Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission February 18, 1998 <br /> Special Meeting Page 10 • <br /> Highway 10 came into being. He suggested dividing County Road I so that traffic could <br /> enter the Walgreen facility from the left only. This would prevent cars coming down <br /> Eastwood from turning into the facility and causing a traffic bottleneck in this area. <br /> Associate Ericson told Johnson Ramsey County had received a copy of the development <br /> plan for informational purposes. The City is looking for some type of input from the <br /> County for the Walgreen development. <br /> Mr. Cunningham told the Commission as the developer he would be reluctant to accept <br /> the development condition that there be a right-in right-out turn scenario established for <br /> County Road I. <br /> Associate Ericson told the Commission it might not be the City's choice because of the <br /> fact that County Road I is a county road. He added the City would not force this type of a <br /> condition on the developer or the site plan. <br /> Mr. Chen added the spacing between Walgreen's main access, the Mounds View Center <br /> access, and the Highway 10 intersection all conform to the spacing specifications that have <br /> been established by MnDOT. <br /> Chairperson Peterson commented the light timing cycle on Highway 10's traffic signals • <br /> should be modified to improve the traffic flow through Mounds View. <br /> Chairperson Peterson suggested the discussion get back to the subject of the "big <br /> picture," this being commercial development versus residential on the corner properties <br /> that are being considered for the Walgreen development. He added there are some early <br /> leanings that have surfaced in the community meetings. It seems like the citizens want any <br /> commercial developments to take place on the Highway 10 corridor and any residential <br /> developments to take place off of the Highway 10 corridor. The City needs to improve its <br /> tax base. <br /> Commissioner Obert, again, emphasized the importance of addressing the question of <br /> decreasing property values and addressing the traffic safety issues within the City. <br /> Commissioner Brasaemle readdressed the question: "Is this the appropriate piece of <br /> property for his development?" He said he did not have a good answer for this question <br /> and probably wouldn't have one until after the next Comprehensive Plan Update meeting, <br /> where this particular piece of property was going to be discussed in regards to its fit in the <br /> overall Comprehensive Plan. <br /> Chairperson Peterson told the Commission one of the comments the citizens have been <br /> making at the community meetings concerning the Comprehensive Plan Update is they <br /> 411 <br /> have no interest in having any more commercial businesses along County Road I. The <br /> citizens are saying that nobody should be forced out of their homes on Highway 10 to <br />