My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-09-07 Item 7D, I-35W Corridor Coalition Membership Status
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
04-09-07-R
>
04-09-07 Item 7D, I-35W Corridor Coalition Membership Status
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2007 4:21:21 PM
Creation date
4/6/2007 11:43:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
03-26-07 Item 7D, I-35W Corridor Coal
General - Type
Agenda Item
Category
Authorize I-35W Coalition Membership
Date
4/9/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - February 20, 2007 <br /> <br />Mayor Harpstead recommended that members of the City Council meet with their elected <br />officials to discuss the transportation needs for Arden Hills. The City Conncil will discuss the <br />City's membership in the I-35W Corridor Coalition at the last meeting in March, <br /> <br />Process and Procedures for Sale of City-Owned Property- <br />Mayor Stan Harpstead noted that the purpose of this discussion to set processes and procedures <br />for disposing for City owned property. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Karen Barton noted that in an effort to establish formal <br />guidelines for the sale of city-owned property, staff is presenting several options for City Council <br />consideration. <br /> <br />OPTION ONE: Formal ReQnest for Proposal (RFP) process without development <br />specifications (Please see attachment A for examvle) <br /> <br />The City may wish to issue an RFP to gamer proposals from qualified developers relating to <br />development/redevelopment of the property simply relying on zoning requirements to guide the <br />plans. <br /> <br />PROS: This option allows for maximum flexibility and creativity, within zoning guidelines, on <br />the part of the developer. <br /> <br />CONS: The City foregoes a certain amount of control in the development of the property, <br />relying solely on zoning to guide the plans, <br /> <br />OPTION TWO: Formal RFP process with development specifications (Please see <br />Attachment B for examvle) <br /> <br />In this option, the City would prepare development guidelines for the redevelopment of the <br />property. These guidelines can range from somewhat general (i.e., simply specifying the building <br />types and densities) to very detailed (i,e" specifYing design guidelines including finishes, <br />signage, amenities, in addition to building types and densities). <br /> <br />PROS: The City has the opportunity to create development guidelines for the property that are <br />compatible with and desirable to the surrounding neighborhoods, taking into consideration such <br />things as traffic generation, noise, visual impacts, etc, <br /> <br />CONS: Development guidelines set by the City may be deemed too restrictive to attract <br />economically feasible development proposals. <br /> <br />OPTION THREE: Market and sell land throueh real estate broker <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.