The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-07-1998 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1998 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING,PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 4. Approval of Minutes a. August 19, 1998 b. September 2, 1998 5. Staff Reports/Information Items a. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element b. Housing Element 6. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 7. Adjournment to Agenda Meeting (Immediately Following Regular Meeting) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANTS:YOUR A i 1bNDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT 717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO Al l'END. THANK YOU. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AGENDA MEETING AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes: a. September 16, 1998 (Special) • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\PCAGENDA\1998\10-7-98.AGN • PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO To: Mounds View Planning Commission, From: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director Subject: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Date: October 1, 1998 The Planning Commission began its discussion of the draft land use element of the comprehensive plan on September 23rd. I have attached a copy of the revisions that were discussed at that meeting. Discussion of the draft land use element will continue at the October 7, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. It would be my goal to complete the discussion of the land use element on October 7th so that discussions can begin on the housing element at the October 14th special meeting. Currently my goal is to have a completed draft of the Comprehensive Plan by the end of the year. After the first of the year, I would like to have another series of community forums to present the draft plan to citizens. Following the forums, the Planning Commission could then recommend a Comprehensive Plan to the City Council. The City Council would then hold a public hearing and approve the Comprehensive Plan subject to Metropolitan Council review. Following Metropolitan Council review the plan would be officially adopted. I have been asked to provide an update to the City Council at their October 12, 1998 meeting • concerning the comprehensive plan. What I would like to do is to give a general overview of the process and then review the draft land use element in more detail. It would be helpful to have as many planning commission members as possible at the meeting to participate in the discussion. As additional sections are completed in the future, they could also be presented to the City Council in a similar manner. Three additional areas of the land use map should be discussed in more detail. These include the following: 1. Harstad site at County Rd. H-2 and Long Lake Rd. The site is currently shown as low density residential. Should it be changed to allow higher density residential development? 2. The area between the golf course and Sysco. Should the long term land use be passive open space or could there be additional development i.e. industrial or golf course? 3. The area south and east of Ardan Park. Could that area be developed for additional residential uses? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission complete its review of the draft land use element and discuss the process to review the plan with the City Council. • N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\PLANCOMM\10-7-98.MEM p Goals and Policies The following will be the land use goals and policies for the City of Mounds View: GENERAL,LAND USE Goal I: Maintain a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relationships between activities and uses. Policies: a. Relate land use development to transportation needs, desired development and community priorities. b. Analyze all development proposals on an individual basis from a physical,economic,and a social standpoint to determine the most appropriate uses within the context of the community as a whole as well as the specific area of the site. c. A've�da�'er�llecat�en uso4ypos.