CCP 02-22-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I. I I specify only general parameters. The third would combine these approaches, treating the AR as a PUD/SUP but also specifYing a minimum project area of 25 acres. The consulting team recommends taking this third approach. . Add Section V.N. to include Special Requirements for the AR Arsenal Redevelopment District. N. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AR ARSENAL REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT I. Procedure. All property within the AR Arsenal Redevelopment District will be developed using the techniques described in Section V.L., PUD Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUD District). The applicable underlying zoning shall conform generally to the land-use configuration, as amended, that appears in that portion of the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan known as the TCAAP Framework Plan. 2. Special Regulation. Property zoned as AR Arsenal Redevelopment District shall be developed using project areas of no less than 25 acres. B. Potential Change in TCAAP's Status as a Military Installation The Federal Base Realignment and Closure Assistance (BRAC) legislation (10 U.S.c. 2687 et seq.) and interim fmal regulations (32 CFR parts 90, 91) dermed the formal process under which U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) facilities no longer needed to fulrill a DOD mission are identified for disposal, by transfer or sale, to other Federal Agencies, preferred public users and/or the private sector. DOD facilities were designated for disposal by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, based on recommendations from DOD. Several rounds ofBRAC closures were announced in recent years, including 1995, approved by the Commission and forwarded to the president. The BRAC process paralleled the General Services Administration (GSA) facilities disposal process, except that the Department of Defense, not GSA, was responsible for all land screening and disposal decisions. TCAAP has been subject to the GSA facilities disposal regulations because it is not designated as a "base" by the Department of the Army. This is surprising, because many other similar installations -- munitions manufacturing and storage facilities - _ around the country are considercd to be "bases" and therefore subject to closure under BRAC guidelines. (A list of some of these facilities appears in the appendices.) On December 31, 1995, the Base Closure and Realignment Commission completed its assignment and was dissolved. Therefore, it is no longer possible to request BRAC designation for TCAAP. TCAAP's status is unfortunate for the City of Arden Hills, for this reason: If the facility had been designated for realignment or disposal under BRAC, DOD would have been required to establish a community-based task force to plan for the reuse and redevelopment of the facility. The local planning process would have become determinative of the reuse potential for the DOD facility, subject only to DOD concurrence. Furthermore, in 1994, the so-called Pryor Amendment was adopted, creating a new priority conveyance option for BRAC facilities, known as an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC). The Pryor Amendment allows a DOD facility to be transferred directly to a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA), "for consideration at or below fair market value..." This conveyance option is in addition to cxisting conveyance options for health and education, public airport, and related purposes. The LRA must be the entity responsible for the proposed redevelopment activity and be rcgistered with DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment. DOD can make an economic development conveyance of BRAC facilities to a requesting community. In order to seek an EDC, the LRA must first complete a reuse plan for the facility, supported by a business plan confmning the economic viability of the proposed reuse plan. If the BRAC facility has immediate reuse potential and is free and clear of environmental problems, DOD must negotiate a sale at fair market value to the local Camiros, Ltd./SEH. Inc./LHDL. Ltd. TCAAP Framework Plan Page 5 Chapter VI