Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2017

Home

(3) EDA Feedback • The EDA reviewed this case 12/08/2016 and 01/12/2017. The EDA is generally supportive of moving forward with Site #1. 12/08/2016 NOTES • The EDA is very interested in this project, and would like to welcome Stone Brook to Ramsey (and The COR). The EDA wants this deal to happen, and is excited to work with Stone Brook to find a solution. The EDA understands the many benefits this project can bring to Ramsey. • The EDA was generally interested in obtaining more information from staff (RE the Yolite Street discussion/ the remnant lots), and hearing back from Stone Brook (on other potential site locations), before making a final recommendation on this particular site. • The EDA was generally concerned about this specific site location/ site layout. The EDA is most interested in a comprehensive approach to developing this larger site (nearly 5 acres). The EDA generally believes a master developer can most effectively/ efficiently plan around the current site limitations/ challenges (listed below). The EDA would rather have Stone Brook located on another site, to avoid solidifying the development challenges for this site (listed below). Yolite intersection/ connection. The EDA was concerned this connection is un-needed, and a waste of public dollars (originally $394K total cost, now about $284K). The COR master plan no longer calls for the Yolite connection. The EDA was generally open to discussing a private connection/ and or private stub road solution. Remnant Parcels The EDA was concerned with the relatively fixed location of existing public infrastructure. These items create development layout/ lot size limitations —which restrict future development options. Please see "Staff Feedback Section" for details/ background. This proposed Stone Brook 1-acre site will solidify two remnant parcels. The EDA is generally concerned about the potential affects these remnant parcels will have on future development projects. Please see "Staff Feedback Section" for details/ background. 01/12/2017 NOTES • EDA supported moving forward with this site, with a 5-1 vote. The EDA felt that this project was a real project. Stone Brook is here today. It appears to be an acceptable use of Site #1. The user appears to be quality, and the proposed building should fit The COR. This site can be sold to Stone Brook without providing a formal business subsidy. • The EDA supported making a counter offer to Stone Brook (@ $3.30 psf). The EDA supported the Planning Commission's request, that if a project was to move forward on this particular site, that a connection be made from Sunwood to Veterans Drive. The EDA understood the significant traffic Stone Brook will create, and wants to avoid the drop off/pick up taking place on Sunwood. The EDA does not think a public road connection should be required, the EDA does support a private drive connection (like Residence at The COR). Generally, the EDA understood Stone Brook would likely desire to split the cost of a private drive with the City (50:50). Page 11 of 15