98. Staff is looking for £��d�?�ck in ��:�a�c�� �,�,a,,r�eeded changes <br />and also, if it is possible for the Commission to indt�tied if they �r� ��^������ toward �� <br />approving or denying the Comprehensive Plan Arri��dment a�� lt�ezo,��r��, ���,�;��.�,si., ' <br />Commissioner Miller suggested several gramrrb����i� <br />would correct. She also questioned the referen�� l� <br />was suggested that MnDOT has not given a defini,�i <br />construction that would be part of this project. �r�f� <br />which Ericsc��R z.?.�r�' fie <br />review of thc; �iocess. It <br />a the intersection <br />Chair Peterson made reference to text t1�4�� a�i�;�r�t�t�-io a sidew�lL4�. '°`i"1-�e City would <br />rec�uire that a sidewalk would extend tQ fi�f �,a�: �iQ�� �,6�ng ll�alc�:Road", he suggested this <br />section of the Resolution would be ���plac c�t�-��r���I�i;l �� i�:�tjri's earlier comments in <br />regards to where a sidewalk w�ll be�built anc��vvho i� ������ 'r;<7'cover the cost of the <br />sidewalk. , =Y'� -- <br />.:�:.:.: �' ,�� ...... <br />Commissioner Stevenso <br />Walgreen property to ]�/fc <br />�,.,t�rral � ��e;��,mner 1�u ,��a1 <br />1]ll�°�1�UC �r; �� S2.IC�, "� <br />curre���i�+ i��o��a� pe;d <br />Cor�xtii�s���r,�e��� �"�¢��•s�� <br />��[fiecsection of �'1i�i�vu� <br />� .� <br />�angerous. <br />Chair Peterso <br />ed i�°ther� were plazis for a designated crosswalk from the <br />View;�t��a�r� ��/ <br />,:,,. <br />d. h� wouici be very concerned about having a crosswalk <br />i.he street isn't going to cut it", referring to cars that are <br />af�ti�r,zones. <br />��� seaCed that people go around the corner very fast at the <br />:� �, and County Road I, making a crosswalk located there very <br />the floor to the public for questions and comments. <br />�„�rrol Ar.e.k;�;,�750 Greenwood Drive, said she would not send her children down a sidewalk <br />��f ����-�celves on County Road I to get to a Walgreen's store. She said, "A crosswalk is not <br />�;e�ir��� io make cars stop." Her opinion was stated in favor of having a sidewalk all the way <br />i o i ori� Lake Road. <br />Gayla Keyes, 7730 Greenwood Drive, asked if the City had contacted an assessor to have <br />an o�cial evaluation of the impact that the Walgreen's Development would have on the <br />adjacent neighborhood. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.