Laserfiche WebLink
February 28, 1979 <br />Paga 2 <br />~ The Cammiseion disauesed the pras and oona oF the propoeals at <br />some lengt4i. Officisl RoRe atate3 that the Planning Commiegion <br />ahould look at thia preeentation strictly From a po~nt of viaw <br />of whether or not it will b~nefit Mounde View reaidonte and make <br />a zacnmmendxtion to Council based on that. <br />MBP (Haake-Glazer) that the Planning Commiseion recommend to tlie <br />City Counoil that the City raject tha proposed semaphare at <br />Pleasant View Drive and Highway 10, since we eae no warrant or <br />nsad for !ha eiqnallization in Mounde View. <br />Chairperson Haake etated Chat the City 11kes to couporate with <br />iY.s neighbore, in this caee 3prinq Lake Park. But we sea no <br />reason to in this .inetance. They wank to uae nur land for a <br />eignal light where wo hava no problem. <br />Co~niesion Member Quan queetioned if there io any connection <br />between thie ana New T.Fi.10. Of£icial ao~e reaponded that i£ <br />New T.H.10 goea in, it could cut traffic by at leaet 508. Commiasion <br />Member Burmaister agreed that construction of New T.H.10 meana <br />Mounds Viaw will need the added sempahore on Old 10 evan lees. <br />Co~mnissian Member Goabel obaerved that the proposed constructfon <br />seo~e to be an expensive investment if it~e just a stopgap <br />measure. Puttina in a eignal ie one thing, but to purchase <br />/°i1 aecera! acres of lan8 doeon't seem to make senae £or a temporary <br />i,~ meaeure. <br />< <br />Official Roae atatefl that even if the traffic lesaens, the <br />signallization remai.ns to keep speed down. <br />Cammisoion Member Glazer atxted the assumption that you will <br />divert traffic away from Old 10 after construction'of New 1D <br />is ridiculous. That aesumas L•hat traffic remains conat3nt. <br />You will juat end up with two very busy roada. <br />Commiseion Member Fuse recommended a letter ~e aent to the City <br />of Spring Lake Park to the zffar.t that the proposed semaphore <br />and related con3tr.uct!on w~uld adversely aEfect the neighborhocd <br />charackesistice of the new reaidential araa and we aee no benefit <br />to Mounda View resideuts. Tharefore, we have to oppoae ite <br />caneGruction. The Co~mnisaion agreed. <br />Vote on the motion. <br />LUT SI2EE <br />Offlcial Rose explained the reanons for hie recommandation to adopt <br />the "policy" of the old zoning r.ode allowinq plate reaoYdad prior <br />to 1966 to subdivi~e into two equal lots. In the 1960's when <br />aewer and water were inetallad against many citizena' wiahea, <br />8 ayes <br />~ pzobably through Metr~politan Cuuncil inalstence, many lots <br />recorded prior to 1460 vrere Hlatted with 160' Zu~s, ~rohably <br />because large area was demanded L•oz aepti.c tanks and private <br />welis. At that tfine a project waa puahed through and cl.tizens <br />