Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />Mounds View City Council August 14, 2017 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br />understood the County had access protocols in place but commented this was an existing access <br />point and not a new access point. <br />Mayor Mueller questioned if Ms. Laberee was involved in the County Road H improvements. <br />Ms. Laberee stated she was not involved in that project. <br />Mayor Mueller commented on the history of the County Road H project and described how the <br />City and County had come together to reach a compromise so as not to adversely impact existing <br />Mounds View businesses. She stated she would like to speak with a member of the County staff <br />that was willing to consider the safety and needs of the community. Ms. Laberee indicated she <br />was aware of the County Road H concerns and understood compromises were made. She <br />reiterated that the County found no compelling reason for the proposed project to have access to <br />Mounds View Boulevard. She provided further comment on how traffic would flow out of this <br />site onto Groveland Road based on the traffic study. <br />Mayor Mueller indicated she took exception to the traffic study and did not believe that only 70 <br />trips per day would be accessing Groveland Road to the north. <br />Council Member Bergeron expressed hurt and anger for this entire situation. He questioned what <br />it would take to create a compelling reason in order to be granted access to Mounds View <br />Boulevard. Ms. Laberee explained the County would need to understand why Groveland Road, a <br />public roadway, could not handle public traffic. She indicated the traffic from the proposed <br />development was not unreasonable for Groveland Road to manage. <br />Council Member Bergeron expressed frustration with the fact that this property could only be <br />developed if it were to access Groveland Road, otherwise it would have to remain vacant. <br />Especially considering the fact that the properties currently had access to Mounds View <br />Boulevard. He asked if there was an appeals process within the County to present a request for a <br />simple right -in, right -out for the proposed development. Ms. Laberee explained the County was <br />not trying to dictate how this property develops, but rather was trying to dictate how the property <br />was accessed. She believed that Ramsey County has been very cooperative in the past and was <br />simply trying to follow its access management policy. She understood that the County would <br />have to further study the safety of the corridor. She encouraged the Council to speak with Jim <br />Tolaas, her supervisor. <br />Council Member Bergeron understood policies were all fine and good but at times, had to be <br />reconsidered or compromised for the betterment of the community. He supported taking an <br />appeal to the County based on the concerns raised by the Council and public. <br />Council Member Hull asked how much additional traffic would be brought onto Groveland Road <br />from the proposed development. Ms. Laberee referenced the traffic study completed by the <br />developer. It was noted 31 trips would be added during the AM peak, 37 trips during the PM <br />peak, and 399 daily trips. <br />