07-05-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Commissioner Thomas stated she would like to clarify they are not discussing a problem of law, as this is not a private property for sale. There is no problem of law when this is City property they would be trading. It is their job as the Planning Commission to determine if this is the proper use for City property and whether or not they would like to trade that land to be developed into retail property. She explained that, at this point, being City property, there is NO law requiring them to allow any development whatsoever, so they should be very careful quoting Constitutional references in deciding whether or not they want to develop this land. Commissioner Thomas also commented that this is the opportunity to hear the community voice on whether or not they want to see a building put up across the street from the City Hall. There is no U.S. Constitution violation for someone to come and say they do not want to see a building here that could go out of business. Commissioner Johnson stated they also had many community meetings on what types of uses should be sought in Mounds View and a lot of it was restaurants and another drug store. That is why they are seeing this development going forward. Commissioner Thomas responded she is not against the possibility of this land being developed, however, it is their responsibility to decide what is there and no one should be saying at this point that they have to allow a Walgreens because that is not the case. The City can decide whether or not to trade the land for that development. Commissioner Johnson stated Commissioner Thomas is correct, but if they did not allow Walgreens here he would guarantee Walgreens would not go away, they would be back in another spot of this highway. Commissioner Thomas said that is their responsibility as a corporation, but the Planning Commission should decide if it should be there. Commissioner Kaden stated they do not have to trade the City lot for them to develop this Walgreens. Mr. Videen, however, wants to sell his property and those 3 ½ acres of upland behind the residents' houses can be developed subject to the wetlands. He stated he personally would think that woods behind the houses and open wetlands with a Walgreens on this site would be more palatable than a development stuck in their backyards. Acting Chairperson Stevenson clarified Mr. Longstead's concerns as being saturation and the possibility of an empty building a few years from now. He said he appreciates that concern, which would be a concern of anyone, including the Commission. Acting Chairperson Stevenson stated that, at this time, he feels good about the situation and does not feel they will have an empty building in the near future. Doris Hamline, 3034 Ardmore, asked if this had been brought to Springsted, the consultant group hired to help with redevelopment and safety issues along Highway 10. Community Development Director Jopke said they are aware of it. Ms. Hamline said it seems they have concurrent discussions going on. She pointed out that the community public meeting is July 11th where it will be discussed what the community would like