My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1999/08/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
Agenda Packets - 1999/08/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:38 PM
Creation date
6/14/2018 6:43:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/23/1999
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/23/1999
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.
/
231
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
Council Member Quick stated there were also considerable changes further up the road,that would <br /> alleviate some of the problems with Sunset Drive. He stated the proposal would also change some <br /> of the flow in and around the trailer court. He stated that overall,this would improve the situation <br /> on County Road 10. He stated that the current reception to this proposal was 100 percent more in <br /> favor than was indicated previously. <br /> Director of Public Works Ulrich stated that a more detailed plan was available for the Council's <br /> review. He stated the reason this proposal was presently at this stage, was that they had received <br /> some Hazard Reduction money that had been applied for from the Department of Transportation, <br /> and this project was finally coming to the drawing board, and appears it will be constructed in 2000. <br /> He stated it was correct that the Anoka County Road, or Sunset,will no longer access County Road <br /> 10, and will be somewhat of a frontage road for the businesses along the highway, and back through <br /> the trailer court. He stated this would involve the vacation of some land in that area, and will create <br /> another access to Pleasant View Drive on the south side. <br /> Council Member Stigney noted an error in the third paragraph of the resolution which states "the <br /> City will utilized," and requested a correction to indicate"the City will utilize." <br /> Council Member Thomason stated that she travels that stretch of road on a daily basis. She stated <br /> she agreed the proposal would help with the Fire Station access. She stated,however, further down <br /> the line, there is so much congestion at the intersection of Sunset Drive, she believed it was "an <br /> accident waiting to happen." She stated she did not see how this would help the matter, and was not <br /> in favor of utilizing the City's MSA funds for the proposal. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Resolution No. 5355, a Resolution Supporting and <br /> Approving the Construction of a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Pleasant View Drive and <br /> Ramsey County Road 10. <br /> Ayes—3 Nays—2 (Coughlin, Thomason) Motion carried. <br /> F. Request to reconsider Resolution 5349, a Resolution approved on July 26, 1999, <br /> to allow for an automobile rental facility to operate at 2975 Highway 10. <br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated that this was a late addition to the Agenda, and a copy of the Staff <br /> Report had been provided for Council's consideration. He stated, at the City Council meeting on <br /> July 26,the Council approved a conditional use permit for Thrifty Car Rental to operate a car rental <br /> facility at 2975 Highway 10. He stated, at that meeting, a stipulation had been added to the <br /> resolution,which prohibits panel trucks, recreational vehicles and trailers from being parked upon <br /> the lot. He stated the applicant,who was not present at the meeting was requesting reconsideration <br /> of this stipulation. <br /> Ericson stated that staff consulted with the City Attorney, who indicated if it were the Council's <br /> desire to reconsider this,or to at least reconsider the resolution,not necessarily to drop the provision, <br /> but to simply reconsider this, it would require a public hearing. He stated the Council has two <br /> options. One is to deny the applicant's request for an amendment to the resolution, and the other is <br /> to move to reconsider the matter, and direct staff to set the required public hearing dates, mail <br /> 22 C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\8-9-99.CC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.