Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

Further discussion: Councilmember Elvig clarified that the motion does not include renegotiations for additional space. Mayor Gamec asked when the lease will come up again. City Attorney Goodrich replied in April 2008. Councilmember Jeffrey asked whose responsibility it is for compliance with City Code. Community Development Director Trudgeon replied the way the busine~s currently operates is outdoor storage on an unimproved surface. Staff has told the new tenant the storage needs to be put behind a fence or paved surface. Under these tenllS the paved surface will be required within 6 months, so it would need to be done prior to bituminous plants closing in October. Staff will work with the tenant in an attempt to get this area cleaned up. City Attorney Goodrich advised the lease requires the tenant to be law abiding and comply with all the code requirements of the City. Councilmember Dehen noted under the worst case scenario the lease will be renegotiated in April 2008. City Attorney Goodrich indicated the amount of the lease will be renegotiated, but not the terms. Councilmember Dehen questioned why the tenus of the lease would not be renegotiated at the end of the lease period. City Attorney Goodrich replied the tenant has five options, which continue all of the tenus of the lease except for the amount of rent. Councilmember Ehrig stated no matter what happens on the site he thinks this Council has said if the City is going to mandate clean up on Highway 10 they have to start with the City. So, no matter what, this site will be cleaned up. He 'would hope the tenant would work with the City on this. Councilmember Dehen asked if the City were to initiate clean up on the property, if the funds used to clean up the site will be offset from the rents received. City Attorney Goodrich replied yes, net proceeds are sent to the Metropolitan Council. Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated if the price to clean up the property is $10,000 there will not be revenue to carry that. Staff would like a better sense of the financial picture before conmlitting to anything. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Elvig, Olson, Dehen, Jeffrey, Look, and Stronunen. Voting No: None. Case #6: Consider Confirmation of Direction Given at Closed Meeting City Attorney Goodrich reviewed that on June 5, 2007, Council met in closed session to consider various issues relating to the pending eminent domain litigation in Anoka County District Court on the City of Ramsey vs. 5A Partnership I, et al. Before the Council tonight are two resolutions for the 16 parcels, as one action was started a couple of days later. There have been a series of actions with regard to this property. It appears at this time they will not be able to meet the court mandated time period for the eminent domain proceedings. Mr. Jim Lasher, LSA Design, stated in March 2006, the City Council authorized the preparation and reI ease 0 f RFP' s for the Ranlsey Crossings proj ect. The Council ultimately selected to enter into exclusive negotiations with Robert Muir Companies in June 2006, and Robert Muir Companies was unable to come to an agreement with the City. Council then moved forward with negotiations with Ryan Construction Company, who was also unable to move forward on the project. Target Corporation was interested in being at the Ramsey Crossings site, and staff initiated a tern1 sheet with Target. In June, Target indicated they were not able to move forward. Target was very positive about Ranlsey, and said that ultimately they want to be located in Ramsey, but not at this time due to the slowdo'wl1 in development and housing at this time. City Council / July 10,2007 Page 15 of 24 P31