09/19/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Development Services Manager Gladhill presented an email from Jean Hanson from the MPCA dated August 7, 2013, for inclusion in the official record. He distributed a copy of Minnesota Statutes §115B.412 and explained that the MPCA appears to be firm that this statute usurps local government control and requires the City to comply with the MPCA's landfill land use plan, thus precluding use of the site as a public works campus. He advised there are other restrictions on the site related to bonding dollars that the State used to acquire the property from Waste Management; in addition, the MPCA has areas of concern and there are monitoring wells throughout the site to monitor the ground water and the MPCA also wants to save the remaining property for soil remediation purposes. He indicated the westerly parcel has an oak savanna and the City will need to determine whether it wants to protect this area or support development on this site. He explained that if the EDA wanted to move forward with this site to determine if the restrictions could be removed, the City would have to go to the PCA Commissioner or obtain special legislation to remove this site from the MPCA's closed landfill land use plan. Assistant to the City Administrator Brama then presented property #4, the second Pearson property consisting of 125 acres with mixed zoning He indicated Mr. Pearson is a willing seller but the major drawback with this site is that utilities are 4,000' from the site and would require a significant investment to get utilities to the site. He then presented property #5 consisting of 160 acres on the south side of Highway 10 with utilities approximately 3,000' from the site. He pointed out this site extends to the Mississippi River and because so much of the property is riverfront, it makes sense that a large portion of the site would be residential. He advised that staff has not contacted the owner of property #5 because of the anticipated cost of this site and the impact to surrounding properties of an industrial park. Development Services Manager Gladhill noted that this area is part of a statewide critical area designation that would limit how much could be used for an industrial park. Assistant to the City Administrator Brama presented information regarding property #6, the 44- acre former Diamond' s Sports Bar and stated the property is zoned retail and staff has been unable to get clear direction from the property owner regarding their vision for the site. Member Riley requested that the term "industrial park" be changed to "business park" because of the negative connotations with the term industrial. He also requested that staff provide historical information regarding the City's partnerships with other property owners on business park developments, including the City's role in these developments. It was the consensus of the EDA to direct staff to pursue the Pearson Properties site (north) (property #1) as the primary industrial park for Ramsey, including engaging surrounding property owners regarding a potential zoning change before submitting an application for a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment and developing a feasibility study utilizing the City's Engineering Department for full build out of an industrial park (projected revenues and expenditures). It was also the consensus of the EDA to direct staff to continue to discuss the Hageman Holdings property (property #2) to further understand implications of the required completion of Bunker Lake Boulevard, further understand implications of previous assessments, attain asking price, and further understand which type of users would be allowed. It was also the consensus of the EDA to direct staff to continue to discuss acceptable land uses with the MPCA Economic Development Authority /August 8, 2013 Page 4 of 5