Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-06 Council Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL DECEMBER 6,2005 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Hulbert, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Swenson approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of Agenda Item I. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 15, 2005, and Special Meeting of November 15,2005. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2005, AND SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2005, APPROVED Member Masica asked that a correction be made to paragraph seven of page one of the November 15, 2005, Minutes changing "nine' to "sixteen". Member Masica made a motion approving the regular meeting of November 15, 2005, as corrected. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hulbert,Masica,Swenson,Hovland Motion carried. Member Hulbert asked that the November 15, 2005, Special Council Meeting Minutes not end with the phrase "There being no further business" because she felt there was a great deal more business, but not any time to continue the special meeting. Member Hulbert made a motion approving the special meeting minutes of November 15,2005,as amended. Member Masica seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh,Hulbert,Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-91 APPROVED - VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT - PARKWOOD KNOLLS 26TH ADDITION Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Engineer Presentation Engineer Houle explained a request had been received for the Council to consider vacating the existing utility easement between two lots in Parkwood Knolls 26th Addition. Vacation of the utility easement would allow the property owner to build one house across both lots. Mr. Houle noted Parkwood Knolls 26th Addition had been platted in 2003/2004. There was a typical five-foot utility easement on the common lot lines of the subdivision. Mr. Houle reported that Edina Utilities, Centerpoint Energy, Qwest, and Time Warner have no objections to the requested vacation. However, he noted that Xcel Energy conditioned their approval on moving a transformer located on the property. Mr. Houle stated the owner has agreed to move the transformer. He added staff recommended vacation of the utility easement conditioned upon the property owner moving the transformer. Public Comment No one appeared. Page 1 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 Member Masica made a motion, seconded by Member Housh to close the public hearing. Ayes: Housh,Hulbert,Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Masica introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption granting the requested vacation of the utility easement, conditioned upon the property owner moving the transformer to a location acceptable to Xcel Energy: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-91 GRANTING THE VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 26TH ADDITION WHEREAS, a motion of the City Council, on the November 1,2005,fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of utility easements;and WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on December 6, 2005, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon;and WHEREAS,the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the public that said vacation be made;and WHEREAS, the Council considered the extent the vacation affects existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any persons, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric, telephone or cable television poles and lines,gas and sewer lines,or water pipes,mains and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation to continue maintaining the same, or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain,repair,replace,remove or otherwise attend thereto: NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina,Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following described public alley right-of-way easements are hereby vacated effective as of December 6, 2005 conditioned upon the relocation of the transformer on the property to a location agreeable to Xcel Energy: PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE VACATED: The westerly 5 feet of Lot 5 and the easterly 5 feet of Lot 6, Block 1, PARK-WOOD KNOLLS 26TH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the southerly 5 feet,and southerly of the northerly 10 feet of said Lots. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County Auditor, and filed with the County Recorder, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. Passed and adopted this 6th day of December,2005. Member Housh seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hulbert,Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-107 ADOPTING APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CENTENNIAL LAKES OVERALL DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN - CYPRESS EQUITIES (7311 FRANCE AVENUE) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner Presentation Planner Larsen explained the requested amendment was part of the Centennial Lakes Development. He stated the 95 acre Centennial Lakes development was originally approved in 1987. The approved plan illustrated 1,085 dwelling units, and 1,256,900 square feet of non-residential space. Mr. Larsen Page 2 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 said the eventual build out contained 1,037,200 square feet of non-residential space and 348 dwelling units. He said this left the ability to add 737 dwelling units and 219,700 square feet of non-residential space under the approved master plan. Mr. Larsen explained the subject site (of the former Centennial Lakes Theater) represented approximately twelve percent of the net land area within the master plan. Therefore, it could be allocated 88 dwelling units and 69,200 square feet of non-residential space. He reported the proposed development requested 88 dwelling units and 86,000 square feet of retail-restaurant space. Mr. Larsen said the proposal consisted of two levels of retail above structured parking along France Avenue with two restaurants proposed near the pond. In addition, an eighteen story condo tower built on top of structured parking serving both the dwelling units and the restaurants was proposed. Mr. Larsen said staff believed the additional non-residential space could be allowed because it was highly unlikely to be development elsewhere on the site. Mr. Larsen said the proposed amendment would require a height variance. Mr. Larsen added the original proposal was heard by the Planning Commission in August and continued to allow revisions to the original plans. He noted the Planning Commission at their September meeting continued the item to allow the Commission to receive the Greater Southdale Area Land Use and Transportation Study. He reported the Planning Commission, at their October meeting, recommended the Council approve the requested amendment to the Centennial Lakes Overall Development Plan subject to: 1. Utility relocations - requiring a developer's agreement to relocate storm sewer and water main; 2. Transit-requiring a dedication of a transit easement across the property; 3. Cross-easements- required to allow access to 7373 France Avenue,property to the south; 4. Access to site will require the following a, or b; a. Submission of proof of permission (easements) to City Engineer from the owner of 7235 France Avenue to access 7311 France Avenue across their property;or b. Petition to City of Edina to acquire public easement and construct roadway to access 7311 France Avenue 5. Submission of plans and specifications to Park Director for any proposed work to City park property for approval; 6. Submission of plans and specifications to Hennepin County Engineer for work completed with County right-of-way; 7. Providing storm water best management practices on site and submission of plans and specifications to Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for approval; and 8. Receipt of Executed amendment to existing covenants agreement addressing park maintenance assessment. Mr. Larsen introduced the proponents Bret Witzig and Walter Hughes to present their project. Proponent Presentation Bret Witzig, 15601 Dallas Place, Addison, Texas, stated he represented Cypress Equities, the proponent of the redevelopment plan. He said Cypress was an affiliate of Staubach Retail Services. Mr. Witzig said Staubach had over seventy offices with twenty-one billion dollars in transactions amounting to over 290 million square feet of development. Mr. Witzig explained that Cypress Equities was the development entity of the Staubach Company and was founded in 1995. He explained they were headquartered in Dallas with four regional offices in Atlanta, New York, San Francisco and Phoenix. He added they currently have approximately $800,000,000 worth of developments in progress throughout the country. Page 3 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Mr. Witzig said he would like to explain how they decided on a tower height, traffic and tying the proposed project into Centennial Lakes Park. He said Cypress sat down with staff and calculated, based upon City code and upon excess development rights from the Centennial Lakes Master Plan, the number of condo units and square footage of non-residential development. Mr. Witzig said their original proposal contained a tower one hundred feet taller, which had been reduced while going through the Planning Commission review. He said they felt the tower was important due to the high end nature of the project. Mr. Witzig said they felt the existing Centennial Lakes Park was a huge amenity to the site and was the reason that the buildings had been located as proposed to allow them to tie into the park. Mr. Witzig introduced Walter Hughes,architect for the project to review the proposal in