Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 24 <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Cunningham pointed out however, that if the City were to do this at this time, it would <br />eliminate the City’s future opportunity to utilize this land for wetland mitigation, and therefore, <br />the City might desire the property remain as it is until it is turned over. Mr. Moses explained <br />that the City should attempt to obtain all that they desire from the property, after which, to <br />prevent any commercial development, this might be the answer. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland pointed out that having the property in the City’s control would probably <br />be the best assurance that it would not be developed. He explained that although there was a <br />possibility that the property could be developed in the future by the City, it would be under City <br />control, and there would have to be many citizens in favor of such development in order for it to <br />occur. He stated that this has been done in the past, however, taking the property out of the <br />City’s control would provide no greater assurance that it would not occur. <br /> <br />Mr. Faracy stated that the City was currently proposing to trade City land for private land. He <br />stated that the City has the one-acre parcel, and they are discussing converting that one-acre <br />parcel to develop the land, therefore, it is not clear that the City’s ownership of the property is <br />any protection against development. Mr. Faracy stated that he was a businessman, and <br />understood the nature of business, however, he had concerns regarding the best means to ensure <br />the maximum protection for the residents in the area. He stated that he lived on the opposite side <br />of the proposed development, however, he had good friends whose homes back up to the site. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated that the zoning of the new parcel, which is being discussed as <br />designated public Open Space, would have a significant impact on this matter. Commissioner <br />Laube indicated a covenant could be added to ensure the property remains in this designation. <br /> <br />Mr. Faracy inquired how the residents could be certain that this has been done. Planning <br />Associate Ericson advised that before the land swap could occur, a contract and language would <br />be drafted to effectuate that swap, and the terms of this agreement would be spelled out within <br />the development contract. He stated that the transfer of land would occur with the stipulations <br />set forth in the development contract, including other actions in conjunction with that, such as <br />the dedication of an easement over the entirety of that land, whether that be by conservancy <br />easement to an outside party, or protective covenants that are placed on the deed. He indicated <br />those issues would be clarified in significant detail in the language that would create the transfer <br />of property ownership, and these issues would be all be resolved prior to the land swap. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council could <br />indicate that the 8 acres of the Midland Videen site was to be for perpetual public use and remain <br />undisturbed, however, the next Council might feel differently, and there was no protection that <br />would prohibit the City from changing its mind at some point in the future, short of the <br />dedication of the land to an outside party by a conservancy easement. He added that the one- <br />acre parcel on the corner was public land, and the City was currently making the case that they <br />could transfer this land and turn it into commercial development, with the trade off being that the <br />City obtains 8 acres in return, however in essence, the City is proposing to sell off public land, <br />and there is nothing to prevent the City from doing this again in the future.