Loading...
04-18-1994 SpecialCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH THE REGULAR HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING April 18, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Michael Sandahl; Susan Rosenberg; Russ Susag; and Don Priebe. HRA MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Harms, Chair; Joan Helmberger; Russ Susag; Vern Luettinger; and Michael Sandahl. STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager; Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director; Thomas Ferber, City Clerk; Hyron Wallace, Community Development Director; William Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director; and Corrine Heine, Assistant City Attorney. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kirsch and HRA Chair Harms at 7:00 p.m. PRESENTATION OF COLORS AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kirsch led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Kirsch requested a minute of silent reflection in memory of Orlando Enrique Guevara and others who were involved on the weekend in the tragic shooting in Richfield. City Manager Prosser clarified issues related to the legal notice of the April 11 HRA meeting agenda items. HRA Chair Harms stated that in response to the concerns expressed by property owners and businesses he had met with CSM Corporation about modifying the Contract for Private Redevelopment to provide the property owners and businesses with an opportunity to put forth their own proposal. He stated CSM Corporation has offered to modify the contract in the following respects: 1. The provisions in the contract involving Phase II would remain in place except that the current owners and occupants of the Phase II property would have an opportunity to prepare an alternative redevelopment proposal for all or part of the Phase II property, provided that such alternative proposal is distinct and not merely a remake of the CSM existing retail development proposal. Such alternative proposal could be made with or separate from CSM. Special Meeting Minutes -2- April 18, 1994. 2. If a preliminary alternative proposal, conceptually acceptable to the HRA, is not reached within three (3) - months of the date hereof, the parties to the contract will continue with their obligations and commitments under the contract, sub3ect to modifications necessary to accommodate the three (3) month hiatus. 3. If a conceptually acceptable proposal is made as aforesaid, but the proposing parties are unable to provide evirience satisfactory to the HRA that the project is practically and financially viable-within six (6) months of the date hereof, the parties to the contract will continue with their obligations and commitments under the contract subject to modifications to accommodate the six (6) month hiatus. 4. If alternative proposals are made for the redevelopment of all or part of the Phase II property, the HRA shall have the absolute discretion in all matters relating to the selection of the proposal or proposals. It is expected, however, that in the event alternative proposals are received and considered, the HRA, in reaching its decision, will compare those proposals to the CSM plan and consider factors iYaclu~ling the f®11©~~iang o a. the effect upon the City's tax base; b. the effect upon employment; c. the effect upon existing businesses, property owners and employees-in the area; d. the aesthetic quality and its harmony with the design of Phase I; e. the appropriateness of any proposed uses to the area; f. the effect that the redevelopment will have in relation to the City's .development plans for the Clover Leaf property; g. the ability of the proposers to carry out the proposal to completion. 5. If the HRA, in its sole and absolute discretion, selects an alternative proposal for Phase II, CSM will relinquish any right or interest under the contract to the Phase II property or to its development. CSM will, however, remain fully committed to the development of the Phase I property according to the terms of the current contract. City Manager Prosser stated that a copy of the letter from CSM Corporation (Clerks File No. C-349) which offers these modifications was available to the public. Chair Harms stated that the HRA would conduct a Special Meeting on April 25, 1994 to consider and vote on a proposed amendment to modify the Contract for Redevelopment to reflect these terms. Special Meeting Minutes -3- April 16, 1994 Chair Harms asked the HRA Members fQr an indication of their support for directing the HRA/City Attorney to prepare such an amendment for consideration ,by the HRA. The HRA unanimously agreed that the attorney should proceed to draft the amendment for consideration on April 25, 1994. Item #1 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AMENDING RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP RELATING TO CSM REDEVELOPMENT~PROJSCT AND RELOCATION OF EMERSON AVENUE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH. C.L. N0. 118 City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 118 regarding consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map, with respect to the CSM proposal and relocation of the Emerson Avenue Congregational Church. David Garland, CSM Corporation, reiterated the intent and willingness of CSM to modify the Contract for Redevelopment as outlined by HRA Chair Harms. Gary Tushie, Tushie Montgomery Associates, architect for CSM Corporation, presented the CSM concept proposal for a retail redevelopment project in the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN). Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing District. He stated the proposal provides for the redevelopment of the area into 231,000 square feet of retail space in two phases. Phase I would include a three anchor building with Best Buy, SportMart, and Comp USA as tenants. Mr. Tushie stated Phase II as proposed would be done in two stages to accommodate relocation of existing businesses into the in-line shops. Stage one would include 20,475 square feet of in- line retail space and would also provide a 6,000 square foot detached restaurant. Stage two would include a three anchor building with 85,000 square feet to be attached to the in-line shops. Stage two would also include a 5,000 square foot retail pad site on the east side of the site. The main building would be situated along the north side of the site, with the mayor parking areas to the south. Moat tenant signage would be directed to I-494. The building exterior would use a combination of brick, concrete decorative block, Dryvit, and a standing seam metal roof. Mr. Tushie stated the project proposes the relocation of the Emerson Avenue Congregational Church to the northerly portion of the Cloverleaf site. Council Member Susag asked about the number of parking spaces for the church. Special Meeting Minutes -4- April 18, 1994 Mr. Tushie stated that approximately 120 parking spaces ' would be provided on the relocation site for the church. Council Member Priebe questioned and discussed the comparative financial advantages for the developer between Phase I and Phase II noting the increment of $500,000 for Phase I and $100,000 in Phase II. He stated that because of the acquisition of tax exempt church property it would seem the developer's net gain is much greater in Phase I. Murray Kornberg, Aciquisition and Finance Division, CSM Corporation, reviewed the T.I.F. analysis. He stated that the potential return for Phase II is greater than Phase I because of costs and infrastructure issues. He stated Phase i provided an incentive to complete Phase II. HRA Chair Harms stated that the developer's return was tied to a cap in the note and would never be more than costs. Mayor Kirsch opened the public hearing stating that the hearing would be for receipt of comments on all three items on the agenda for consideration by the City Council this evening. Tim Erlander, 7500 Thomas Avenue, member of the Richfield Planning Commission, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating it was important for the long term future of the community and the tax capacity of the City. T. K. Dodge, 1112 West 78th Street, resident manager of the Southtown Village Apartments, described the occupancy characteristics and statistics of the apartments. He indicated the surrounding roadways and commercial uses made for a lower level of desirability for residential use. He asked that the City Council approve the rezoning so that the CSM redevelopment proposal can proceed. Marilyn Shandorf, 1333 South Smith, West St. Paul, employee of Richfield Mitsubishi, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning citing the economic benefit to other companies in the area from the impact of Richfield Mitsubishi and its employees. She stated that more time is needed for planning what to do in the area. Bob Jensen, 7328 Fremont Avenue, owner of the building at 7716 Colfax Avenue, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning saying that it was the right time to redevelop and that he felt comfortable with the process and developer. Brian Bingham, 7232 Pleasant Avenue, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning-citing the need for long range commercial redevelopment and the importance of the visibility of the area. Special Meeting Minutes -5- April 18, 1994 Pete Hernhagen, 8741 Meadowvale Drive, Eden Prairie, employee of Richfield Mitsubishi, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment ..proposal and the proposed rezoning noting the commitment of Mark O'Brien in making the dealership successful. Dwayne Smedsrud, representing Emerson Avenue Congregational Church, stated the church was neutral on the project but that CSM had been cooperative in understanding their needs. He stated the proposal is acceptable if the developer bears all the costa in replacing their existing church. John Anthonisen, 7440 Girard Avenue, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating the new businesses would draw more consumers for other merchants, attract other businesses, create more fobs, and increase the tax base. Larry Zielke, President of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, presented a resolution (Clerk's File No. C-350) affirming the Board of Directors previous support for Phase I of the CSM redevelopment proposal and further encouraging the HRA and City Council to place the highest priority in Phase II on the retention of existing businesses through a relocation plan within the ILN District. Bill Bullock, 7121 Knox Avenue, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning citing the need to increase the tax base and improve the appearance of the area. Marilyn Weis, 2846 104th Court East, Inver Grove Heights, manager of Richfield Flowers, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning citing the negative affect of the displacement of existing businesses. Mark Jacobson, Jacobson, Hardwood, Brill & Bennett, attorney for Mark O'Brien and Richfield Mitsubishi, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning for reasons related to: • The project is for one story buildings which the City had not allowed as a proposal on the site for Richfield Mitsubishi because of zoning. • $125,000 in improvements were made at Richfield Mitsubshi for which the City approved building permits and Mr. O'Brien was not made aware of the redevelopment. • Not all the businesses were aware of the proposal until recently. • Three Planning Commissioners voted against the proposal indicating concerns about the timing and best use of the property. Special Meeting Minutes • Delinking the two phases there is sentiment that for the redevelopment. -6- April 18, 1994.. appears good but it also appears a car dealership is not appropriate Council Member Susag asked if Mr. O'Brien had been aware that the property was in a tax increment financing redevelopment district. Mr. Jacobson said that he was aware it was in a tax increment financing redevelopment district when he had applied for and received a transitional activity permit to operate on the old car wash site. Dave Phillips, architect for Richfield Mitsubishi, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating that the decline in the area occurred because the City didn't allow improvements because it was a tax increment redevelopment district. He indicated a higher density project had been envisioned for the area. Russ Kennedy, 6241 Grand Avenue, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning noting the ~ucccs~ ®f the ~3~ab redevcl®p~mcant ~rca sand the bcancfit f®r the whole community. Mr. Murilio, 9390 Country Drive, Prior Lake, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning. Bill Killian, 6620 17th Avenue, Richfield Visions 2004 Economic Development Committee, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning citing the improvement of the aesthetics of the area, and increased tax capacity. He also stated concern about accommodating the relocation of existing businesses. Shirley Johnson, 7609 12th Avenue, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating the Cloverleaf site should be developed first and a better development secured for this site. Mark O'Brien, owner of Richfield Mitsubishi, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning and reviewing the history of his business at the site, the capital improvements for the business, and the sales volume of the dealership. He reviewed the ®conomic statistics of Richfield Mitsubishi related to payroll, average salary of employees, and the growth of the business. He stated his dissatisfaction with the lack of notice from the City and CSM, the process, and the timeframe of relocation. He urged the City Council to reject the CSM proposal and to sit down with the existing businesses to work out a plan to improve the area. He mentioned his recent negotiations for the Penn Auto site which he did not lease. He reviewed the extended time and development issues related to finding a new site for a car dealership. C 1 Special Meeting Minutes -7- epril 18, 1994 John Herman, Leonard, Street & Deinard, attorney representing Terry Feldmann, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning reviewing the history of Mr. Feldmann's experience with the property including his concept of developing a new kind of super dealership facility, which the City staff said was not acceptable for the redevelopment. He indicated the CSM development would not comply with the redevelopment concept envisioned for the area. He urged the City Council to instead work with the existing businesses to seek fill in businesses to fit with the existing ones. Mr. Herman reviewed environmental concerns and suggested a Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) should be done. He suggested the CSM proposal be delayed indefinitely. He submitted a copy of a letter and petition requesting the Environmental Quality Board require an E.A.W. be completed for the proposal. (Clerk's File No. C-351). Council Member Susag asked if Mr. Herman's client Terry Feldmann knew about the proposed redevelopment project when he negotiated the lease with Mr. O'Hrien. Mr. Herman stated he could not answer to that since there were always rumors about proposed developments. Norm Grant, 7633 Thomas Avenue, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating concerns for the merchants of the area and suggested more time and unlimited consideration for the existing businesses. Brian Hagen, Hagen Microage, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning. He cited .the positive economic benefit to the community of his business and other existing businesses, concern about the process, the timeline, and the possibility of waiting for a better project as his reasons for opposing the project. Hob Adelmann, President of Richfield Plumbing, 805 West 77 1/2 Street, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning citing concerns about timing, the removal of existing businesses and stated that the present buildings were still good. Don Maki, 7738 Colfax Avenue, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating that CSM had been fair and sincere in dealing with him. He stated that the Cloverleaf site won't be developed until this area is redeveloped. Jim Miller, Twin City Tire, 705 West 77 1/2 Street spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning reviewing the economic and employment impact of the existing businesses. He requested more time for the existing businesses to come up with a plan. He discussed how the PC-2 zoning classification that is being asked for by CSM allows less intensive development than C-3. He indicated the C-3 zoning had restricted the existing businesses ability to expand. Special Meeting Minutes -8- apr3~1 18, 1994. Tom Harms, 6400 Morgan Avenue, speaking as a citizen, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning reviewing his involvement in addressing the community needs for improving and maintaining the housing stock and commercial tax base. He stated that the proposed modification to the contract for redevelopment with CSM would provide the opportunity being asked for by the existing businesses while also moving forward with the redevelopment of the area. Kevin Louis, Ridge~Door Sales, 9©2 West 77 1/2 Street, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal acid the proposed rezoning indicating the project is going too fast. Janine Maki, 7738 Colfax Avenue, spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating satisfaction with CSM as the developer and the need for redevelopment of the area. Judy Kerssen, 701 West 77 1/2 Street, spoke in .opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning asking for more time and consideration for the existing businesses. Doan Cavitt, SA,C~', ~Ja~~nb~aran P~veanr~e, ~p®~e ~! aa, ©ppo~iti©~* t© the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning citing the need for consideration of the economic impact and ®mployees of the existing businesses. Keith Glanzer, The Drapery Place, 811 West 77 1/2 Street, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating it was being rushed too quickly. Mary Brown, Southtown Village Apartments, 1112 78th Street West, discussed her feelings about the positive and negative aspects of the possibility of relocation. Mike Dunn, Eden Prairie, stated he works for Jim Miller and spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning discussing concerns about quantitative analysis and the delinking of Phase I and Phase II. Don Houlding, 7145 13th Avenue, spoke in opposition to the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning stating concerns about tax increment financing and the loss of fobs. M/Susag, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. This concluded the .public hearing for City Council Items 1,2 & 3 of the agenda. Council Member Rosenberg requested that CSM work with sensitivity regarding the relocation of the Emerson Avenue Congregational Church. Special Meeting Minutes -9- April 18, 1994 Council Member Priebe stated his opposition to the CSM proposal had not changed and that he appr®ciated the high level of interest of citizens in this issue. He stated he opposed the CSM project for the following two mayor reasons: 1) That the City could get a better and higher level of development for the site; 2) The City is paying too much for the development especially the donation of a part of the Cloverleaf property for relocation of the church. M/Susag, S/Sandahl~that the following resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Map to redesignate two parcels with respect to the CSM proposal and relocation of the Emerson Avenue. Congregational Church be adogted with the following stipulationsz 1. That the PUD and final development plan for the CSM redevelopment proposal be approved. 2. That the Metropolitan Council gives approval of the amendment before it becomes effective. and, that it be spread in the resolution book and that it be made part of these minutes: RESOLUTION N0. 8130 A RESOLUTION OF THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE RICHFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP RELATING TO THE CSM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND RELOCATION OF THE EMERSON AVENUE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH Motion carried 4-1. (Priebe opposed) This resolution.,.. appears as Resolution No. 8130 in Resolution Book No. 63. Item #2 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REZONE CSM PROJECT AREA FROM HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED GENERAL COMMERCIAL. C.L. NO. 119 City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 119 regarding consideration of a Planned Unit development (PUD) Plan and a proposed ordinance amendment to rezone the CSM project area (Phase I and II) from C-3 (high density commercial) to PC-2 (planned general commercial). He stated the ordinance amendment had been revised to accommodate the proposed delinking of Phase I & II as discussed earlier. Assistant City Attorney Heine reviewed the revised ordinance amendment stating the following: 1. The ordinanoe will not be published and will not become effective until after the Metropolitan Council has approved the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Guide plan, as approved by the City Council in Resolution No. 8130. Special Meeting Minutes -10- April 18, 1994 2. The ordinance shall become effective as to Parcel 1, on such date as all of Parcel 1 is held in common ownership by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield or by a single_ partnership, corporation, or individual fee owner. 3. The ordinance shall become effective as to Parcel 2, on such date as all of Parcel 2 is held in common ownership by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield or by a single partnershipo corporation or individual fee owner. 4. That stipulation #2 in the recommended motion in Council Letter No. 119 be deleted. Council Member Susag spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal and the proposed rezoning citing it was in the best interest of the community, the need for increased tax base, appreciation for the proposed compromise to give existing businesses a chance for another plan, and requested more information about the relocation process. Sandra Luegge, Conworth Inc., Relocation Specialist, res~ie~aod tae fodor~l a:ad ~t~tc rogul~ti®an~ rog~rdi~a~r fiYaa:aci~l and planning relocation assistance. City Manager Prosser stated the City would monitor the relocation process. Council Member Rosenberg read the following statement (Clerk's File No. C-352) into the record: "I wish I had a nickel for each time someone said to me in the last two weeks that they were glad that they were not in my spot. I wish I was not in my spot either. One word from me and more people's lives than I know will be affected due to the rezoning or not of the land between Lyndale and Emerson on 77th Street. It is indeed an awesome responsibility. But, you all have to know that no matter what the outcome of these proceedings, my vote is being cast with seriousness-and thoughtfulness to alI concerned. I have listened with my head as well as my heart to all that was said at the h®arings, on the phone, in person, and written in letters. Your words meant slot to me, but now it is time for you to listen. It is time for me to talk. In my opinion, the reasons to vote yes or no on this zoning are equal except for one important factor which I will address later. It seems to me that this whole area has been concerned with waiting. The businesses are waiting for the City to tell them _ what to do about their area, how to develop it, and how to make it presentable. The HRA has been waiting for the-right development to come along. The residents of Richfield have been Special Meeting Minutes -11- April 18, 1994 waiting for the next invasion of development companies with new notions of ways to change their city. Emerson Avenue Church and the residents of the apartment building are dust waiting. Waiting for something to happen. In the meantime, life has been going on, business has been conducted. Sick animals have been cured, flowers arranged for the latest wedding, tires put on a car, people living their lives and going to church. Life... business...no crisis. Even though no crisis does exist, change is in the wind. The area is changing...whether we want it or not. The improvement of 77th Street is the mayor reason for these changes to happen, drawing more people to the area, more criticism of the appearance...more need to improve. In the midst of all this, CSM development company, a stranger among us, has come to our City bringing with it a fever to change fast. As a Council Member, I have felt the pressure to change fast and accept the notion that we must deal with "Best Buy's retail reality"...if I hear the term "window of opportunity" one more time, I will scream! My first formal introduction to this venture was on March 7, 1994. Not very long ago is it? Now on April 18, I am asked to vote for a rezoning of this area so that this development project can begin and uproot 22 businesses and 64 residences. This is a project that will affect ray City and its people for decades. The risk for Richfield is great. How do I know if Hest Buy will be around once Circuit City is in the Twin City market. How do I know that SportMart will be able to compete with the sport's store in the Mall of America. How is Computerland different than Computer City less than 2 miles away? Is this risk worth uprooting 22 businesses, 64 households, and a church? In reality, would more time answer these questions? Would we all get any wiser in a few weeks? Months? Years? Would more time make that crystal ball clearer? In my discussions with the community members outside of the affected area, they tell me they want to take the risk. The development fever and the need to change has hit them too, they are ready. This is the important factor I spoke of earlier. It is they, the outside community, not the businesses, not the Church, not the residents of the apartments, or any one individual that convinced me of the correctness of approving this zoning. It was the many calls from the all important resident taxpayers who will bear the tax burden if this project is not successful. They want to go ahead with the project. I will vote for the rezoning under the provisions of tonight's proposal. There are many reasons, I too, am willing to accept this risk. Although this development is not of my choosing, these monogynous, anonymous boxes could be at home anywhere. CSM has chosen Richfield and recognizes the vitality of this community. I only hope that CSM recognizes the jewel it has happened upon. Special Meeting Minutes -12- April 18, 1994 Also, this will bring closure to an area beset with rumors and indecision for too long. Next, the chance to bring new spirit and energy to the Lyndale Avenue ar®a between 76th and 77th is very enticing and one we cannot afford to pass up:. And finally, the concern I heard voiced by many who talked to me...this area must be cleaned up now and although the area will be no different than other suburbs, aesthetics mean slot to people in a community. I know this decision is a disappointment to many. But let me say to you business owners, landowners, apartment residents, and members of Emerson Church, please keep an open mind when you work with CSM and the City. I expect. you to be negotiated with fairly and swiftly. I commit the staff to work with you at all possible levels so that all your relocation needs will be met. Again I say, this decision to vote yes on the rezoning did not come easily. But, I believe, one that had to be made for the benefit of all of Richfield." Council Member Sandahl spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment proposal-and the proposed rezoning stating it was a very difficult, important decision. Mayor Kirsch spoke in support of the CSM redevelopment propo~~? ~.**~? th® p''©p©~e~ *~ez©ani*~g reviee~iang t~nc •.~isi®n can©caan by the HRA, community leaders, and City Council for the LHN Redevelopment which created much benefit for the community. He stated that many letters and calls hart been received about this issue. Mayor Kirsch stated that the taxpayers want the City to move forward to revitalize the tax base. He reviewed the planning vision that created the 77th Street project separating the residential and commercial uses. He acknowledged the interest of the community, state and federal elected officials, and Chamber of Commerce~in these important issues. He directed the developer to be sensitive to all the businesses, residents, and the Church involved in the project area. M/Susag, S/Sandahl to approve the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan as outlined in Council Letter No. 119 for the CSM Project with the following stipulation: 1. That the site be replatted within two years after anX PUD plan approval is granted by the City Council. and. that this constitute Second Reading of Bill No. 1994-7 ordinance amendment rezoning the CSM Project area (Phase I and II) from C-3 (,high density commercial) to PC-2 (planned general commercials that it be published in the official newspaper and that it be made part of these minutes. Motion carried 4-1: (Priebe opposed) It was the consensus of the Council that the staff incorporate the basis of recommendation items contained in Council Letter No. 119 as the findings of fact for approval of the rezoning. Special Meeting Miautes -13- April 18, 1994 M/Sandahl, S/Susag to adopt the following Findings of Fact regarding the aporoval of the ordinance amendment rezoning the CSM Project 'area from C-3 to PC-2: 1. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan varies from the normal zoning district requirements in the following respects: Setback: Normal district requirements call for a 40-foot setback between the building and lot lines (as replatted}. The Phase I main building would be set back 20 feet from the west lot line, the Phase II restaurant building would be set back 20 feet from the south lot line, and the Phase II pad site building would have a variable setback of 25-37 feet along the west lot line. In addition,-the Phase I and Phase II main buildings would have a setback ranging from 28-120 feet from the north lot line, allowing for dogs in the facade and articulation of loading docks. These modifications from the normal district requirements are necessary because of the shallow lot depth of the site. Buildings in all other locations would equal or exceed a 40- foot setback from the lot lines. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): C-3 district standards call for a minimum FAR of .75, and C-2 district standards do not regulate FAR. This PUD plan would have a FAR of .32, which is appropriate for retail development. Such departures from the normal district requirements. are in the best public interest to achieve a more efficient and creative design, site plan, and use of land. All other regulations (e.g., parking, landscaping, building materials, building height, etc.) would exceed compliance with the normal district requirements. 