more detail. Walter Hughes, Humphrey & Partners, Dallas, Texas, stated he was the project architect. Mr. Walter Hughes said his company was based in Dallas,but they have done quite a bit of work in Minneapolis and some work in Edina previously. Mr. Walter Hughes presented a summary of the proposed project stating there were four major components: • Residential Tower containing 88 units and 18 stories high, consisting of fifteen levels of condo units and three levels of structured parking. One level of parking proposed to be constructed below grade. • Restaurant approximately 20,000 square feet - adjacent to the lake with large open patio facing the park,accessible from the outside,bordering the "main square'. • Retail approximately 66,000 square feet- located on France Avenue; two stories below which will be two and one half levels of parking. • Parking - composed of three different areas, underground and above ground below the tower,parking below the retail and surface spaces. Mr. Walter Hughes said the proposed plan in his opinion created a strong sense of place, where people can work, live, walk to a restaurant, walk to shops and it was also inviting for the rest of the community because of the walkways and openness to the park. Mr. Walter Hughes displayed graphics and explained the location of the proposed parking, entrances, walkways, and all the components of the project. He said that the parking below the tower was divided so that the lower two levels were for the restaurant and the top parking level was for the tower. Mr. Walter Hughes said that valet parking would be available for the restaurants. Mr. Walter Hughes said the tower was proposed to contain a lot of limestone, some brick and precast, a little more contemporary, but still tied into the neighborhood. The retail would follow along the same lines, with a large open plaza when entering off France Avenue with Spanish steps onto the ellipse walkway leading to the green space and some retail all on the ground floor. He said the parking structure would be covered up,wrapped by either residential,restaurants, or retail. Mr. Walter Hughes demonstrated the shadow studies they had conducted and showed the shadows on various days at 8 a.m.,noon and 3 p.m. He said the shadow either fell over the parking or the retail area. Mr. Walter Hughes also used some three dimensional depictions to demonstrate the potential massing of the project. Member Masica asked how many stories were shown on the elevation presented to the Council. Mr. Walter Hughes said fifteen stories of condos were shown plus three levels of parking. The parking would also tie to the retail so the whole project tied together. Member Masica said the depiction Page 4 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 appeared to have ten balconies and was the parking garage also disguised in the same manner on the lake side. She also asked if in addition to the valet parking restaurant patrons could access the parking garage themselves. Mr. Walter Hughes said that all units would have balconies and there were 15 levels of condos,but the design was done specifically to make the building not appear like an apartment and to break up the scale of the building. He said on the lake side, the restaurants would totally cover the parking portion of the structure. Mr. Walter Hughes said that patrons could access the parking garage or the surface spots. Mayor Hovland requested background information on the traffic study be presented. Ed Terhaar, Benshoof and Associates, 10417 Excelsior Boulevard, Hopkins, stated his firm performed the traffic study for the proposed development. Mr. Terhaar said his firm discussed with City staff what data should be collected and studied. He said the results of his firms traffic study were in a report dated September 8, 2005. Mr. Terhaar reviewed the existing traffic conditions, the traffic forecasts, the expected peak trip generation, the trip distribution percentages, traffic volumes, and Benshoof's traffic analysis with the resulting level of service (LOS) projections. He reported that all projected levels of service fell within the levels of service designated LOS A through LOS E. Mr. Terhaar reviewed the following conclusions of the report: • The proposed condominiums, restaurants and retail stores will add an estimated net total of 116 trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 413 trips during the weekday PM peak hour to the surrounding roadway system. • The France Avenue/Gallagher Drive intersection has adequate capacity with existing geometrics and control to accommodate the proposed development while maintaining acceptable levels of service. • In order to prevent westbound queues from extending past the development access from Gallagher Drive, dedicated left-turn lanes and shared through/right-turn lanes were recommended for each approach of Gallagher Drive at France Avenue. • In order to help accommodate large vehicles making concurrent left turn maneuvers from Gallagher Drive onto France Avenue, the center line of the west approach should be shifted to the north by six feet. Benshoof also recommended extension of the longitudinal lane line markings and modification to the France Avenue medians on the departure side. • The access points and the proposed internal drive aisles would be able to accommodate the future transit system proposed for the area. The detailed route through the site would need carefull review to reduce internal traffic conflicts. Mr. Terhaar answered questions regarding various aspects of his report from the Council. Member Hulbert asked about the potential of a circulating transit bus going through the development. She expressed concern that allowing the bus would block off one of the lanes on France Avenue while the bus stopped. She asked if Hennepin County would be where approval would come allowing a curb cut to accommodate the bus site. Mr. Terhaar said that since France Avenue was a county road they would be the granting authority for changes. Mayor Hovland asked Walter Hughes if any shadow studies were done during the summer solstice late in the afternoon when it can be light until about 10:00 p.m. Mr. Walter Hughes showed a shadow study completed on June 21St at 8:00 a.m.,noon, and 3:00 p.m. Mayor Hovland said he would like to see 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mr. Walter Hughes said he could not say exactly where the 5:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. shadow would fall. Mayor Hovland asked why the developer wanted fifteen stories of residential. Mr. Witzig replied that the fifteen stories were derived after meeting with City staff to find out what development rights Page 5 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 remained on the property from the original master plan. Cypress staff then determined what an optimal project would be for Cypress to develop. He said they had originally proposed 22 floors,but had reduced that request to 18 floors after going to the Planning Commission. Mr. Witzig said reducing the height much more would change the entire feel of the project. They designed a project that would maximize the views from the lake and allow adequate green space in conjunction with retail and restaurants to allow them to offer the development to their desired market. Mayor Hovland asked Walter Hughes to respond to why the height of the building was important. Mr. Walter Hughes stated that typically a taller thinner building was more elegant than covering the entire land mass with townhomes. Member Masica asked staff what the maximum number of floors could be built on this property given the current zoning without any variance. Mr. Larsen replied that the Zoning Ordinance did not have a height limit in a mixed development district. It would be governed by the setback, so the taller the building, the more setback would be required. He continued stating that in this case a setback variance would be required because of the height of the building in its relationship to the north property line. Member Masica asked how many stories could be built on the current site without a variance. Mr. Larsen said that given where the proposed building sat, approximately a four story building could be built without any variance. He added that rearrangement of the proposal could derive a taller building with no need for a variance. Mr. Walter Hughes interjected that rearranging the project would loose the public space which was very important for the project.. Member Hulbert asked how the project was conceived. Mr. Witzig said that Cypress Development became aware of the site and over several months evolved the project to what was before the Council. He said it was the conception of Cypress that changed after consultation with staff relative to the remaining development rights and zoning relative to mixed use developments. I Member Masica asked what hardship Cypress would say warranted granting the requested setback variance. Mr. Witzig said that he would say changing the configuration of the site plan and eliminating the variance would alter the project to the degree that it would not be the same project with the focus on the open space and the openness to the existing park. He said the requested variance was a setback from the street where the impact would be less than situated elsewhere on the property. Member Housh asked if when the Master Plan was developed had the movie theater been planned for the current site or had that been a compromise. He also asked since the site was a mixed use development what other types of occupancies would be allowable. Mr. Larsen said the movie theater had been part of the original master plan. Mr. Larsen said there would be a wide range of allowable uses for the site such as more office space, more medical space, straight retail, or straight housing, all would be allowed principal uses within the mixed use development