-gncourae and maintain a balance of u e tyoes d. Accomplish transitions between distinctly differing types of land . uses in an orderly fashion which does not create negative economic, social, or physical impact on adjoining developments. e. Consider subdivision of existing large lot single residential lots on a case-by-case basis to ensure development is consistent with community needs and compatible with surrounding development. f. The City will maintain comprehensive subdivision regulations governing platting procedures, site design standards, public and land requirements, en•ineerin. . .. . .. required improvements, and other factors dealing with the proper subdivision of land. g Protect inte ted u e di trict re idential nei hb rhoods commercial centers. industrial parks') from penetration by thr traffic Where throe h traffic problems are identified correct such problem as n0portunities arise ' oaf: N4a41414 an4,w4eFe nesessaFy, upgrada-land-uses--affd a ,Airo er l-- -qualit}c,... • —l'ol-isu. a,Prewct4 egraied uaadist•Fic is-(-yes iilential-ae i ghborheeds,,— --bo efsaal.senters;-ind4istfial par-lis) f en 1etfatiefl-b .- I •xhxosgh t ffis,Where t trough-t ffirol31ems are-identified; -serrect.sacch pceblems as-opportunities apise— Goal-3-2: Preserve and protect property values. Policy: az• The City will work to improve or redevelop blighted properties to enhance the tax base of individual sites and to protect and improve the tax base of the surrounding area, Goal-4-3: Ensure that community development is compatible with features of the natural environment and is accommodated without destroying desirable environmental features and natural amenities. Policies: a. Development shall be prohibited on wetlands,flood plains,and other natural features that perform important public protection functions in their natural state. b. Prohibit development on shore lands,wetlands,flood plains,and other natural features that perform important environmental functions in their natural state. Where desirable and practical, maintain such natural features in a condition for appropriate recreational uses. c. Development must respect the natural hydrology and unique • features of the land to the maximum extent. d• Encourage the preservation of trees and natural vegetation where possible. Goal : Prevent development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive and service facilities(utilities, parking,access, etc.). Policies: a. Ensure that intensification of land use activity and development is accompanied by sufficient corresponding increase in related supportive and service facilities such as parks, off-street parking, surface water management, etc. b. Ensure that high density development has reasonable, but not necessarily direct access to major thoroughfares. RESIDENTIAL Goal 1: Provide safe,healthy and attractive residential environments which offer a broad and full choice of housing opportunities. Policies: a. Consider the development of additional single family attached homes to supplement conventional single family detached • homes, mobile homes, and apartments. b. Confine higher density,apartment type housing in proximity to • areas which offer a wide range of existing supportive service; major service and commercial centers, parks, playgrounds, schools and other similar uses. c. Ensure that all new housing, including housing affordable to low and moderate income families and individuals,adheres to the highest community design, planning,and construction standards. d. Encourage"life cycle"housing to provide various housing options. Goal 2: Preserve the identity and improve the quality and appearance of existing neighborhoods. Policies: a. High density housing shall be located within easy access of a major thoroughfare so as not to introduce an excessive amount of vehicular traffic onto residential streets. b. A major consideration for approval or denial of any proposed apartment project will be the compatibility with surrounding land uses. • c. High density housing shall not be placed or utilized specifically as a buffer or use capable of absorbing negative impacts. d. Medium density single family attached housing wi4 e-pravicleel— may be used in transitional areas between single family detached residential neighborhoods and high density residential development. e. The existing character of low density neighborhoods shall be maintained and preserved by preventing encroachment from higher use types and by buffering the neighborhoods from other types of land use. Some redevelopment of low density uses on the fringe of these neighborhoods may be-eq+i ed.used to provide the-necessaFy-boffer-s•buffering. f. Substandard housing shall be rehabilitated or redeveloped through private means and/or public assistance. g. Substandard housing shall be removed when it is judged not economically feasible to correct deficiencies. —Peerit4l-loot i .setio44.-pFeo€xigas-wel4-afradequate opeil€ ase-a 44andssapin;. 4-h. Residential amenities required by zoning and subdivision regulations shall be properly maintained. 