13-10844r RESOLUTION NO. 10844
RESOLUTION DENYING FINAL APPROVAL OF A PLAT FOR
LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 2, CEDAR POINT COMMONS
WHEREAS, Ryan Companies ("Applicant"), has requested final approval to
combine and re-subdivide the properties located at the northwest corner of 66th Street
and Richfield Parkway and legally described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, Cedar Point
Commons; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is to be known as CEDAR POINT
COMMONS SECOND ADDITION.
WHEREAS, the proposed combination and subdivision would allow for the
redevelopment of the site as contemplated by companion applications for a major
amendment to the Cedar Point Commons Planned Unit Development and Conditional
Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Cedar Point Commons Planned Unit Development, Final
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit were originally approved pursuant to
Resolution No. 9772 on June 27, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the companion applications for a major amendment to the Cedar
Point Commons Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit were denied
based on findings that they did not meet City requirements; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the proposed preliminary and final plat
of the CEDAR POINT COMMONS SECOND ADDITION on Tuesday, September 24,
2013 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, Richfield City Code Subsection 500.07 provides that as a condition
precedent to the approval of the plat of lands located within the City, the Council may
prescribe requirements on any matters reasonably related to the manner in which the
area being subdivided or platted shall be developed; and
WHEREAS, Richfield City Code Subsection 500.23, Subd. 2 requires preliminary
plat applications to include the proposed location and width of streets, lots, buildings,
and set back lines and easements; and
WHEREAS, Richfield plat application materials, prepared per Subsection 500.31
of the City Code, also require preliminary plats to include proposed building footprints,
setbacks, parking lot layouts and aisle configuration; and
WHEREAS, although the Applicant has submitted such documentation as part of
the companion land use applications, those applications have been denied thereby
making the proposed building footprints, setbacks, parking lot layout, aisle configuration
and easements invalid and inapplicable to the proposed plat.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, that after a public hearing that was held on September 24, 2013, the
preliminary and final plat for CEDAR POINT COMMONS SECOND ADDITION is denied
for the following reasons:
1. The application for the proposed preliminary and final plat of CEDAR
POINT COMMONS SECOND ADDITION is tailored to the specific
development proposal of the applicant and the companion land use
applications relating that development proposal have been denied by the
City Council.
2. The City Council finds that approval of the necessary, companion land use
application is reasonably related to the manner in which the area proposed
to be platted is to be developed.
3. City Code requires that a preliminary and final plat include proposed
building footprints, setbacks, parking lot layout, aisle configuration and
easements.
4. Because the Richfield City Council has denied the companion land use
applications, any proposed building footprints, setbacks, parking lot layout,
aisle configuration and easements in the development plans are invalid and
inapplicable as they relate to the proposed plat.
5. Approval of a plat that relates to a development proposal that has been
denied would be inconsistent with the rules and intent of Section 500 of the
Richfield City Code.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 24th day of
September 2013.
rifr"
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancyibbs, ity Clerk