06-07-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Commissioner Johnson stated that at this time there were none, short of purchasing the property themselves, however, the land swap would take care of this. Mr. Faracy inquired what assurances the residents would have that the City would not sell the property for development after the land swap. Commissioner Johnson explained that this property has been discussed as Open Space. Chairperson Peterson stated that one of the main factors is that this property is presently wetland, and there are many City, State, and Federal statutes, as well as the Rice Creek Watershed District, which prohibit the filling of wetland. He pointed out that it was not in anyone’s best interest to disturb the drainage pattern, therefore, he could envision no situation wherein the City would have any interest in developing the site beyond the current proposal. He noted the suggestion that a covenant might be written into the deed to provide that this property remains a natural space. Commissioner Kaden stated that he would be in favor of this. He advised that the City may not desire further development of this property at this time, however, in the future, a different City Council or City Planner might decide that such a venture would be easy money. Commissioner Laube added that in the future, State laws might be different as well. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that the drainage issues would still be present. Mr. Cunningham stated that the utility planned for the 3.5 acres of upland adjacent to the residences is as future storm water detention. Mr. Faracy inquired if a portion of the property along Highway 10 was undevelopable. Mr. Cunningham stated that this was correct, however, it was conceivable that the wetland on that site could be mitigated in such a manner as to create a developable strip along the highway. Planning Associate Ericson referred to the site plan and pointed out the areas of wetland and developable land. He indicated there are wetland regulations, which would prohibit any development in the wetland area, however, there are provisions within these regulations that would allow some filling of the wetland if those areas were mitigated at a 2 to 1 ratio. He advised that the proposed area could be developed in its existing state, as it is zoned Commercial and has Highway 10 access, which he believed was one of the City’s reasons for considering this proposal, is to take the property off of the market commercially. He stated that the City has always had the opportunity to purchase this property. Mr. Moses indicated the suggestion to place restrictive covenants in the deed pertaining to the use of this property was an excellent idea, however, the City has condemnation rights over almost anything that is done, and this could be changed. He advised that one answer would be to place a conservation easement over this land, and give it over to the State or some higher entity than the City, which would take away the City’s ability to do this.