40 The housing maintenance code shall be uniformly enforced in order to protect the health and safety of occupants and ensure the ongoing stability of residential neighborhoods. Protect residential neighborhoods from penetration by through traffic. 4k. Protect residential developments from adverse,manmade, environmental impacts, including noise, air, and visual pollution. New-cesidential-davelepmenS shall-be-prebilaited-when--nei se andlor-aic-pel lution exceod.adepted-staaaduds-and.the negative. -}rrmasts-ara aetaoFrectable y-coestmc io .,site- ittg-ate -ether eenniques,- 1. Prohibit commercial development within designated residential areas(aeighberheed-eo meFeiai-uses-hea4d be iavied.arpnecessay wheaaecnuean -pro inaity of-the. -aeighberheods-te-commercial-areas is-adequate.). Goal 3: Provide sufficient housing and sufficient housing sizes,types and styles to meet the needs of all segments of the population including groups with specialized housing needs such as low and moderate income and the elderly. • Policies: a. The development and preservation of cavae owner- occupied housing for low and moderate income households shall be encouraged. b. Housing for low and moderate income families and individuals should not be concentrated within a single project or area. a• —Eeco+rage4avelemn e s t iat-iaslxde Neth-sabsidized-a - -market gats-he+asiag within-a single$laeaed-residontiai-arm. - neeafage.the aseaf attashedand-detac.bedaingfam4 - -stnac resfas family.subsidiaed-heasieg. �. Establish sdministrative.and.{aelicy.inechanisans.wlaicla rill- -iasilitate-the-deuelepmeatoo .iowaad- nderate iacame-heusaag -arid gamecsexistiagbeesiag-de envies 4c. When providing low and moderate income housing, priority should be given to Mounds View residents to the extent possible. g. Tho-Cityehall•iasara-thas41-koesiagassistaece-availabia and accessible-to 44aaraurzityresidents, • d. Utilize the City newsletter, local news media, and the city • website to inform residents of housing program availability. f 4-J tiiize-MetropelitarrHottging aid-Reder=eleprie Aether y4nd-- Mianeseta..&iaance ge y.P ams-where-possible-to-previ4e -hows -oppogaities-cir-lout-aad-mc iefate-inceraapersons. -_e. Minimize administrative costs of housing programs through utilization of non-City staff(i.e. state and regional agency staff, private institution staff, etc.) Goal 4: Encourage a creative approach to the use of land and related residential development. Policies: a. Encourage design and planning innovations in both housing and land development and redevelopment. 4 Transitional genes-AA-buffer istinc y 4i€fer-ingdeosities€04 -housing,- $ Coesider i ovation-+n-sxbilivisioa design-andheusing- -clevelepmeot 4 aesideatiai-reighbofkoects shoaldbe-phoned ai 4 d eloped as- waits with-related,but limited sa or ive-sevise €1-cenxmefeial. • ,actiuitiss,- -e -Aecess te-m jec s ceets-wi b .enceurage wry-e€- -r.esidential-neig#borkoods,- - .4.1.1-new housiegrincluding-reatal.heasingy.shall-ad efe to-the- -highest atter-highest possible standards o€.} naingrdesig ,and.ceastRictioa,. -g b. All types of housing will be considered, provided each is properly located according to the Comprehensive Plan and the site plans and structural quality are in accordance with the applicable City codes. Goal 5: Protect residential land uses which 144a=14 he rigoant are impacted by noise in the vicinity of the Anoka County Airport. Policy: a. Develop close and continuing liaison with the Metropolitan Airports Commission in the planning process for the Anoka County Airport to provide mitigation of noise impacts through adjustment of flight patterns. operational changes, and the sound proofing of residential homes, • ,\• • PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting September 16, 1998 Mounds 'ew City Hall 2401 Highway 10, IVI2i;:nds;:;:,ew, MN 55112 1. Call to Ordervo- '° ,y y. ' eltf Chairperson Peterson called the Mounds View Plannin_;3 '�mmisi:r Special ee.. r w00111.F -r at 7:00 p.m. "c 2. Roll CallAP Agaraat, ' Members present: Chairperson Peterson, CommissiQ . ... :rasaeml" .m':ro�k , Johnson, Miller, and Obert. 'Q' y Members absent: Commissioner Stevens°:;"'and Council f;-1 _. ¢pmeiners. IIAlso present: Community Develops .r irecto kick Jop1 ; Planning Associate Jim Ericson; and Recorder Dave Hix. '"„' `t A ,` ”` ; 3 Tom, .. Index to. ' . l':;<..:...y 1t. les x Page Planning Ca S 3-98, C'o $: io of resolution No. 556-98, a 2 Resolution Approving1Varianc . : or a Sidewalk, 5249 Greenfield e ue ` imoth Mr Resolution Approving a '4 a i.ace Request to Allow a Joint Use Parking an > ccess Arrangemenbetween the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Setback, 2200 & 2214.