PCP 01-06-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - December I, 2004 6 Commissioner Zimmerman asked how items would be brought to thc Commission. Mr. . Clark replied the benefit to this development was that there was a Master Developer involved and a regulatory control would need to be put in place, which included the design guidelines. He stated they would also bring into this some type of a redevelopment district with standards put into place. He noted there would probably be a concept agreement for all of thc acres which would have key guidelines outlined and at that point, thc development would come in on phases. He indicated there would also be a comprehensive plan in place for this development. Commissioner Modesette asked what steps had been taken and what steps needed to be taken. Mr. Clark replied what happened was that the driving issue was site charactcrization because the developer needed to know what was on the property in order to price the property. He indicted there was a phase one and phase two done with comments being made by the PCA and EP A, but no comments being made back to the Anny. He stated there was an obligation to remediate the property to minimal industrial standards, but they were talking about a development that was radically different. He believed the regulators were not going to require a lot more with respect to an early transfer, but they wanted to figure out the remediation process after the transfer process, which would not work. He noted this was the largest stumbling block. He stated the bottom linc was that if they were going to characterize the site to the point that it was logical for thc developer to take it, the developer was going to have to make the initial characterization and not the Anny. The developer needed to manage their risk on this property. The Anny had indicated they wanted the transfer to happen in January, 2006, . but right now they had documents and task lists due to the City on December 15 and they needed to set up a process on how to deal with this. Commissioner Zimmerman asked what if the bottom line from GSA was a high figure, what would happen. Mr. Clark replied he did not believe the GSA would do this and that the GSA and the Anny did want to have this property transferred. Commissioner Sand asked who the developer was requesting to do the residential housing sector. Mr. Shardlow replied no residential partner had been named yet. Mr. Clark noted once the City decided what type of residential they wanted; they then could look residential developers. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there was a danger that the GSA could put this on the open market because of national developers having "deep pockets". Mr. Shardlow replied before any houscs could be put out there, there was a lot of cleaning up to do. He stated if the developer was looking for a residential partner, he did not believe there would be any problem finding one, but he did not believe a developer would come in and pay a high price for the land based on speculation. Chair Sand noted MnDOT might play an important role as to how the site was entered. He asked if MnDOT was participating in this process. Mr. Shardlow replied MnDOT . and the County were onboard with the basic aspect of site access and they were cooperating and participating.