district. Member Swenson reviewed with Mr. Walter Hughes the existing and concept of the proposed building comparing and contrasting the heights and setback. She noted the proposed project would be built within the footprint of the existing theater and asked if the developer could put three levels of parking below ground and two above ground. Mr. Walter Hughes said anything would be possible that it would be a matter of the cost. Member Swenson asked how the delivery and pick-up of the restaurant and retail goods would be handled on the site. Mr. Walter Hughes replied that the heaviest user in the development would be Page 6 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 the restaurants. He said that deliveries and trash collection would be through the northeast side of the parking structure inside the structure, out of sight. The residents moving in and out of the tower would also be served through the parking structure. The retail on France Avenue would have a loading area on the France side of the project. Mayor Hovland said he wanted to talk about the massing of the project. He asked what the impact would be relative to the public space and building design if the project were a fourteen story building instead of an eighteen story building. Mr. Walter Hughes replied that summarily the public space would shrink approximately 70,000 square feet and would need to be placed somewhere in the project design. Mayor Hovland asked what type of retail would be included in the project. Mr. Witzig said the tenant mix would include: Retail on France, two large home furnishing stores on either end cap, terrace above France would be small retail due to the depth, two restaurants one steak house and a couple of other high end restaurant. He added that these were all preliminary and nothing was decided. He said the vision would be for the retail along France to have larger end caps with smaller retailers on the interior and then the restaurants. Mayor Hovland asked about how the excess development rights were derived. Mr. Larsen explained the development from the original plan that had not been built was calculated, which was about 700 residential units and 200,000 square feet of non residential space. These were then allocated among the uses that had reasonable potential to add space amongst the original 95 acres. On the basis of that the net private land percentage was calculated and the site capacity was derived. Member Masica asked Mr. Walter Hughes to suggest possible ways the project could be redesigned with a lower building heights. Mr. Walter Hughes said he would have to think about it, but most likely the public space would need to be reduced to accommodate a larger building mass. Member Hulbert asked if the Centennial Lakes archway would be preserved and also asked what accommodations would be made to allow people to access the public park through the proposed project. Would there be any specific parking reserved for park users and could the park be reached without needing to weave through the retail. Mr. Walter Hughes said that it was very important to the project that the lake be accessible. The developers want people to come to the project from the lake and vise versa. He also said that the parking would be available to park users. Mr. Larsen said he wanted to clear up a common misconception. He stated the Cypress proposal was not connected to the Southdale Area Study in any way. Public Comment Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, stated he had been a resident of Edina for twenty-nine years. Mr. Persha objected to the Cypress project and to the Southdale Area Planning Study. He urged denial of the requested amendment to the Centennial Lake Master Plan. Bruce McPheeters, 4920 Poppy Lane, asked that a condition be added to any approval that the Centennial Lakes Park walkway be kept open. Sharon Ming, 1103 Coventry Place, stated that she had lived in Edina since 1981 and at the Coventry for one and one half years. Ms. Ming spoke in support of the project urging the Council to grant the requested amendment. Page 7 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Grant North, 719 Coventry Lane, stated he was a new resident to the area. He expressed concern about the proposed redevelopment and requested that the neighborhood character be preserved. Ann Marie Gramme, 602 Coventry Lane, stated when she bought her townhouse in 1998 she did not realize any high rises existed in the original plan. She urged denial of the proposal because it would alter the character of the park and neighborhood. JoEllen Deever, 7405 Oaklawn Avenue, asked the Council to defer any decision until the Southdale Area study had been completed. Ms. Deever expressed concern about traffic on West 70th Street. Roberta Thorpe, 6904 Cornelia Place, stated she was a frequent park user and expressed her concern about the proposed plan. She urged Council to gather more information in greater detail before granting the amendment requested. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, stated he had been a resident since 1996 and moved to the area because it was a residential community. He said the developer should not be allowed to drive the system and urged the Council to deny the requested plan amendment. Cindy Jarvis, 1016 Coventry Place, asked for greater detail in the shadow study the proponent presented. Ms. Jarvis said because of the location of her unit, her family would be the most affected by the proposal and she urged the Council to deny the requested amendment because the proposal was not right for the neighborhood. Member Masica asked if there would be any infringements to the park or would all amenities remain in place. Mr. Larsen said that the proposed plan would stay within the private property lines and would not encroach upon the park. He noted the proponent had suggested some possible alterations to landscaping within the park, but staff had informed the proponent that they would reserve the right to review any such alteration at a later date when the project was more defined. Member Masica asked if there was any reserved parking proposed for park users whether the proposed restaurant parking would charge a fee for use. Mr. Larsen noted that there was a blanket easement over all of the parking within the Centennial Lake Development that would carry forward. Therefore, any parking with the exception of the secured parking for the condominiums would be available to the park users. Mr. Witzig said the retail and restaurant would not be charged fees for use,however valet service may be offered at a fee. Member Housh commented that the Centennial Lakes Park was undoubtedly an asset to the City and had done much to make that area a good place to live, but if he remembered correctly when he was growing up in Edina the area was a gravel pit. He asked staff to confirm his remembrance. Mr. Gordon Hughes stated that the bulk of the property had been owned by Hedberg and Sons Aggregate and had been used for sand and gravel mining. It was also used for ready-mix concrete and the Hedberg's also sold various other aggregate materials. At one time the elevation of the property was significantly higher until it was mined down to street grade when the property was offered for sale and developed as Centennial Lakes. Member Hulbert asked how much the park cost to develop. Mr. Gordon Hughes replied it was developed in phases and to the best of his recollection the grand total would be around fifteen million dollars for the park, the pond, and all the trails around the area. Continuing, Member Hulbert asked for confirmation of her understanding that all business and residents contribute to the cost of maintaining the park. Mr. Gordon Hughes said there were two things established to maintain the park. First, there was an endowment, consisting of dedications made by the original developer, Page 8 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 deposited into a fund, held by the City to defray the costs of maintain and programming the park. That fund currently had a balance of around 4.5 million dollars, out of the original approximate six million. In addition, all residential units in the development pay $15/month to the City for park maintenance and programming. Mr. Gordon Hughes said most of the non residential area pays $0.20 per square feet annually. He noted that some of the retail space pays $0.10 per square foot. Mr. Gordon Hughes said the same formula applied to the Edinborough Development and that the City managed both Centennial Lakes and Edinborough Parks together under one staff and management. Member Housh asked for clarification of several citizens request that another developer be allowed to bring forward a different plan. Mr. Gordon Hughes said there was a misunderstanding, that all of the property at Centennial Lakes was owned by the City of Edina. The City only owns and controls the park land. He stated all other property in the area was under private ownership and the only way the City could step in would be to acquire either the property or the development rights and then solicit proposals. Mr. Gordon Hughes added another clarification on parking. He said that under the underlying agreements relative to Centennial Lakes, all of the parking spaces throughout the entire Centennial Lakes Development except for residential garage parking would be available to the public. Park users may park anywhere they desire. Member Swenson said one of the issues she has heard from citizens was the use of the park and their accessibility to be able to move around the park. Therefore, would it be possible at this time to add a condition to any approval that the path must be kept open during construction. Secondly, could the necessary right to the land needed for any future transit trolley be maintained in the favor of the City. Mr. Larsen said keeping the park open could be attempted, but added