> ghway 10 (Mermaid and Perkins, respectively), ant .'Hall, representing the Mermaid H�7b�k .yf.''..:.':;.'M'r-:::!:1...."',•`.:-*,, y::. P: n c No. 535-98, Consideration of Resolution No. 558-98, a 4 ResolutionApproving a Variance to Allow for two Curb Cuts, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias / PLANNING COMMISSION Page 2 • September 16, 1998 3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizens' requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 461b Y =:fir i SF. 4fF:. J'Y.JfI%'3y 4. : Y , f. Planning Case No. 533-98 `:_ Property Involved: 5249 Greenfield Avenue iifY i t'.; 'y ,<<:Consideration of Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution . :.proving variance R=$ Sidewalk. >t< n. . Applicant: Timothy White lir Ill** The applicant, Timothy White, was present. .,,, = Associate Ericson gave his report as follows>t-<. _ ,,i.; :;A;. ::"444"., The applicant was back before the Plant g Com :mission a woWime after his original request had been tabled. At the September&l98 Plating Conision meeting, significant discussion • was held regarding the merits of : ": :=ase as :.�Il as the i., rpretation of the language in the Code relating to setbacks. Because ofny facto,: •ossibl, °' dships), such as the slope of the land north of the garage, safety considerations �. _ € ` cess elsewhere on the lot, the Planning Commissioned to tabl.,.- ;r_: nest to e "`"' to draft both approval and denial versions of the resoluti >RA . Staff was recommendingthat thet Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 556-98, a Resol> l ?t" Oving a' ' nce for Timothy White of 5249 Greenfield Avenue, to allow for a `educed side-yar setback dor a deck-like sidewalk. Air 1W51,4Ak& -e :INONMen; Chai,, erson Peterson returnedthe floor to the Commission for questions of staff. If MAW suggested the following amendment to the Resolution: Add to the first WHEREAS the emtn descriptive notes.thatricson had included in Section (a) under the staff report Analysis. She also sedddingri s:: verbiage that stated leveling of the sidewalk on the north side of the garage was Mm*AMnopossi' .tlu+ to exposure of the garage footings. 4c a::Y:n.1y i:'t::.` 1:°' .�'Fk�T'o:.`df Obert stated the hardships that were being discussed were really not hardships but conditions that were brought on by the property owner. He voiced his opposition to the stated hardships and expressed his concern that the City was allowing too many variances for work that had been done without first applying for the proper work permits. 1111 1 410 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 September 16, 1998 MOTION/SECOND: Brooks/Miller to approve Resolution No. 556-98, A Resolution Approving a Variance Request for a Sidewalk, as amended, 5249 Greenfield Avenue, Timothy White. – VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Motion carr ed ; 5. ;: Planning Case No. 536-98 ,,5, Property Involved: 2200 & 2214 Highway 10 (Mermaid: d Per,:!-: , respectiv=';•..: . Fk ar<Oa�::... Consideration of resolution No. 560-98, a Resolution App `l,a Variance Request, 4 low a Joint Use Parking and Access Arrangement between the Et.;`` ' and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback. '..•. f Applicant: Daniel Hall, representing the Mermaid :;. 'F zn. :0 :" x, � #"'The applicant, Daniel Hall, was present. _�. ;:4 Associate Ericson gave his report as follvs: '.. T;. • eir The applicant was requesting a v .,t_» `cue from to require : ve-foot setback established for parking lots in a business districth aar ' p `dot for ermaid has been expanded and resurfaced in...:accordance with h;: evelopr>ten <_stibmitted to and approved by the City on May 11, lx I.x,It was di ed er thee th the developmentplans �: p were in error(off by a roxima;::;" :``':.en feet : `>_ he arkin g lot north of PP ��e�::,. ), � p g the building as constructed encroaches i f s uired side—. ...-tback and in one area crosses the property line onto the Perkins r P oPe � ._:::;:tC+��::wf�:'W.'::as::?jt:::+1:::::�i..yiF:�3:::�::�f3'.b::. i' To compensate the Pe kiss property, the Mermaid has opened a secondary access drive between the two usincsscs, com i ng the existing joint access. This access will serve to improve : p circulation between the s = d to improve the safety of Mermaid patrons by diverting Perkins traffic'to the rear of the Mermaid. In addition, representatives from both properties have entered ini..joint use agreement, such that both properties are protected in the event either use or ownership should change. The City will require that a cross-access and shared parking easement Ottitwith 1 .4plAWCounty to legitimize the arrangement. This document is being drafted by tiiitt..