2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

;; � : _ _ i _ -� --- = - � _ _ _ __' __ '_' _ ___ ' _" • ... . " ' f..-� : _ . _ . ____. ._' _ .-_�___. , �.. ._ .. -- .._J F-.,_:_ -!. Mounds View Planning Commission December 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Laube stated he felt the suggested language appears to be appropriate for this stage of the consideration. He indicated the Commission desires to inform the Council that there could be a cost, and request that the Council to review this. Commissioner Kaden stated the language in the resolution indicates "NOW, TI3EEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission supports the TOLD concept, and would support the proposed land swap," and inquired if this statement could be amended. He commented that he supports the concept, however, this language appears to indicate he aiso supports the land swap, and he is not certain that he does. He explained that he had inquired regarding the assessed value of the properties because if the City is stands to lose with this proposal, he would not support such a thing, and at this time, there is no way to be certain in this regard. He advised that the piece of land along Highway 10 might be more valuable than the other property, and he would like to know whether or not this is the case. Chair Peterson suggested the omission of the words "would support" in front of the words "the proposed land swap" would make this statement more general in nature. Commissioner Kaden pointed out that this statement would still indicate that the Planning Commission supports both the concept and the proposed land swap. Chair Peterson explained however, the statement would relate to both items, rather than to each item separately, which would serve to dilute the element of support. Terry Moses of Prudential Commercial Realty, representative of the property owner suggested the Commission consider the triangular portion of land that is owned by the City to be a pond, as that is what it is. He explained that as long as the pond is there, this land can not be utilized for very much else. He pointed out that if the City did wish to utilize the land for something else, the pond would have to be relocated, as ponding is required. He stated this land does not present a substantial amount of land value as it currently exists. Mr. Moses advised that with this proposal, the City will still have the pond, however, it will be relocated at no cost to the City, and in addition, the City will gain 7.4 acres of land. He commented it would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which that land could be utilized in any other way, and for the City to continue to provide the ponding that is required. He explained that if this portion of land was rectangular, and the square footage, it might be buildable, however, a triangular shape is very difficult to build upon, therefore, the land could not demand a very good price. He stated that the ponding is required to exist on this piece of property, with the exception of the proposed swap. Mr. Moses stated he considers the language in the proposed resolution to be a very general introduction to the process, and he views Finding No. 11 as a cautionary statement, which indicates that the City should be aware that there may be some associated costs that should be researched. He suggested the language be modified to indicate "unacceptable costs" rather than "substantial costs," as `substantial' can be defined differently by each individual, however, `unacceptable' depends upon the situation.