My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2002/03/05
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
Agenda Packets - 2002/03/05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:04 PM
Creation date
8/8/2018 2:55:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/5/2002
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/5/2002
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.
/
201
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
Mounds View City Council March 11, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />C. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 695, an Ordinance Renaming a <br />Disconnected Section of County Road J. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson explained that when County Road J was realigned it left a portion of former <br />County Road J all by itself and residents have approached the City to ask that it be renamed in <br />order to resolve a mail and package delivery issue. He further explained that this matter was <br />discussed at a work session and noted residents had asked for a simple change to Old County <br />Road J because that would allow them to keep their house numbers. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson indicated he had received two calls, one asking that the road be renamed to <br />Long Lake Road and another asking for something a little more attractive than Old County Road <br />J. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty asked how many residents are affected by this issue. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson indicated there are 8 addresses on County Road J but noted he had also sent <br />notice to those residents with a property line fronting County Road J. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty clarified that five or six of the residents involved are fine with Old <br />County Road J and two residents called asking for something else. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson indicated that one of the callers had an address on Red Oak Drive and is not <br />directly affected. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney indicated the signage in the area refers to the road as 85th Avenue NE <br />and said he feels the logical name for the road would be Long Lake Road or maintain it as 85th <br />Avenue NE. He then commented he understands the concern of not wanting to change house <br />numbers but noted if the road is ever brought up to date it would be changed to Long Lake Road. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre indicated the key component of the discussion from the work session was a <br />request for upgraded signage. He then questioned what the state would do with regard to the <br />roadway. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated he could make a request to the state but said he highly <br />doubted they would be receptive to the suggestion because there is no direct connection to this <br />section of roadway. He then indicated his Staff is prepared to change out the name plate signs <br />with whatever name Council approves. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty said he feels the most logical thing would be North Long Lake Road but <br />said he does not live over there and this is what residents have asked for. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick said he felt 85th Avenue made the most sense. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney indicated the state signs would remain the same if the City used 85th <br />Avenue. He then asked if that would get into an issue with the house numbers.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.