��yw;.":iii>)>,0•>';t3:>:.:._y.'.:..: Staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 560-98, a Resolution Approving a Variance for a Zero-Foot Setback for a Parking Lot, on Properties Located at 2200 & 2214 highway 10. IDChairperson Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions of staff. I PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 . September 16, 1998 Miller asked if the island between the two parking lots would remain. Dan Hall, told the Commission the island would remain "as is." �x�'}` nt : x Obert recommended adding that final approval be contingent,upon exec g` d recordation of the easement document. MOTION/SECOND: Obert/Brasaemle to approve Resc ion No. 5::!0-98,':4.c .. Approving a Variance Request to Allow a Joint Use Pa g • and 'ess Arranairetr n the Businesses and a Zero-Foot Parking Lot Setback, . ,: "or:for 2200 & 22 ", 1,g ay 10, Daniel Hall representing the Mermaid. s " z t�: VOTE: Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 3> . • Motion carried Planning Case No. 535-98 -, ``"t< ; Property Involved: 8111 Eastwood Roar' �° 2`4_� F Consideration of Resolution No. 5584~.,, a Res sf tion approving a Variance to Allow for two . Curb Cuts. ` Applicant: Michael Tobias y< The appliiiireWhael Tobi.'+'Xw.'dot resent. : ." `-'moi 11'4,1:74114,11 Vflir-' Associate Ericss repor :�•s: Aggeagatiie:ft,. IV The applicantvas requestingz .variance from the Code requirement that states a single-family propert ,shall be limiter r 1:::.;:N® - . : . . . - -: ' . , • • .. -. -.t a building permi to resurface his driveway, which had access onto both Sherwood Road and Eastwood Road At that time staff i dicated that a building permit could not be approved due to the nnnforming naturethe driveway, unless the access to Sherwood Road was removed. The applicant agreed and t o permit was issued. Subsequent reinspection of the property showed that b€tt .ac sss`point j emained, both having been improved contrary to the permit. The applicant voomogittigsiriling that they had two alternatives to resolve the situation: 1. Remove the driveway access to Sherwood Road 2. Apply for and receive a variance The applicant chose to apply for a variance in order to maintain the driveway in its present condition. 11) PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 September 16, 1998 To understand the predominance of the type of driveway configuration present at 8111 Eastwood Road, staff surveyed corner properties north of Hillview between Groveland and Long Lake Road. There are 54 corner lots in this area, of which ten (18.5 percent) have multi!`. curb cuts. In comparison, the percentage of all residential properties with more thaane c,;. $' cut is less than onepercent. Corner propertiespresent unique safetyissues P P q ;.lith as m.:":``�� g7.ir distinct paths of traffic to monitor while backing out of the driveway. Some co er lot-401, hof tree cover, shrubs and other plantings, have limited visibility thereby '.' =-asing the„'''a:.-` Yom' The applicant hired an asphalt company to do the requir t rivewa'.demolition'...: ”; p V reconstruction work. The contractor read and was aw. . ' ': ity's request tha . ' ' • cut onto Sherwood Road was to be removed. It was the opus ; ' that the contractor made an error in not removing the curb cut as requested by the Ci:•: :.a`:: '�t l .at into the work contract that the Tobias family had with the contracto :-:::::r Vemar0, Staff gave no recommendation but offered the P. o 'ssion`' ..'ptt`.n A" and "Option D" of Resolution No. 558-98, Approval or De r::""'p £. iv ,,: nib; s ee :�r;�. � p Chairperson Peterson returned the floor.::."`' the Co ssio`' '`� Scions of staff. 0 A ddiscussion was held in regards t at con .$# ted mainnance and what constituted reconstruction. The Code allow::'" nprove :` 1! 1 " of e ' ng conditions as long as they are not "expanded." ' ' " ' r u t '' f!N It was the`` s �" s of they _ a ion that t e contractor was aware that the Sherwood Road curb cut wast;_.-_moved an .: .._` - new work would include a turn around area in place of the old drivewa er th drawing1.0'1&''§' dimensions and quoted prices for the work. vitor- Obert st >_:::::.;:a<�s;=: >::;<:«: ��::>�%°A�. :_sx� ated there waa no hardship toYjustify the variance. He added, the problem that the :ro:ert: :: .'' i - i. . . . . is the,:i*e who should be responsible for correcting the error, with no charge to the home owner. MfION/SECOND: , . asaemle/Miller to approve Resolution No. 558-98 "Option D" Denial of :' dance for Two£ b Cuts, as amended, 8111 Eastwood Road, Michael Tobias. va " Ayes - 6 Nays 0 Motion carried 4.1310 . 