The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1B, Ramsey County Rice Creek Trailhead Concept EN.HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 14, 2009 Item LB TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator James Lehnhoff, Community Development Director SUBJECT: UPDATE: Ramsey County Rice Creek Trailhead Concept and TCAAP North-South Regional Trail Connection Concept Background At the November 30, 2009, TCAAP work session, the City Council discussed two concept p proposals regarding parks, trails, and open space for the TCAAP property. The first concept was a trailhead and road access from County Road I for possible seasonal recreational activities at the Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS) that was presented by Greg Mack. The second concept was a new north-south regional trail corridor to connect Highway 96 to the Rice Creek North Regional Trail/Wildlife Corridor. At the conclusion of the work session, the Council stated support for the RamseyCounty y trailhead concept. While the Council was supportive of a north-south regional trail through g TCAAP, the Council requested more information to better understand the potential impacts of accepting any TCAAP property prior to a public sale, particularly contaminated property. Staff - was asked to discuss the concept with the City's environmental attorney, Mike Comodeca, and request feedback on the concept. Update There are essentially two general scenarios discussed for a new north-south regional trail. The first scenario included a trail that was integrated into the development and would be negotiated with a developer after the auction as part of the park dedication requirement. The second City of Arden Hills IlMetro-inetlardenhillslAdminlCouncillAgendas&Packet Information12009112-14-09 TCAAP WorksessionlPacket Information 1 121609-CC Memo-RC Trailhead and Rice Creek Trail Update.doc Page I of 3 scenario involved obtaining a designated trail corridor prior to the auction and separate from the park dedication requirement. Possible routes for a dedicated trail corridor include along the eastern or western property boundaries. As discussed at the meeting, the two scenarios are not necessarily mutually exclusive, though only one trail would be designated as a regional trail. Staff discussed the concept of transferring land for park and recreational uses prior to development with Mike Comodeca. He was requested to respond to the following two questions: 1. What concerns would you have about the City requesting or accepting a land transfer for a trail corridor prior to a public sale? 2. By what means could the City have the GSA include a park, trail, and open space requirement in the Invitation for Bid (IFB) for TCAAP? Mr. Comodeca's response is attached to this memorandum. In summary, Mr. Comodeca recommends against the City accepting TCAAP property prior to the public auction. However, Mr. Comodeca also states that the City may be able to request that the IFB include a requirement that a certain percentage of remediated land be transferred to the City at no cost for park, trail, and open space use. Since it is unlikely that the GSA would voluntarily include such a provision in the IFB, the City would need to pursue special legislation for this request. As discussed at the work session, the City does still have a park dedication requirement. Although the City's park dedication requirement could be revised for use on the TCAAP property, the current subdivision code allows the City to require up to ten percent of the property to be dedicated for park and recreation uses. Not including the primer-tracer area and wildlife corridor, TCAAP is approximately 458 acres. The City could conceivably require 48 acres for park and recreational uses, including a trail corridor. This would be separate from land needed for stormwater management. The current park dedication requirement does not include provisions for contaminated land, which would need to be addressed. Council Direction Requested In light of the information provided by Mr. Comodeca, staff would like feedback on: • Is the City Council interested in pursuing a property transfer for park and recreation uses prior to the public auction? • Does the City Council want to pursue special legislation to have the IFB include a requirement that a certain percentage of remediated land be transferred to the City at no cost for park, trail, and open space use? • Does the City Council prefer to rely on the park dedication requirement for park and recreation uses for a future redevelopment? City of Arden Hills - I Metro-inetWrden hills lA dmin l Council lAgendas&Packet Information12009112-14-09 TCAAP WorksessionlPacket Information1121609-CC Memo-RC Trailhead and Rice Creek Trail Update.doc Page 2 of 3 Once there is direction on the north-south trail concept, staff will prepare a letter of support for Greg Mack. The letter of support will also include the trailhead concept discussed at the previous work session. Attachment - December 8, 2009, Email from Mike Comodeca City of Arden Hills I Metro-inet Wrdenh ills Wmin I CouncibAgendas&Packet Information 12009112-14-09 TCAAP WorksessionlPacket Information1121609-CC Memo-RC Trailhead and Rice Creek Trail Update.doc Page 3 of 3 Message Page 1 of 2 James Lehnhoff Subject: RE: TCAAP Trail Corridor Concept From: Comodeca, Michael [mai Ito:mcomodeca@spencerfane.