there may be for safety reasons,the need for temporary closures. Mayor Hovland asked staff to comment on the mixed development district and why this project was advancing even though the Southdale District Study was not completed. Mr. Larsen said that Centennial Lakes and Southdale were two different zoning districts and different rules applied to each. He said that Cypress Equities' proposal fit under the existing zoning except for the height variance, but the uses, parking and other parameters all conform to Mixed Development District 6 requirements. Mayor Hovland asked Mr. Larsen s professional opinion relative to the height variance for the proposed project. Mr. Larsen said the project has been looked at by the Planning Department and Planning Commission for some time. He said there were trade offs when reviewing a tall building compared to a shorter building. Over time, Mr. Larsen said he had become comfortable with the height of the building. He suggested it did not set a new precedent, since on the other end of the development Edinborough Park Plaza had eighteen stories. He added that over three sessions, the Planning Commission also became comfortable with the height and that it would be in a location with minimal impact. He said that subject to a good design it would fit well in the area. Member Hulbert said she had spoken with Wayne Houle relative to the sewer capacity. She asked him to comment on how the proposed project would fit into that capacity. Mr. Houle said staff has had discussions with Met Council regarding sewer capacity in the Southdale Area, but he stated he did not believe the proposed project would affect the City's sewer capacity because of the previously approved development plan that had been factored into the City's capacity in the last comprehensive plan. Mr. Houle noted that the developer had been considering the installation of a lift station which would control their peak pumping. He stated he did not believe there would be any capacity issues. Member Hulbert stated she was concerned about the number of times the p ro osed project was p p l justified in the Planning Commission discussions because it was a part of the Centennial Lakes Master Page 9 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 Plan. From the notes the Council had been given from the Planning Commission and from her conversation with one Planning Commissioner, she was told the Planning Commission was never shown a copy of the Planning Commission Master Plan. She asked if the Planning Commission received a copy of the master plan showing this parcel and its relationship to the plan. Mr. Larsen stated the Planning Commission did receive a copy of the Master Plan. Member Hulbert asked if there was any discussion as to the distribution and height of the properties, because the copy she received she had to review with the City Manager since the key on the plan was so blurred. She commented that the original plan had very specific distribution of housing and retail and heights. Member Hulbert said the height was concentrated at the south east corner and higher density housing in specific areas, but not evenly covering the whole site. She said the jump of redistributing development rights not built evenly did not seem logical or consistent with the plan. Mr. Larsen answered the development not built was what would be available for future use. He said they were not suggesting that future development be distributed evenly across the area not developed, however, they must be an equitable method of distributing the development rights fair to all property owners and that's the approach taken. Mr. Larsen added a considerable amount of time had been spent in the first two Planning Commission meetings explaining how a 4.2 acre stand alone site would be reviewed as compared to the subject site. He said looking at the site independently would, he believed, end up with larger development rights. Mr. Larsen said it was determined that the equitable way to view this site was as a part of the entire mixed use development. Member Hulbert said that logic did not seem rational to her. She said the plan had been developed with very specific areas, such as the Southdale Study Plan being developed. Member Hulbert said she thought the plan was presented to the Planning Commission as one large lump sum without discussing the individual areas from the original plan based upon her copies of the minutes. Continuing, Member Hulbert said she had concern about the Planning Commission approval and whether it was based upon full facts. She added her other concern, was about the Greater Southdale Area Study Plan not including any specific developments. Member Hulbert said a company was hired and directed to use best practices and vision and creatively create a plan. She said the Planning Commission on several occasions requested the study be completed before the Cypress project be heard, but mysteriously the Cypress was inserted into the Southdale study so the Planning Commission believed it was part of the study, therefore, it should be approved. Member Hulbert contended that she felt it was not correct. Mr. Larsen responded that the Southdale Study started in August of 2004 and was nearing completion in December of 2005. He said the Cypress proposed was submitted for consideration without regard to the study. Mr. Larsen said the consultants were made aware of the proposal, reviewed it, and because they felt it fit into the concept they used it in their draft study. Member Hulbert disagreed with Mr. Larsen. Mr. Gordon Hughes commented that before Centennial Lakes and Edinborough, no such thing as a mixed development district existed. The City received some development proposals and attempted to craft some ordinances around the proposals and therefore, Centennial Lakes happened and was approved. He stated it was very difficult to anticipate future development and as planners must react to proposals as they come forward, deciding if they were in the best interest of the city and would there be a way of accommodating the development. Mr. Gordon Hughes said that going back to the allocation of development right, there had been three choices available. First, would be to stay with the overall plan approved in 1989 for a theater and the City would not be interested in anything other than a theater. Secondly, allow the theater site to stand on its own without regard to any other property within Centennial Lakes, and view it on the zoning standards coming from the mixed development district, which would bring forward a much denser development. Mr. Gordon Hughes Page 10 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 said issue could also arise in the Southdale area, since Southdale has more than one owner yet it must evaluated all together to determine what will be best for the area. He said the third option would be looking at the AMC site through overall context of the plan for Centennial Lakes. Staff felt the only thing that made sense was to review the unused development potential and determine a fair way they could be allocated among the different properties. Mr. Gordon Hughes said that was not saying that eighteen stories was appropriate or a certain use was appropriate but somehow had to balance some fairness among the different property owners. He added that at one time the area was all under a single ownership, whereas, now there was theater owner, medical office, retail owners, and residential owners. Mayor Hovland said he believed staff approached the issue in an equitable way. He asked for staff to comment on the precedence potential of a decision granting the application as proposed in the Mixed Development District 6 for the greater Southdale Area. Mr. Larsen said the way to distinguish it would be that the proposed development fit under the rules currently in existence whereas, what the City was considering in some other area would require some changes to the City's ordinance. Mayor Hovland asked if the City would be protected from a corridor of towers as he believed was currently feared. Mr. Gordon Hughes said whatever decision was reached, the City must be fair, and added that the 22 story Edina Towers was approved in the late 1960's and 37 years later there was not a corridor filled with 22 story towers. He suggested that he did not believe every property would come forward requesting a tower, but that the Council should expect to receive some additional requests. Council Discussion/Action Member Masica made a motion to close the public hearing. Member Hulbert seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh,Hulbert,Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Member Swenson called upon her ten years on the Planning Commission helping her achieve a comfort level when reviewing plans. In so doing, she said, she envisioned what else could go on the subject site based on the Centennial Lakes Plan. She pointed out there existed a fair amount of development that had its "back" to the lake. She said she was relieved that a housing plan came in, and not a hotel, adding that Edina needs to continue offering additional housing choices to people. Member Swenson said she supported height over massing believing by running the height east west that was better than a lower building blocks more views. Member Swenson added the parking had been contained on site and most of it was underground and divided into the three areas. She added she felt the proposal was still very welcoming and open to the park. Member Swenson said she would ask the proponent to put an additional floor of parking underground the condo tower with only two above ground reducing the building to 17 stories above ground. , Member Housh agreed with Member Swenson's comments. He added proposals such as was before the Council were difficult decisions. Member Housh said he did not think the condos or the retail space would put undue pressure