My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 1998/04/27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
Minutes - 1998/04/27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2025 1:25:42 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 10:09:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
4/27/1998
Description
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
Page 8 <br />Apri127, 1998 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, stated he is concerned about the residents on Greenwood due to the <br />traffic, but he feels residents need to consider the number of businesses that have been lost to other <br />communities. People need to start thinking about the tax base. Where should commercial businesses <br />locate? He feels this area is more appropriate for business than for residential as there are safety concerns <br />with regard to children and Highway 10. <br />JoAnn Colleen, 2617 County Road I, stated her property is immediately East of the proposed Wallgreens <br />site. Highway 10 has been designated as the main corridor where businesses and development need to <br />locate. At some point, residences will be affected by development on Highway 10. Wallgreens will be <br />paying a considerable amount more in taxes than what the was being paid by the four residences on that <br />site. Ms. Colleen stated she is in support of the proposed development. She noted, however that there are <br />different options for routing traffic and it is important for the City to look at those options if the <br />development is to proceed. <br />Lance King, 7751 Greenwood Drive, stated he was out of town and therefore did not have the opportunity <br />to sign the petition in opposition to the development. He noted that he did not receive a notice of the <br />Public Hearing. To the public, it appears that the Council has already made a decision on this issue. He <br />stated he fmds it difficult to believe that Wallgreens would choose to locate in an area where fast food <br />restaurants are struggling, where there are a number of vacant lease spaces available and where a <br />Wallgreens is located within less than 3 miles. <br />Jim Schmidt, 5446 Erickson Road, stated he feels there are other, more appropriate areas in the community <br />for a Wallgreens store and is alarmed that the Council would consider removing four residential homes to <br />make way for a commercial development. Without access to Highway 10, traffic will have a substantial <br />impact on the residents in the neighborhood. <br />Steve Pansen, 7721 Greenwood Drive, stated he is disappointed that this development has moved forward <br />without the public receiving more information. He feels the development will have an impact on the <br />safety of the children in the neighborhood. <br />Gayla Keyer, 7730 Greenwood Drive, stated she has worked actively on this issue for the past six months. <br />Unfortunately, she did not have much support and she eventually she sold out. She stated she is happy to <br />see the residents back together. She feels, however, that the developer has essentially destroyed the <br />neighborhood. <br />Terri Smith, 2653 Scottland Court, wondered when her home would be affected. She feels it is unfair that <br />homes are being taken away. <br />Bob Glazer, 2625 Hillview Road, asked why Mounds View needs this development. <br />Gerald Arel, 7750 Greenwood Drive, stated he opposes the proposed change to the comprehensive plan <br />and the re-zoning of the property. He stated residents were offered money in exchange for silencing their <br />voices. He stated he is not against Wallgreens, but is against what is being done in regard to amendments <br />to the comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.