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:18 PM To: James Lehnhoff; Ron Moorse Subject: RE: TCAAP Trail Corridor Concept NOTICE OTI��L:.r. This electronic mail transmission constitutes confidential information. The transmission.contains information"that maybe protected under t1w attorney-client privilege, work. product doctrine,joint defense privilege, and./or other:recognized.privileges or protections under the law. The email is not intended.for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic onic mail transmission in error, please delete it Eros .your system without copying it, and notify the sender by Reply e-mail or by galling (913)345-8100, so that our address record can.be corrected. James and Ikon, .Here are my responses to your questions red)below. This email only highlights the issues. If you want a more detailed analysis,please let me know. Questions* a 5�.k•'ui`:a:..'�. •,v � would ;:Y'• �{,c �cge ,�, �,., have ,;w {;'.�,. the �;, ,,..�,.. ,.•�;,�..questing .k. �..� .y. .�.a .,�•.. land. .'•,�',7. �. 's�a; r:. f,,� :•:�,:zz•��,.•`,u'." �.,,, >{,%@ ', d '�•:h:..a �.� �"'"'E�,�> '�'"��:�: "s�,{�..3C .�`'.'3�;.." `�.�s `_'{�� .:4 .Yf ��P��` �"<�� ' %V ^4 % '�F" H f•. '�'JL IX 4 Y k k•Y�O+A I�'� C �•{•. prior •%+'•i #{ '(,':{At '.1 0 p{.. �p'"�}v :3�{•�!C•C 4. Y y�.r{ 3f 4"}s 46 '<''S� u' "` � $6 @ '�{ .o,+5 s� 7* ,�{a �',sI' +�, •i,� 2�S2.y#c; ':'NG b �v rh"e , :'w.'s!r�.. .>.� r .$..y`+., .�.. :'�� .';{,of�i.:;.:3` '{.. _i�3}i.,..), `t,� �.. 73.�+�.'n;. ,f�i3r '�.,�3r� 33.,r1`'+3. k.+r,an.:9 ! f.;$'w si.J,^,�x:' ,. b: I.ha-ve the following concerns: (1) It is not apparent-where the money for cl.ean.up of the trail corridor-would come from.. During the negotiated sale process, the developer was going to pay or the cleanup. But i:l`we get title•o the trail. corridor before the public; sale,-we will .not even know Y who t1w developer will be and.th.u.s will not be able to get the same assurances. Furthermore, it is my understanding from past comments from Mike Fix that the Army is not willing to provide any more funding :lior clean"u.p. (2) If we buy the trail property without knowing the-reuse plan. for the property, the selected location may interfere with the reuse ultimately proposed. (3) To protect itself from environmental liability, the City would have to conduct "al:l. appropriate-ingt i.ries" to qualify as a "bon.a.:ilde prospective purchaser" under CE CLA.. Othewise, the "ity would be potentially liable for any environmental contamination on the property"merely by being an own.er. The Phase:I environmental study, and any additional sampling determined to be necessaryr by the :pity",would.have to be funded.. (4) You in dicate ndica.te that a.trail corridor on the east side of the property would.most likely include FO :l"f"parcels. 14'the City gets title to the FC E"f"parcels, it would constitute an early transfer and require the Army to go through the (17DR process, I get the impression from CI a }s 12/9/2009 Message Page 2 of 2 current proposal to lease the FOSET parcels that they do not want to do that. (5) 'You also indicate that a trail.corridor on t:h.e west side of t1i.e property would include wells and a portion of the piping for the wastewater treatment plant. If��ou.recall. fro g the negotiated, sale process,the Army was reluctant to allow any interference with their remediatio infrastructure unless it was absolutely necessary. Even then, "the .A. :i-.iy was looking for cost- sharing. Moreover, even if the Army agreed. to move some piping and.wells, EPA -,in possibly MPCA - would have to approve 1t as well. (6.) If we take tale before the public sale, we have to remember er that-there is no guara tee that the :rest of the property will even be sold.. . .s a result,we could.end up with tattle to a.contaminated trail corridor;with no money to clean it up, and no other development around it. 2. i•'. ,g`2,.. .{,. ...r ..{}}ftl (''T,,��• '4�•r,•k�,Q Jff require Y.. •,}t •yr`•kk el to dedicate kwd§3,r`•ska ..e a certain. •k,d.•;`b Y;.x.",,r i r v ,:.:i6 gl•.eft.,.;�:�;•S;3..'e'.`t4 •� r<u,+v* •T .,� .w# rc�•• r` u.�• � park. and. :Yc''�a trail ,z R;}�••�{ use..., ',• :•a vw :{�C.4.y what i`, means City- have ,.,,.<as J.r �;, �: .� 9 +k l K. } •�y y��$ _ y�Q. 'a g .�+Y�,•+r�+�[..,.;�•3�..{, ,w s^.••5 ~�S F`� Could .� .�., the .. }�".rSt `4'i^ b:t5},YiY�.:4 the ' �•..% �•'"`S.. �'r�•�'•`'•'d •..W. such 3'r r`k�.:4 jC Irzt'«��+ �.F env .1G 5.}�.:{. ` •..@,: ,'S}"'�ES Y N`i L�i� } 'Y• ,rw. 'We can ask CISA to include such language in the IF , but they are not required to do so. I recommend that the City seek Congressio hal help to either(1) have GSA.include such language in. the IPI ; or(2.) enact special legislation requiring the purchaser of.'TCAAP to transfer acres of clean_property to the it �.1;_ o cost-for use as parks and trails. For the reasons stated above in response to your Question 1, 1 recommend that we attempt the approach described In my response to Question 2 as opposed to taking title to the trail eo �rl d oro:�e the pile sale Mike :Michael P. Coro .eca Spencer F'ane Rn'tt Browne LLP 9401 Indian Creek Parkway, quite °�00 Overland Park, KS 662 .0-200 Off-ice: (913) 27-5193 Fax: (913) 3 m073 E-mail: mcomo�eca.��.s. nct_erlane.corn -------- --- -- -------- ,----p --- 12/9/2009