Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 - Planning Commission Task Force Notes, March 16, 1988 <br /> nTSrl� After having reviewed and prioritized the objectives, the <br /> task force considered the question of why attention was <br /> being devoted to this site, since virtually all the others <br /> In the City have developed without significant City <br /> involvement. It was agreed that this parcel is unique due <br /> to its very visible location, yet it is not likely to be <br /> developed In a quality manner due to the problems It will <br /> present to a potential developer. <br /> It was also noted that all of the cities surrounding Arden Hills, namely <br /> Shoreview, Mounds View, Roseville, and New Brighton, as well as others <br /> in the Immediate area, such as Fridley and Blaine are taking steps to <br /> entice developers by offering development incentives. Consequently, for <br /> Arden Hills may suffer from a competitive disadvantage, <br /> particularlythis site, which poses significant obstacles to development. Member <br /> McGraw opined that Arden Hills has many positive attributes for <br /> developers to consider, such as a low tax rate, <br /> fine location, and <br /> ly <br /> pleasant te• thisesiteese cantbeimadessuperioritoethetofferings with <br /> nofY <br /> minimal assistance, <br /> other cities. <br /> The task force would like to work with interested developers In order to <br /> determine possibilities for the site, but before that can happen, the <br /> problems it presents must be quantified, and potential developers must <br /> made t aware <br /> tome future point the task force would like to request <br /> rtswisenlwas <br /> a . <br /> agreed thaha <br /> proposals from developers. <br /> In the meantime, informal discusssions with several area developers <br /> would probably be helpful In order to lndentify both possibilities and <br /> problems. Planner Berg1Y stated that some Interest has been shown In <br /> the site, and representatives from Towle and/or Colwell Banker might be <br /> willing to attend a future meeting of the group in order to explore <br /> attends. Both he, an he <br /> reresentatives fromer stheselortother developetempt to rs at r at <br /> p future <br /> attendance of <br /> session. <br /> The problems inherent to the site were enumerated. They are: <br /> 1 . Access - Current access to the site is very poor, since the <br /> only just <br /> aefewroute <br /> feet from its intersection which <br /> withirampsefromH135W- <br /> ay <br /> 96 just <br /> 2. Multiple Parcels - The site is presently broken up into <br /> numerous lots (sane very small in size), owned by four parties <br /> -Harstad, Kem Milling, Minnesota Diversified, and Naegele. <br /> 3. General Building Conditions - This is an unknown, <br /> which must be <br /> explored. It is probable that the land is unencumbered by any <br /> negative conditions such as poor soil , drainage, or . <br /> contamination with pollutants, but this must be confirmed. <br />