My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
05/05/16
Ramsey
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Minutes
>
2010's
>
2016
>
05/05/16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2020 8:49:01 AM
Creation date
6/14/2016 4:25:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Member Williams asked if a zoning change would be required to develop this parcel as <br />residential. <br />Economic Dev. Mgr/Assistant City Administrator Brama stated right now the Pearson property <br />is zoned medium density residential with a portion zoned high density and a slice of it retail. <br />Member Riley asked if there was any infrastructure there to support residential. <br />Economic Dev. Mgr/Assistant City Administrator Brama stated there was not and City services <br />are required in order to develop the property. <br />Chairperson Steffen asked if it would matter if the business park was on the Pearson or Hagman <br />side. <br />Economic Dev. Mgr/Assistant City Administrator Brama stated when looking at setbacks from <br />the railroad track, if they move to the north side they would eliminate the consideration of that <br />issue. All of the property was farmland at one point. He stated he did not see a substantial <br />difference and they would need to investigate as the property that Hagman envisioned for a <br />school is platted today, which means development fees have been paid, and may be an advantage <br />for the business park. He stated legally they platted this with utilities running up to it, and may <br />be in a better position as far as development costs. <br />Member Williams thought there were several concerns regarding this. She thought the three <br />hundred feet from the railroad tracks is for a very small segment of potential users. There are a <br />lot of different types of industrial uses within the United States within three hundred feet from <br />the railroad tracks. She thought there was a lack of visibility on the north side of Bunker Lake <br />Boulevard extension. Having the visibility from Highway 10 is appealing to some of the <br />industrial users, not all, but that is something they should consider when looking at a number of <br />users for this. <br />Chairperson Steffen asked if option four had some appeal with being close to the railroad track <br />because of the visibility. <br />Member Williams indicated it would. <br />Member Skaff asked what the political ramifications are of the City buying and holding land <br />based on past experience. <br />Member Williams felt that was something the Council should consider based on a <br />recommendation of the EDA. If the EDA is interested in pursuing that avenue and there are <br />strong reasons that can be articulated as to why, she would absolutely champion that in front of <br />the Council. <br />Member Riley stated he made it a point of getting the City out of the land ownership and <br />development business and he would have a very hard time justifying the fact that they don't <br />Economic Development Authority/May 5, 2016 <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.