Agenda - Council - 12/10/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE # q DEV~ELOPMENT OF CITY OF RAMSEY RESIDENTIAL PARCEL By: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator Background: On October 8, ':1996, Council authorized the receipt of proposals for development of a 21.7-acre parcel north o~ a 153rd Avenue and west of Sunfish Lake Boulevard which the City owns. Council furtheridirected that a neighborhood meeting be held to discuss the potential development. On October 10,!: 1996, the parcel was advertised and mailed notice was provided to developers having done work in Ramsey or expressing an interest in such. On the same date, notice was mailed for a me,ting of the neighborhood adjacent to this parcel to the north. Notice was provided to 43 parcels within the adjacent subdivision. On October 24, 1996, the neighborhood meeting was held. The~ were four residents of the area able to attend the meeting. On November 11, 1996, we receiv~l expressions of interest in the land from three separate developers. Based on the ingut received at the neighborhood meeting, staff drafted two different development concepts which ~seemed most likely to receive a positive review by the neighborhood. These concepts were fq~rwarded to Council at the meeting of November 26, 1996. On November 27, 1996, the City forwarded an additional request to the developers having had expressed interest in the property. The ongnnal request, letter to the neighborhood, and the latest request ~s attached for your review. In our most rec~ent correspondence with the developers, we requested purchase offers to be delivered to the (~ity by Friday, December 6, 1996. This date was picked in order for possible Council consideration of the proposals at your meeting of December 10, 1996. These proposals, in some form will[ be brought to your table for discussion. In our prior meeting with the neighborhood, we committed that we would keep the neighborhood informed throughbut the process. This has occurred in that they have received copies of any public correspondence r~garding this matter. However, the neighborhood has not yet been afforded the opportunity for formal comment on any particular development concept (although the staff concepts have been forwarded to them). It is my expectation that it is the neighborhood expectation that p~ior to closing on the land with any third party this review will occur. Therefore, as part of any CoCncil action, I would ask for that direction (that of neighborhood review of the development concbpts, not the purchase offers). In order to provide for disposition of City property, the Council must provide adoption of an ordinance authon~ng that action. On your table this evening is introduction of an ordinance initiating that process. Contemplated, is that Council will provide for a preferred developer status in order to provide time to work out the details of the development, undergo the review by the public, enter into a sale and development agree~nent and provide for adoption of the authorizing ordinance. The preferred developer will need to go through the additional steps required for platting. Given that we are ~preparing .this case prior to receipt of purchase offers, we do not have a recommendation. That will be provided at the table along with the summaries of the purchase offers. Council Action: Based on discussion Reviewed by: City Administrator CC: 12/10/96 /jmt