on the park. He said when he first saw the proposal he thought it was big, but after reviewing the proposal he felt it would be an asset to the area and did not want to reconfigure the tower because that would cause more of an impact. Member Housh said he liked the idea of restaurants and the ability to walk around the park and stop for a meal. Member Housh acknowledged that height would create change, but pointed out that when Point of France was built it created change, but now it was a city landmark. He added that if the development were done correctly it can be lived with on the site. Member Housh said he felt approving this project would not grant approvals on different sites. He added he also would like to see an additional garage floor below grade. Page 11 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Member Masica said she found the height of the tower and the traffic issues to be troublesome. Member Masica said if the height of the condo tower could be revised to fourteen stories she felt the project would be viable and scale of the surrounding environment would not be impacted so much. A fourteen story tower would fit in with the surrounding development. Member Masica stated she liked the mixed use aspect, the orientation of the project to the surrounding area, the patio space connected to the restaurants, and the attractive retail space P lanned for France Avenue. She acknowledged that some development would occur on this site and it was the Council's job to find a project with the least negative impact on the area. Traffic would be an issue, but that was part of a larger problem that this developer could not be expected to solve. Member Hulbert stated she must represent citizens who live in the area. She said people have been telling her that this proposal does not fit what they want for the City. She said this type of tall development would not fit what people would be comfortable with or what they want. Member Hulbert said people should be able to say what they want for their city. She indicated that she was concerned no sign had been place on the property even though technically it was not required it was not straightforward of the City. Member Hulbert said she was also concerned at the lengths the planning department went to promote the project to the Planning Commission to, in her opinion, misrepresenting the proposal. She said that the project was stated as not being against any rules of Edina,when the proposal would require a variance and was not consistent with the Centennial Lakes Plan. She expressed her displeasure with the insertion of the proposal into the Southdale Area Plan and called it intellectually dishonest. She said if the Cypress Project moves forward without finishing the Southdale Area Plan, then the Southdale Area Plan should be disbanded because everything would need to fit around this site. Member Hulbert said the Southdale Area Plan would drive development in the area instead. Her recommendation would be to deny the request at this time, stating the proponent knew the Southdale Area Plan was underway and that their request would not fit the zoning ordinance without a variance. After the Southdale Area Plan has been put into place the proponent would be welcome to reapply and at that time their proposal would be entirely appropriate to the community, but at this time it would be completely backwards to let the development drive the plan. Member Housh stated said that in his review of the Planning Commission minutes he did not come to the same conclusions of Mr. Larsen or Mr. Gordon Hughes misleading the Planning Commission. He added he had an opportunity to watch the Planning Commission rebroadcast and he thought there was an honest and spirited debate covering many of the same issues discussed this evening. So, he said he would like to stand behind the staff that tries to help the Council guide development in Edina, because from his experience, they have not been in it for themselves, they are good solid hard working employees of the City. Member Housh said it concerned him if Member Hulbert was suggesting they were doing something other than that, which he sensed from her comments. Member Hulbert replied that she was not referring to Mr. Gordon Hughes who was not at the meeting. She said she made a list of comments that she felt directed the conversation and scope of the Planning Commission and offered to supply them. Mayor Hovland said that the comment made by Member Hulbert that the staff misrepresented the plan to the Planning Commission was an insult to the skill and knowledge of the Planning Commission and was out of line. He said the Planning Commission knew what they were doing, that they received good information from staff, that they are all smart capable people. Mayor Hovland said the Commission looked at the proposal three times and passed it to the Council with a recommendation that it be approved. He said he agreed with Member Housh and that it was inappropriate to criticize staff suggesting that they were engaging in some misrepresentation to the Planning Commission. Page 12 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Mayor Hovland said that when he first saw the proposal at 22 stories, he had the same reaction as many people, but added that since that time he had been learning everything he could about height. Mayor Hovland said he has been attending ULI seminars on massing and over time he has come to the conclusion it was not the height of the building as much as it was the interaction of the building with public realm space at the ground level. He said this proposal did a wonderful job of this needed interaction. Mayor Hovland pointed out that all the pedestrian points of entry were extremely important to the future of the area. Pushing the building shorter would jeopardize the public realm space; however, he suggested he could support putting another level of parking below ground. Mayor Hovland said that over time he has gotten used to the height. He acknowledged that traffic was one of Edina's most difficult problems, but it was a regional issue that could not be solved with this particular project. He said he would not want to deny the plan, the key question to answer was whether the proposed use was compatible to the site. Mayor Hovland stated he believed the answer was yes. Member Masica said she would not want to loose the public space,but on the other hand she felt that an 18 story building was not appropriate for the site. Member Masica felt the project would have a negative impact and also serve as a prototype for other buildings. She said she liked the proposed development, but could not support the 18 stories. Member Masica asked the developer if they would consider putting all five stories of parking underground. Mr. Walter Hughes replied that anything was possible, but five stories would be a lot. He added that without a soils report he could not adequately advise Mr. Witzig. Member Swenson asked the Mayor to call the question. Member Masica asked if the developer would consider holding the project over to allow soils to be investigated. Member Swenson noted that they was an issue with holding the approval until January 6, 2006. Attorney Gilligan said the property owner had agreed to waiting for a decision until January 6, 2006, but that the developer had not yet been queried. Mayor Hovland asked the developer to respond. Mr. Witzig stated they would be in agreement to waiting until January 6, 2006, for a decision, and he said they have already done preliminary geo-tech tests on the site, but not down lower than they had proposed, so he said at this point he could not answer whether it was possible at this time. Member Swenson suggested that the proposal be voted on at this time and give the proponent 17 stories to work with, recommending they put three stories of parking below ground. She suggested they take a vote. Member Masica asked to see the feasibility of putting five stories of parking underground. Member Housh suggested the proponent be told 17 stories and if they run into rock and can go lower, and then they build a 17 story building and not drag the process out for another month. Member Swenson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.2005-108 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CENTENNIAL LAKES MASTER PLAN 7311 FRANCE AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby approves the Amendment to the Centennial Lakes Master Plan requested by Cypress Equities as presented at the December 12, 2005,City Council meeting with the following conditions: 1. Utility relocations - requiring a developer's agreement to relocate storm sewer and water main; Page 13 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 2. Transit-requiring a dedication of a transit easement across the property; 3. Cross-easements-required to allow access to 7373 France Avenue,property to the south; 4. Access to site will require the following a, or b; a. Submission of proof of permission (easements) to City Engineer from the owner of 7235 France Avenue to access 7311 France Avenue across their property;or b. Petition to City of Edina to acquire public easement and construct roadway to access 7311 France Avenue 5. Submission of plans and specifications to Park Director for any proposed work to City park property for approval; 6. Submission of plans and specifications to Hennepin County Engineer for work completed with County right-of-way; 7. Providing storm water best management practices on site and submission of plans and specifications to Nine Mile Creek Watershed District for approval;and 8. Receipt of Executed amendment to existing covenants agreement addressing park maintenance assessment; 9. The Centennial Lakes paths must remain open and usable throughout the construction of the project;and 10. The residential tower's maximum height allowed would be seventeen stories above ground. Passed