7. Staff Reports/Information Items A. Highway 10 Design Theme fraDirector Jopke gave his report as follows: i PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 0 September 16, 1998 A visual presentation was made using concept plans that had been developed by the Hoisington Koegler Group, the City's design consultant with input from various Commission and City staff personnel. The Consultant had used the Theme "Woods and Wetland." This theme does use components of the "Mainstreet" theme which used neighborhood roads to'bring to the "main corridor." ax0,,A., • ,.. l.r:,.;e., The Council has asked the staff to draft a design implemez: on report :.$ .,.,:::44.4eK4,lore se potential funding for the project's $3 million plus budget taff taff is resaffimegd:Flovira Highway 10 Corridor Project be included in the City's .„t , •rehe9Ort Plan Updat B. Theater Project Update WAS& ,aiitga :::emtiOnto, Director Jopke gave his report as follows: " b14N!,401040 .4trtifie A Development Agreement has been executed with Anthony 10;gttyPropertft1,„.4 City and the 11 Developer have agreed to "work together" tatte dr.1:*iffi,,.,,ii,e0orobler, at may result from !..N!: ,1 opening of the theater before the signalizlintersectri, at %1wa„Ar...0,, and Edgewood Road is ready. SEH has been given a uthorizafioao compkite (41gn for this signalized : intersection, which will also service te:fity's Nev Comm„.„...ty Center. • "IV iif . „ . One or two of the office buildin. -..t;at are pgtiof the development may be built on a "spec" basis. Plans and svcification for th#35e$tildings 01:0119.t'oming from the developer earlier in the fall. 414Vg:Ti. '';',v:' '-V.pK,.0. -• .: : nak:,0*.:,,,,!.;"1,• VA-r4.0%Wya, .....,,,,,:i. ...%, .','WMAINz C. Mermadmiel/Banq:' *:;: :.Update ..*514OPP ` Director Jopk%gli*t.:;.Z$!rt as dijoit: „or .visigotk . . .. • •- 1 lie -• - 22 2.:":-. : a a: ..Z,4> • a 1- - 0 p ea a — .,, is s •a . . . ..:."*Aw City this Development Agreerritifigne would provide $1.7 million in TEE assistance to the dev$Oper. These funds would cover site improvements and acquisition of the land, other than the Rent-All site on the corner of Highway 10 and County Road H. The City would be solely rt*.nsible for acquiring the Rent-All site and relocating the business, a sum of approximately $55p. ..... ,om 09. StaiTiOarrently in the application process for a Minnesota Department of Trade and z4It#eegro*5niwhich will, if successfully awarded, offset some of the costs of this project. 60410.4airlias also expressed very strong interest in developing the Rent-All site as a possible Park & Ride. If this project goes forward there is a potential that the Metro Transit will share in some if not a large portion of the funds necessary to complete the project. D. Greenfield Ponds Tax Forfeit Properties le , • PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 September 16, 1998 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: Ramsey County has notified the City of the availability of tax forfeited properties. . ere are three properties that are located within the Greenfield Pond Subdivision, the Har tad,S"'adivision. The properties were identified as Outlot A(the entire wetland area:,,, Outlot. F g ,4. t 3 which are located on the unimproved Edgewood Drive. The City cu $i has :.'::'?.':':.47:111:4-casement over the entirety of the wetland, Outlot A and B and part of Le Staff w. .s .. ommissio for its opinion in regards to the City purchasing any or . N f the pro : es. '; °' , •do 1 would be to acquire a $200 "Use Deed" from the Coup;:; = hich `1 ld give th='; „, ., e rihts to utilize the property for a specific purpose, i.e., t _.i1� y� > g P P Y P PrP of 3, with exte a . .ils corrections is the only buildable lot. liM' Obert stated the property should be left available for r> to de " `$- . P :. Peterson stated the "Use Deed" would be the be . < Ericson stated staff would verify that there €�'no nee .` . $ chi.:: Tin terms of additional drainage, mitigation, or for any other rein. If th .Ci e . ° s: ave a need for the properties 0 then a recommendation to "pass" on ,,- ropert' will be f "rwarded to the Council. 8. Chairperson and Planni °::Comm. ✓ ners' ' `:ports No report.wf a consider. :-8'::: {,. :, f 9. Adjournment to AgendaMing There beingnQ . . . :<.:.., :�:` ..,..,.,,,_.., ,;,-�,;3; .. ess be`0... ;.'g e Planning Commission Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meetingv $.$5. �.>.f„ } .«:: z : ;--p.'... >y, (The tetg°immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) ie ReStiectfully submitted, : OORN, 440' :-'Z-:.e: CSR::, ?xfi:: «.....t Rick Jopke Community Development Director