Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant to the City Administrator Brama then presented information regarding the 270 -acre <br />MPCA site (property #3) which is a closed landfill owned by the MPCA and advised the MPCA <br />has identified some "areas of concern" as well as "methane area of concern," pointing out this <br />designation does not mean there is contamination on the site. He advised that staff contacted the <br />MPCA regarding purchasing the site or allowing the private sector to purchase the property and <br />initially received pushback and staff is working with the MPCA to determine if the public works <br />campus could be located on this site. <br />Development Services Manager Gladhill presented an email from Jean Hanson from the MPCA <br />dated August 7, 2013, for inclusion in the official record. He distributed a copy of Minnesota <br />Statutes §115B.412 and explained that the MPCA appears to be firm that this statute usurps local <br />government control and requires the City to comply with the MPCA's landfill land use plan, thus <br />precluding use of the site as a public works campus. He advised there are other restrictions on <br />the site related to bonding dollars that the State used to acquire the property from Waste <br />Management; in addition, the MPCA has areas of concern and there are monitoring wells <br />throughout the site to monitor the ground water and the MPCA also wants to save the remaining <br />property for soil remediation purposes. He indicated the westerly parcel has an oak savanna and <br />the City will need to determine whether it wants to protect this area or support development on <br />this site. He explained that if the EDA wanted to move forward with this site to determine if the <br />restrictions could be removed, the City would have to go to the PCA Commissioner or obtain <br />special legislation to remove this site from the MPCA's closed landfill land use plan. <br />Assistant to the City Administrator Brama then presented property #4, the second Pearson <br />property consisting of 125 acres with mixed zoning. He indicated Mr. Pearson is a willing seller <br />but the major drawback with this site is that utilities are 4,000' from the site and would require a <br />significant investment to get utilities to the site. He then presented property #5 consisting of 160 <br />acres on the south side of Highway 10 with utilities approximately 3,000' from the site. He <br />pointed out this site extends to the Mississippi River and because so much of the property is <br />riverfront, it makes sense that a large portion of the site would be residential. He advised that <br />staff has not contacted the owner of property #5 because of the anticipated cost of this site and <br />the impact to surrounding properties of an industrial park. <br />Development Services Manager Gladhill noted that this area is part of a statewide critical area <br />designation that would limit how much could be used for an industrial park. <br />Assistant to the City Administrator Brama presented information regarding property #6, the 44- <br />acre former Diamond's Sports Bar and stated the property is zoned retail and staff has been <br />unable to get clear direction from the property owner regarding their vision for the site. <br />Member Riley requested that the term "industrial park" be changed to "business park" because of <br />the negative connotations with the term industrial. He also requested that staff provide historical <br />information regarding the City's partnerships with other property owners on business park <br />developments, including the City's role in these developments. <br />It was the consensus of the EDA to direct staff to pursue the Pearson Properties site (north) <br />(property #1) as the primary industrial park for Ramsey, including engaging surrounding <br />property owners regarding a potential zoning change before submitting an application for a <br />Economic Development Authority /August 8, 2013 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />