Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.b.1 Betty Jo and Steven Schmitt, Consideration of Site Plan � CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECIITIVE SIIb�IARY FOR ACTION PORT AUTHORITY MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1994 AGENDA ITEM: BETTY JO AND STEVEN SCHMITT: AGENDA SECTION: CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN OLD BUSINESS PREPARED BY: JOHN MILLER, AGENDA NO. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR 4 . B. 1 ATTACI�lENTS: SEPTEMBER 29 MEMO FROM JOHN APPROVED BY: MILLER, SITE PIaAN, LANDSCAPING PLAN The attached "proposed schedule for approvals for Betty Jo' s Dance Center" shows that on October 18 the port authority will consider site plan approval for the development. The Schmitts have submitted the plans for review. To date: 1. The planning commission approved the site plan at the October 11 meeting. 2 . The Schmitts have addressed the commissioners' concerns about building exterior and building location. 3 . The planning assistant will work with the Schmitts in making minor adjustments to the landscaping plan to get plantings better suited to location, i.e. north side of the building. The Schmitts will bring brick and siding samples to a later meeting for board review. RECObIl�IENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the site plan for Betty Jo' s Dance Center with the understanding that exterior building materials will be presented for review at a later meeting. PORT AUTHORITY ACTION: MEMO TO: Chair Carroll Commissioners Anderson, Busho, Edwards, McMenomy, Miller, Wippermann FROM: John Miller, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: September 29, 1994 RE: Betty Jo's Dance Center At its September 20 meeting the Rosemount Port Authority heard a proposal from Betty Jo and Steven Schmitt to relocate Betty Jo's Dance Center to Lots 11, 12, and 13 of Block 3 of Auditors Subdivision No. 1. This land is located near the corner of Burma and 147th Street. In general the commissioners supported the move that called for the sale of the land to the Schmitts for a dollar. The site is located in the downtown redevelopment district and has been vacant for several years. The port authority would retain all tax increment revenue. There were, however, some concerns raised at the meeting. These were primarily in two areas: • Effect of the project on future redevelopment of the block; and • Fxterior treatment of the proposed dance studio building. On Monda.y, September 26, Ron Wasmund, the city's community development director, and I visited with the Schmitts about both of these issues. As a result of that meeting I believe that we have reached an agreement that will be acceptable to the board members. Details of this are found in the attached draft development agreement but here are the main points: • The Schmitts will place their building on the southeast corner of the property. Parking will be placed on the north side of the three lot parcel making that land available for future development if it is needed. • The exterior of the building will not be stucco or a stucco material but a combination of brick and maintenance free lap siding. � The Schmitts will not profit from appreciation of land if it is taken in the future by the port authority. The draft development agreement calls for establishing base values and for land swaps to provide for any lost parking. To continue the approval process for Betty Jo's Dance Center, these things must happen. It is important for both the Schmitts and the port authority that this be a timely process permitting the Schmitts to occupy the building by 7anuary 2, 1995, and permitting the port authority to capture an extra year of ta�� increment revenue. At the meeting scheduled for October 4 the port authority should: • Hold the public hearing regarding the sale of the parcels to Betty Jo and Steven Schmitt. At the public hearing I will note that the three lots jointly have a value of about $45,000. The benefit to the port authority in selling the land for only a dollar, however, will go beyond bringing a new business to the downtown and attracting 300 additional shoppers. According to the county the tax increment generated by the Schmitts building will be about $9,400 annually. If the Schmitts take occupancy of the building by January 2, the port authority will receive five years ofTIF payments before the redevelopment district expires in 2000. This project is no giveaway. If there are no special circumstances raised at the hearing that would require additional work to be completed the commissioners can: � Approve the resolution authorizing the sale of the land to the Schmitts. • Consider the draft development agreement. At this writing on Thursday, September 29, the draft development agreement is being sent to me by messenger. I will make a copy available to the Schmitts this afternoon. I don't know if the agreement will be acceptable to the Schmitts in its "present" form or if they will want to make some changes. I will attempt to meet with them prior to the October 4 meeting to get a revised draft agreement if they have issue with the draft. I will present that to you on October 4. I am confident that based on the meeting of September 26 there will be no substantive changes to the draft agreement. At the October 4 meeting, the board members have three options regarding the development agreement: • Reject it. � Approve it as submitted. • Approve it in concept authorizing Chairperson Carroll and the executive director to accept the fmal draft. This may not be as tidy as some proposals reviewed by the commissioners in the past. It does demonstrate, however, the port authority's ability to complete quickly approvals necessary for a projects' implementa.tion when a user has a need for a timely relocation. I dw I 2