Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa indicated there is no formal snow removal plan as that would go along with the <br />landscape and lawn maintenance plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn asked about adding a secondary access. <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa indicated 8060 Groveland is a nice house and there is no option for going past it <br />out to Groveland Road for another access point. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn asked whether eliminating one townhome would allow for the secondary <br />access. <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa indicated that Groveland and Sherwood are the access possibilities and those are <br />developed parcels. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller asked about a provision for garbage. <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa indicated they envision that it would be a requirement of the association that <br />everyone has garbage service and each resident would have their own container but one hauler <br />would be allowed. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. <br /> <br />Cindy Johnson of 2865 NE County 10 and 7980 Groveland Road said she strongly opposes the <br />townhomes going in. She said that her husband fought this proposal two years ago and she will <br />continue to fight it now that he is gone to ensure the value of their property. She further <br />commented that the biggest issue is that it does not follow the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Johnson commented that the tax base would be better if left commercial and it would be in <br />the best interest of the City because to allow this plan, the City would have to downzone a <br />portion of the property from B1 to R3, which would cause loss of tax base. She then said that <br />she does not like the idea of only one access nor does she like that six of the proposed <br />townhomes would look directly into her backyard and are two story homes which means a <br />privacy fence would not be tall enough. <br /> <br />Ms. Johnson indicated that she found that the City paid $12,000 to remove the gas station and to <br />clean up the property next door to make it more appealing for commercial development. She <br />further commented that putting this in the middle of the proposed PUD limits the chances on <br />either side that the area can be developed as commercial property. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson noted that Ms. Johnson had provided a letter to the Commission outlining her <br />points. <br /> <br />Mark Schnor of 2949 Highway 10 addressed the Commission and said that he agrees the <br />developer did not do his homework for this project and if you put townhomes in that area he