My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-18-1994
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
CCP 10-18-1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:10:02 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 3:35:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
<br />, <br /> Arden Hills Business Park PUD Page 5 <br />. Depending upon the manner in which the Comprehensive Plan addresses Industrial development and <br /> Planned. Unit Developments. it may be necessary to process a minor amendment to the Plan. There <br /> are no aspects of this proposal that would trigger any issues of Metropolitan significance. and <br /> therefore. a major comprehensive plan amendment. <br /> DEVELOPMENT APPROACH & CITY ROLE IN THE PROCESS <br /> The Task Force working on the NE 35W & 694 Study identified three development alternatives that <br /> the City could follow. In summary they are as follows: <br /> I. Do nothing and allow development to proceed in whatever form and pace the <br /> current zoning (I-I) and market forces dictate. <br /> 2. Rezone the property PUD and establish planning and design criteria which will <br /> assure development that assures development in the area will be the "Highest and <br /> Best" type and quality (which they acknowledged had yet to be determined). and <br /> 3. Become involved in promoting the type and quality of development desired on the <br /> subject property. This alternative assumes the approach identified under alternative <br /> 2. but also further involvement including the use of tax increment financing. <br /> working with a developer and a willingness to become involved in lot consolidation <br /> and potentially eminent domain to correct inefficient lot configurations and <br /> ownership patterns. <br /> The alternative that the Everest proposal anticipates is number 3. Obviously. since this narrative is <br /> for a PUD. we strongly endorse that approach. We also propose to be the developer that works <br />. with the City on the entire project. We agree with the Task Force that this is the best way to insure <br /> design continuity and quality control. <br /> In addition to exploring alternatives for development approaches. the Task Force concluded its study <br /> with seven recommendations. These recommendations are summarized as follows: <br /> I. Rezone the entire parcel <br /> 2. Establish a development District. and at the appropriate time. Tax Increment <br /> Financing Districts as needed. <br /> 3. Establish a Community Development Commission. <br /> 4. Prepare a Request for Proposals for the site. <br /> 5. Solicit Development Proposals from pre-qualified developers. <br /> 6. Enter into a Development Agreement with a successful proposer. and <br /> 7. Work with New Brighton. in conjunction with entering into a Development <br /> Agreement to foster joint development of their site on the west side of I-35W. <br /> Many of these recommendations have already been implemented. The acceptance of the Everest <br /> proposal and the successful completion and implementation of this PUD will consummate six of the <br /> seven recommendations. The only recommendation not addressed by the Everest proposal would be <br />. the relationship with New Brighton for the potential bridge connection and access improvements. <br /> ------ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.