and adopted this 6th day of December 2005. Member Housh seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh,Swenson, Hovland Nays: Hulbert, Masica Motion carried. *RESOLUTION NO. 2005-107APPROVING - LOT DIVISION - 5509 AND 5513 HIGHLAND ROAD Member Housh made a motion seconded by Member Swenson approving the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-107 APPROVING A LOT DIVISION FOR 5509-5513 HIGHLAND ROAD WHEREAS,the following PARCEL A is described as follows: LOT 010,BLOCK 007,COUNTRYSIDE AND WHEREAS,the following PARCEL B is described as follows: LOT 011,BLOCK 007, COUNTRYSIDE WHEREAS, the owners have requested the lot division of said tract into separate parcels (herein called"parcels") described as follows: PARCEL A: Lot 10, Block 7 and that part of Lot 11, Block 7, COUNTRYSIDE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 11, Block 7; thence in a southwesterly direction a distance of 146.13 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 11 distant 17.00 feet west from the southeast corner thereof; thence easterly, along said south line, a distance of 17.00 feet to said southeast corner of Lot 11; thence northerly, along the east line of said Lot 11 to the point of beginning. PARCEL B: Lot 11, Block 7 minus that part of Lot 11, Block 7, COUNTRYSIDE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 11, Block 7, thence in a southwesterly direction a distance of 146.13 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 11 distant 17.00 feet west from the southeast corner thereof; thence easterly, along said south Page 14 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 line, a distance of 17.00 feet to said southeast corner of Lot 11; thence northerly, along the east line of said Lot 11 to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Code 810 and it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said newly created Parcels as separate tracts of land do not inteffere with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the Edina City Code Sections 810 and 850; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of the above described tracts of land (PARCEL A and PARCEL B) as separate tracts of land are hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Code Sections 850 and 810 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but only to the extent permitted under Code Sections 810 and 850 subject to the limitations set out in Code Section 850 and said Ordinances are now waived for any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however,to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent Ordinances of the City of Edina. ADOPTED this 6th day of December,2005. Motion carried on rollcall vote- five ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 2005-13 - AMENDING SECTIONS 705 715 AND 1300 STORAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE AND COMPOSTABLE MATERIAL DENIED Mr. Hughes explained at the November 1, 2005, Council meeting, the Recycling and Solid Waste Commission recommended allowing curbside placement of waste cart containers for yard waste and refuse on collection day. Following Council discussion, a motion was made directing staff to prepare an ordinance amendment allowing residents to place their refuse containers at the curb on collection day, similarly to the way recyclables are handled. The ordinance further provides that containers can be placed at the curb no more than 12 hours before scheduled collection and must be removed from the curb within 12 hours after collection. First Reading of Ordinance No. 2005-13 was approved at the November 15, 2005, Council Meeting. Mr. Hughes noted from direction received at the November 15, 2005, Council meeting, staff made adjustments to Ordinance No. 2005-13 including requirements in the City Code licensing section for haulers to offer their customers the option of collecting refuse containers placed for collection at locations on the property other than at the curb. Staff recommended adopting Ordinance No. 2005-13, Amending City Code Sections 705, Storage, Collection and Disposal of Refuse and Compostable Materials; Section 715, Mandatory Separation and Storage of Recyclables; and Section 1300 Collection and Disposal of Refuse and Recyclables, and thereby allow curbside collection of yard waste and refuse on collection day. Public Comment Mike Burg, 4420 Grimes Avenue, stated current City Code required garbage to be picked up at resident's garage. He stated he did not want to see any change to the current code, but rather would like to see it strictly enforced. Howard Miller,4022 West 44th, stated he did not want the current City Code changed. He said he had contracted with a private hauler since 1984 and was very satisfied with the service received. Mr. Miller said he wants garage side collection of trash continued. Henry Owen, 4312 Oakdale Avenue, stated he was concerned his private hauler would be adversely affected if the City Code were changed to allow curbside pick-up of trash. Mr. Owen stated he wanted the Code to remain as it was at present. Page 15 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Gurden Carpenter, 4356 Oakdale, suggested the Council wait and not take any action. He suggested the current Code be disseminated to the community and enforcement increased. Dawn Bruggeman, 7017 Lee Valley Circle, stated she also wanted the Code left alone and not changed. She said she wanted her trash picked up at the garage. Larry Stotts, 4205 West 42nd Street, said he did not want the Council to change the ordinance. Mr. Stotts suggested the Council deny the proposed amendment right away. Cauley Mulcahy, 4302 Eton Place, stated he agreed with the previous speakers. He added that if garbage were permitted at the curb, it would be an eyesore. Mr. Mulcahy urged the Council to keep the garage pick up of trash and suggested that most residents do not know what regulations existed relative to trash pick up. Karen Graff, 4303 Morningside Road, said residents should be informed before any changes were made. She urged the Council to keep the current regulations. Tim Healy, 5608 Bernard Place, said he did not want the Code changed to allow curb side pick up of trash. Gary Vierkant, Vierkant Disposal, said that any changes to the current regulations would hurt his business. He urged the Council to leave the Code as it was currently. Member Swenson said she had asked the Recycling Commission to review the current regulations because of a request from an elderly resident. Roberta Thorpe, 6909 Cornelia Drive, stated she was not in favor of residents bringing trash to the curb for pick up. Joni Kelly Bennett,4003 Lynn Avenue,suggested that all trash,recycling and yard waste be picked up at the garage. Council briefly discussed the issue and Member Housh made a motion denying second reading of Ordinance No. 2005-14, Amending Sections 705, 715, and 1300, Storage, Collection and Disposal of Refuse and Compostable Material. Motion seconded by acclimation. Ayes: Housh, Hulbert,Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *BID AWARDED FOR NEW GYMNASIUM CONSTRUCTION Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Swenson approving the award of bid for new gymnasium construction to recommended low bidders as follows: Roofing Atomic Architectural Sheet Metal,Inc. $160,000 Metal Siding M.G. McGrath,Inc. 79,623 (Incl. Alternate) Elevator Minnesota Elevator, Inc. 46,068 Temp. Control Northern Air Corp. 19,100(Incl. Alternate) $304,791 Motion carried on rollcall vote-five ayes. FUND RAISING PROPOSAL FOR EDINA PUBLIC ARTS COMMITTEE PRESENTED Linda Kieffer from the Edina Public Art Committee, said they were attempting to find creative ways to raise Page 16 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 funds for various art projects by allowing residents to make donations while paying their utility bills. The funds would be used for stained glass at City Hall, statuary at Grandview Square or pedestals with three-dimensional art for City Hall. In 2006, residents' utility bills could have a selection box for a donation of$1.00 or more for the cause, if they chose. Ms. Kieffer said it was the hope of the committee to generate $6,000 or more each year through the program. Member Masica made a motion authorizing implementation of a voluntary donation program on the utility billing in support of the Edina Public Art Committee's ability to accomplish public art projects in the City. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO MINUTES OF MARCH 1 2005 APPROVED Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Swenson approving the technical correction to the Minutes of March 1,2005, as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote-five ayes. *RENEWAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF BLOOMINGTON APPROVED Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Swenson approving renewal of the Public Preparedness Agreement with the City of Bloomington as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *RENEWAL OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF BLOOMINGTON APPROVED Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Swenson approving renewal of the Community Health Services Agreement with the City of Bloomington as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. OUT OF STATE TRAVEL POLICY FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENTED Mr. Hughes explained during the last legislative session, the state legislature passed a mandate as follows, "by January 1, 2006, the governing body of each statutory or home rule charter city, county, school district, regional agency, or other political subdivision, except a town, must develop a policy that controls travel outside the state of Minnesota for the applicable elected officials of the relevant unit of government. The policy must be approved by a recorded vote and specify: 1. when travel outside the state was appropriate; 2. applicable expense limits; and 3. procedures for approval of the travel. The policy must be made available for public inspection upon request and reviewed annually. Subsequent changes to the policy must be approved by a recorded vote." Mr. Hughes said staff recommends adoption of the Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Policy as presented and noted that it follows the League model. Member Hulbert made a motion adopting the Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Policy as presented. Member Housh seconded the motion. Member Swenson was out of the Council Chambers when the final vote was taken. Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica, Hovland Motion carried. Page 17 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 *2006 - 2007 LOCAL 320 TEAMSTERS CONTRACT FOR PATROL OFFICERS APPROVED Motion made by Member Housh and seconded by Member Swenson approving Local 320 Teamsters 2006-2007 Patrol Officers Contract. Motion carried on rollcall vote-five ayes. *RESOLUTION NO. 2005-106 SETTING HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2006, FOR VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY ESEMENT - 4212 BRANSON STREET Member Housh made a motion seconded by Member Swenson approving the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-106 CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT 4212 BRANSON STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined that the following described property should be considered for vacation in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.29 and 462.348, Subd. 7: 2. This Council shall meet at 7:00 P.M. on the 3rd day of January 2006,for the purpose of holding a public hearing on whether such vacation shall be made in the interest of the public. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be published once a week for two weeks in the Edina Sun-Current, the official newspaper of the City, to post such notice,in at least three public and conspicuous places,as provided in Minnesota Statutes. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form: (Official Publication) CITY OF EDINA 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA,MINNESOTA 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota will meet on January 3, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 4801 West 50th Street for a utility easement to be vacated: PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE VACATED: Vacate storm sewer easement over and across Lot 8, "Riley's Subdivision of Lots, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 30 and 31, Grimes' Homestead", Hennepin County, Minnesota except the westerly 12' of said Lot 8. All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or not the above proposed street right of way and utility and drainage vacation is in the public interest and should be made shall be heard at said time and place.The Council shall consider the extent to which such proposed street vacation affects existing easements within the area of the proposed vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric,telephone or cable television poles and lines,gas and sewer lines,or water pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto, for the purpose of specifying, in any such vacation resolution, the extent to which any or all of such easement, and such authority to maintain,and to enter upon the area of the proposed vacation,shall continue. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL Debra A. Mangen,City Clerk Dated: December 6,2005 Page 18 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Passed and adopted this 6th day of December 2005. Motion carried on rollcall vote-five ayes. CABLECAST AUTOMATION SYSTEM PRESENTED/APPROVED Ms. Bennerotte explained that Edina Channel 16 was a government-access channel available to subscribers of Time Warner Cable. When City Hall was constructed, the Council approved cameras and other audio and visual equipment for the new Council Chambers allowing broadcast of its meetings on Edina Channel 16. Meetings have aired three times weekly since May 2004 as well as Planning Commission meetings since August 2005. Consistently running programming has been technically difficult for Time Warner Cable. Cable staff has attempted to resolve playback issues. Viewer's perceive problems lie with the City and not Time Warner. Several cities handle their own playback and in 2006, Edina and Hopkins were the only cities Time Warner will handle playback for. Ms. Bennerotte suggested approval of purchase of a complete cablecast automation system at an approximate cost of$26,000 for City of Edina. Following a Council discussion, Motion made by Member Housh approving staff soliciting firm quotations for the purchase of a complete cablecast automation system for the City of Edina and to make Time Warner Cable aware of this impending purchase. Member Masica seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Member Housh made a motion and Member Swenson seconded the motion approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated November 16, 2005, and consisting of 33 pages: General Fund $92,701.40; Communications Fund $2,232.94; Working Capital Fund $455,184.74; Construction Fund $245,930.96; Art Center Fund $5,352.98; Golf Dome Fund $1,248.20; Aquatic Center Fund $42.07; Golf Course Fund $14,735.57; Ice Arena Fund $41,845.90; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $16,420.06; Liquor Fund $129,716.19; Utility Fund $421,326.80; Storm Sewer Fund $33,981.25; Recycling Fund $33,874.00; PSTF Fund $1,254.35; TOTAL $1,495,847.41; and for approval of payment of claims dated November 22, 2005, and consisting of 34 pages: General Fund $208,092.56; CDBG Fund$ 38.00; Communications Fund $14,261.10; Working Capital Fund $5,540.56; Construction Fund $2,754.40; Art Center Fund $20,551.08; Golf Dome Fund $1,542.80; Aquatic Center Fund $664.60; Golf Course Fund $8,313.72; Ice Arena Fund $3,256.46; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $15,814.79; Liquor Fund $230,974.78; Utility Fund $39,415.73; Storm Sewer Fund $3,607.65; PSTF Agency Fund $4,368.92 TOTAL $559,197.15; and for approval of payment of claims dated November 30, 2005, and consisting of 23 pages: General Fund $30,251.26; Communications Fund $947.19; Working Capital Fund $468,796.92; Construction Fund $7,023.43; Art Center Fund $4,278.00; Golf Dome Fund $1,015.47; golf Course Fund $1,013.57; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $575.00; Liquor Fund $112,688.62; Utility Fund $64,590.40; Storm Sewer Fund$967.85; PSTF Agency Fund$569.56;TOTAL $692,717.27. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. FIRST READING GRANTED for ORDINANCE NO. 2005-14 - AMENDING CODE SECTION 185 - INCREASING CERTAIN FEES Mr. Hughes indicated that fees for 2006 were modestly increased as portrayed in Ordinance No. 2005-14. Following a brief Council discussion, Member Swenson made a motion granting First Reading to Ordinance No. 2005-14, Amending Code Section 185, increasing certain fees. Member Housh seconded the motion. Page 19 Minutes/Edina City CounciMpecember 6, 2005 Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hulbert,Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-105 APPROVED - YEAR 2006 PARK AND RECREATION FEES AND CHARGES Member Hulbert introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.2005-105 SETTING 2006 PARK AND RECREATION FEES BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby approve and set the following 2006 Park and Recreation Fees. PARK AND RECREATION PLAYGROUND $24.00 ADULT TENNIS INSTRUCTION $42.00 YOUTH TENNIS INSTRUCTION $42.00 PEE WEE TENNIS $30.00 TEAM TENNIS $71.00 TENNIS CAMP $88.00 FAB 4 &5 $68.00 NATURE CAMP $57.00 SAFETY CAMP $25.00 SUPER 6 &7 $40.00 CHEERLEADING CAMP $44.00 BECOME A MAGICIAN $28.00 TEA FOR TWO $5.00/person FISHING CLINIC $7.00 BALLOON SCULPTING $20.00 MINI HAWK $91.00 CREEPERS,CRITTERS, $43.00 CRAWLERS PRE-TEEN PARTY $37.00 YOU'RE NOT TOO OLD FOR $32.00 THIS WIN TWINS $15.00 YOU'RE NOT TOO OLD $48.00 W/TRANS WALKING CLUB $20.00 OR$35/COUPLE DRIVE IN MOVIE $3.00/CHILD ADULT ATHLETIC FEES SUMMER SOFTBALL BASKETBALL Co-Rec &Mens $415.00 5-Man C League $490.00 Classic League Mens/Womens 35 & $380.00 5-Man B League $490.00 Over&Industrial League Non-Resident Fee $26.00 HOCKEY (Individual) Non-Resident Fee $160.00 4-Man League $250.00 (Team) VOLLEYBALL BROOMBALL Officiated Leagues $320.00 Co-Rec League $275.00 Non-Resident $10.00 CO-REC KICKBALL (Individual) Page 20 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 CO-REC $125.00 AQUATIC CENTER SEASON TICKETS RESIDENT FAMILY: First 2 members *$85.00/$95.00 Each additional member $45.00 Maximum (8 members) $365.00 RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL: *$40.00/$50.00 NON-RESIDENT FAMILY: First 2 members *$100.00/$110.00 Each addition al member $50.00 Maximum (8 members) $410.00 NON-RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL $50.00/$60.00 Daily Admission $9.00 Admission after 6 P.M. $7.00 Aquatic Instruction Contracted * Early Bird Special if purchased no later than May 1, 2006. ARENA Hourly Rate (as of 9/95) $160.00 Open skating(Youth and Adult) $4.00 Skate Rental $2.00 Skate Sharpening $4.00 SEASON TICKETS (set first week of September) RESIDENT FAMILY: First 2 members $90.00 Each additional member $5.00 Maximum (7 persons) $115.00 RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL: $80.00 NON-RESIDENT FAMILY: First 2 members $105.00 Each additional member $5.00 Maximum (7 persons) $130.00 NON-RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL $90.00 Classes $100.00 ART CENTER Membership rates - FAMILY$40-$30 INDIVIDUAL (Edina Resident Members $5.00 off) HOURS CLASS PRICE HOURS WORKSHOP PRICE $7.00/hour Non-Member, Member $8.00/hour (parent/child) 30 $210/$189 9 $72/$65 24 $168/$151 8 $64/$48 22 $154/$139 7 $56/$50 20 $140/$126 6 $48/$43 18 $126/$113 5 $40/$36 16 $112,/$101 15 $105/$94 HOURS @ 