2. The proposed Planned Unit Development would be located dust south of the new improved 77th Street. The plan may require installation of a signalized intersection at the main entrance from 77th Street in the future. The developer would be required to conduct a study to warrant such traffic control. 3. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan would have adequate light exposure, air circulation, building separation, and common open space. 4. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan would have no adverse impacts on~the residential properties to the north of the subject area. The 77th Street project, with landscape wall and residential loop streets, was designed to encourage commercial redevelopment along I-494 without negatively impacting homeowners. Special Meeting Minutes -14- epril 18,.1994 5. The proposed Planned Unit Develop~ent Plan would occur in two phases. The terms and conditions of the development agreement will protect and maintain the integrity t~f the overall plan. 6. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan has tak®n into account the redevelopment plane of the ILN District and anticipated future development along I-494. 7. The proposed PUD plan would be consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan and Comprehensive Plan if modified as gropoeed. 8. The PC-2 classification is appropriate £or the proposed retail development. 9. The proposed PUD plan provides a workable project for the ILN, given the site area constraints. 10. Several developers have stated that it would be difficult to redevelop the Cloverleaf site until this site is redeveloped. Approval of this project may lead to other new duel®pmeffat cl®n¢~ I ~ ~~9 ~ . 1i. Redevelopment of this site in the manner proposed is in the best public interest of the City of Richfield and its residents. 12. The State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has reviewed the CSM project and determined that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is not required. 13. On April 12, 1994, the Planning Commission voted 5-3 to recommend approval of the PUD plan and rezoning. Motion carried 5-0. Mark O'Brien, owner of Richfield Mitsubishi, asked-about the status of the impact of the storm sewer work on his business location. City Manager Prosser stated that aside from some small or temporary easements, this property would not be required for the ` storm sewer work. John Herman, attorney asked questions about the "common ownership" wording in Bill No. 1994-7. Assistant City Attorney Heine responded to clarify the issue. 1 Special Meeting Minutes -15- April 18, 1994 HRA Chair Harms stated that the HRA would schedule a special meeting and public hearing for Monday, April 25, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of consideration of amending the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the HRA and CSM Corporation related to the proposed modifications discussed earlier this evening. He invited interested persons to attend. Item #3 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USS PSRMIT FOR PHASE I DEVELOPMENT OF CSM PROJECT. C.L. N0. 120 City Manager Prosser reviewed Council Letter No. 120 regarding consideration of a final development plan and conditional use permit for Phase I development of the CSM Project. M/Susag, S/Sandahl to apyrove the final development plan and conditional use permit for Phase I development of the CSM flroiect gursuant to the plans attached to Council Letter Na. 120 with the following stipulations: 1. That the City Planner annrove the landscape and screening plan. 2. That the City Engineer apvrove the erosion control elan and storm water management plan. 3. That the apylicant submit a cash escrow agreement for Motion carried 4-1. (Priebe opposed) ITEM CONSIDERED BY HRA: HRA Item #1 PUBLIC BEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF PROPERTY TO CSM CORPORATION TO PROVIDE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE I SHOPS AT LYNDALE AND RELOCATION OF EMERSON AVENUE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH. HRA LETTER N0. 31 HRA Chair Harms reviewed HRA Letter No. 31 regarding authorization for the sale of property to CSM Corporation to provide for construction of Phase I Shops at Lyndale and the relocation of Emerson Avenue Congregational Church. Special Meeting Minutes -16- epril 18, 1994 M/Luettinger, S/Susag to close the public h®aring. Motion carried 5-A. M/Susag, S/Luettinger that the following resolution b® adopted; that it be spread in the res©lution book and that it be made part of these minutes: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 505 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF I-35W AND I-494 Motion carried 5-O. This resolution appears as HRA Resolution No. 505 in HRA Resolution Book No. 4. ADJOURNMENT The HRA meeting was recessed at 11:00 p.m. The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:00 p.m. Date Approved:__ 4/25/94 /' ~ ~'I~iy~G 6D ~ ~°~~ Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 1