14 $98/$88 $10.00/hour 12 $84/$76 8 $80/$72 Page 21 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 10 $70/$63 7 $70/$63 9 $53/$57 6 $60/$54 8 $56/$50 5 $50/$45 7 $49/$44 4 $40/$36 6 $42/$38 3 $30/$27 5 $35/$31 2 $20/$18 4 $28/$25 1 $10/$9 BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE GREEN FEES 18 hole-non-patron $34.00 18 hole -patron $26.00 9 hole-non-patron $18.00 9 hole-patron $14.00 junior 18 Hole Rate $18.00 junior 9 Hole Rate $9.00 GROUP FEES-18 holes $47.00 GROUP FEES-9 holes $20.00 PATRON CARDS (before April 1) Individual $65.00 Executive Course $25.00 PATRON CARDS (after March 31) Individual $70.00 Executive Course $25.00 COMPUTERIZED HANDICAPS Resident $22.00 Non-Resident $27.00 LOCKERS Men's 72 inch $40.00 Men's 42 inch $30.00 Ladies 72 inch $20.00 CLUB STORAGE $45.00 CLUB RENTAL $8.50 PULL CARTS $3.00 GOLF CARS 18 holes $28.00 9 holes $16.00 18 holes/person with disability/sgl rider $16.00 Group Car Fees $36.00 GROUP GOLF LESSONS Adult $99.00 junior $44.00 BRAEMAR ROOM Resident-wedding related $800.00 Non-residents-wedding related $900.00 Other events $350.00/$900.00 BRAEMAR EXECUTIVE COURSE GREEN FEES: Adult non-patron $12.00 Page 22 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Adult patron $10.00 Junior-non-patron $8.00 Junior- patron $7.00 Golf Cars (everyone) $13.00 Pull Carts $2.50 Group Fees $14.00 DRIVING RANGE Large Bucket $7.00 Small Bucket $4.75 Warm-Up Bucket $2.75 FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE GREEN FEES Adult-non-patron $12.00 Adult- patron $10.00 Junior-non-patron $8.00 Junior-patron $7.00 Golf Cars (everyone) $13.00 Pull Carts $2.50 Group Fees $14.00 GOLF DOME Large Bucket $7.00 Senior Bucket $6.50 Time Golf 1/z hour $9.75 Hourly Field Rental $120.00 I EDINBOROUGH PARK Pool &Track Daily Passes $4.00 residents $5.00 non residents "POOL &TRACK" SEASON PASSES Edina Individual $230.00 Each Additional Member $60.00 Maximum (7 Members) $590.00 Non-Edina Individual $260.00 Each Additional Member $70.00 Maximum (7 members) $680.00 Towel Fee $1.00 Locker Rental $0.25 BUILDING RENTALS EXCLUSIVE RENTAL NON-EXCLUSIVE RENTALS/HR Friday Evening $2,000.00 Great Hall $300.00 Saturday Evening $2,000.00 Theater $150.00 Prom $2,500.00 Grotto $100.00 Adventure $150.00 Peak Pool (swim $25.00 team only) Commercial Photo Shoot (hourly) Domestic Photo Shoot (hourly) Any Park Area Blocked Off $200.00 Any Park $100.00 Page 23 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Area Blocked Off Grotto $200.00 Grotto $100.00 Theatre $200.00 Theatre $100.00 Great Hall $300.00 Great Hall $100.00 EDINBOROUGH PARK"PLAYPARK" Playpark Daily Admission: Resident $4.00/person Non-resident $5.00/person Children Under 12 Months FREE Adults Free With Paid Child Edinborough Association Members Daily Pass $2.00 Playpark Punch Pass-10 Uses Resident $35.00 Non-resident $40.00 Resident: First Member $75.00 Each Additional Member $55.00 Maximum"7" Members $405.00 Non-Resident: First Member $100.00 Each Additional Member $80.00 Maximum"7"Members $580.00 Total Facility Daily Admission: Resident $6.00 Non-resident $8.00 CENTENNIAL LAKES Rental Concession Items Weekend Rental- Full Evening(6 PM-12 AM) Paddle Boats 4 person boat 1/2 hr $6.00 Friday evening $900.00 Winter sled per hr $6.00 Saturday evening $900.00 Ice Skates $4.00 Champion Putting BUILDING RENTALS 9 hole $4.00 1/2 day- Salon M-TH $200.00 18 hole $8.00 Sunday-1/2 day Salon $300.00 Amphitheater Rental Lawn Games Amphitheater Rental $200.00 Per Court $14.00/hr Commercial Photo $50.00/hr Shoot PARK DEPARTMENT RENTALS General Park Areas: Van Valkenburg(Courtney Fields (Residents Only) Resident Use/hour $45.00 Per field/day includes $160.00 building Resident Use/day $130.00 Edina Athletic Associations Commercial Use (i.e. $70.00 Field User $8.00 TV)/hour fee/participant Page 24 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Commercial use with $125.00 Edina Hockey Association light/hour Outdoor Hockey Rink Picnic shelter/day- $135.00 Field User $8.00 Cornelia fee/participant Showmobile/day $700.00 Park Shelter Buildings (half-day) Athletic Fields - Residents Only: Weber Park $65.00 Per field-per day $130.00 Cornelia School $65.00 Park Per field-per hour $45.00 Todd Park $65.00 Per field-per hour $70.00 Walnut Ridge Park $65.00 (with lights) ARNESON ACRES PARK/TERRACE ROOM Park Shelter Buildings (full-day) ONLY Per hour,first hour $45.00 Weber Park $100.00 Each additional hour $35.00 Cornelia School Park $100.00 up to 3 hours Per day (4 hours or $150.00 Todd Park $100.00 more) ARNESON ACRES PARK/GAZEBO ONLY Walnut Ridge Park $100.00 1/z day (6 hrs or less) $35.00 Rosland Park Pathway: Full day (over 6 hours) $70.00 Per hour $55.00 Arneson Acres Terrace Room/Gazebo: Per day $210.00 Per day (4 hours or $175.00 Utley Park Fire Ring Rental more) Per hour,first hour $61.00 Fire Ring- per day $25.00 Each additional hour $33.00 up to 3 hours Picnic Shelter Rentals (full day) Picnic Shelter Rentals (half-day) Chowen Park $40.00 Chowen Park $25.00 Sherwood Park $40.00 Sherwood Park $25.00 Rosland Park $135.00 Wooddale Park $25.00 Wooddale Park $40.00 PEGGY KELLY MEDIA ARTS STUDIOS DO-IT YOURSELF HOURLY EQUIPMENT 2 DAY SERVICES FEE RENTAL RENTAL Transfer movies to video $20.00/ 35mm Slide $20.00 VHS tape or DVD disk $40.00 Projector Pictures or slides to $20.00/ VHS Camcorder $25.00 video (album) $40.00 Audio Dubbing or $15.00/ Overhead $20.00 Transfer $40.00 Projector Digital Video Editing $25.00/ Opaque N/A $50.00 Projector 35mm Photo Copies $12.00 16mm Movie $25.00 Projector 35mm Slide Copies $12.00 Super 8mm $30.00 Projector with sound VHS Video Copies $8.00 8mm Movie $25.00 (up to 3 at one time) Projector Page 25 i Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 Studio does it $15.00 Foreign Conversion $15.00 Lowell Light Kit $20.00 (PAL, SECAM) Studio does it $21.00 Audio Cassette Dupl. $1.00/ Movie screen $5.00 copy Customer provides blank cassettes (video and audio),film and lamination supplies. *STUDIO COPYING/FRANSFERRING PHOTO/VIDEO STUDIO RENTAL Photo Studio-not staffed $22.00 member non-members pay add'1 daily access fee COMPUTER OPEN STUDIO TIME Macintosh G3 or Compaq 266 MHz PC $14.00/hr. (includes use of Adobe Photoshop, PageMaker and non-members pay Illustrator software with Epson Color Stylus an add'1$10.00 daily printing-prints purchased separately) access fee MEMBERSHIP One day/one visit pass-$10.00 $15.00 Annual Individual Membership (12 months) $30.00 Annual Family Membership (12 months) $40.00 EDINA SENIOR CENTER FEES Golf League Membership (Richards Golf Course) $10.00 55+ Softball League Membership (Van Valkenburg) $35.00 Bowling League Membership $10.00 Edina Senior Center Membership $16.00/$26.00 Greeting Cards $1.00 Trips &Tours $2.50 Defensive Driving $19.00 4 hr.class $24.00 8 hr.class Elder Learning Institute Classes $17.00 Dance Lessons (Square,Line &Tap) 15%of fee Card Tournaments $1.00/person Social Card Groups $.25 per person per day Podiatrist $1.00/Patient Community Education $2.00/person per class per day ROOM RENTAL Fireside Room &Classrooms per hour-minimum 2 $35.00 hours Fireside Room &Classrooms per day $135.00 Gathering/GRANDVIEW Room per hour-minimum 2 $45.00 hours Gathering/GRANDVIEW Room per day $185.00 Wall Art Display Rental 15%of Sale EQUIPMENT RENTAL Page 26 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6, 2005 Television/VCR/DVD $10.00 Overhead Projector $5.00 Portable Screen $5.00 Member Housh seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-103 APPROVED - YEAR 2006 AMBULANCE FEES Member Swenson introduced Resolution No. 2005-103 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-103 SETTING AMBULANCE FEES FOR 2006 BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby approve and set the following ambulance service fees for 2006. AMBULANCE FEES Service Level Fees for Ambulance Service, including medical treatment and/or transportation to a medical facility: Level 1 - ON SCENE TREATMENT $290.00 Specialized medical services performed at scene with no transport involved Level 2-MINOR CARE (BLS) $635.00 Vital Signs Splinting Bandaging, etc. Level 3-MODERATE CARE (ALS) $800.00 IV,Nitrous,Nitro Spray, ASA EKG Monitoring Spine Immobilization Level 4-MAJOR CARE $975.00 Medications PCT (inflated) Cardiac Pacing Cardioversion Interosseous Infusions Airway Management Level 5 - RESPIRATORY/CARDIAC $1045.00 ARREST Level IV plus any: Cardin/ Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Defibrillation OXYGEN ADMINISTRATION $43.00 MILEAGE FROM SCENE TO HOSPITAL $12.00/mile ADDITIONAL MANPOWER OR $480.00/hour MECHANICAL EXTRICATION 1 hour minimum Member Hulbert seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-104 APPROVED YEAR 2006 MISCELLANEOUS FEES Member Swenson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Page 27 Minutes/Edina City Council/December 6,2005 RESOLUTION NO.2005-104 SETTING MISCELLANEOUS FEES FOR 2006 BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby approve and set the following miscellaneous fees for 2006: SPECIALIZED RESPONSE Engine/Fire Company $365.00 Ladder Company $490.00 HazMat Unit $550.00 Special Operations Team $660.00 Limited Response $185.00 Gas Line Rupture Response $360.00 Specialized Equipment Cost+ 15%administrative charge Supplies Cost+15%administrative charge Disposal Cost+15%administrative charge Other City Resources Cost+15%administrative charge Ambulance Standby $165.00 *Charges are per hour- one hour minimum PLANNING DEPARTMENT Zoning Compliance Letter $175.00 Member Housh seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. CONCERN OF RESIDENT Laura Lehmann, 6820 Wooddale Avenue, requested the Council draft a Resolution in support of a stadium tax referendum and to submit a copy to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. No Council commitment was received. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared.th meeting adjourned at 12:03 P.M. City C rk Page 28