Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-18 Council Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL APRIL 18,2006 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Housh, Hulbert, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Hulbert and seconded by Member Masica approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Housh,Hulbert, Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 4, 2006, APPROVED Member Hulbert made a motion seconded by Member Masica approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2006, as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote -five ayes. APRIL 22, 2006, PROCLAIMED 'ART DOWNEY DAY IN EDINA Mayor Hovland proclaimed April 22, 2006, as Art Downey Day in Edina and encouraged residents to remember the 50 year long, committed career he has had as the Edina High School Swim Coach. Member Swenson made a motion approving April 22, 2006, as 'Art Downey Day' in Edina. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica,Swenson,Hovland Motion carried. *PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR MAY 2 2006 FOR PRELIMINARY REZONING PLANNED OFFICE DISTRICT 1 TO PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 2; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL - EDINA GATEWAY LLC (_4930 77TH STREET WEST) Motion made by Member Hulbert and seconded by Member Masica setting May 2. 2006, as Public Hearing date for Preliminary Rezoning Planned Office District 1 to Planned commercial District 2; and Conditional Use Permit Approval for Edina Gateway LLC (4930 77th Street West). Motion carried on rollcall vote -five ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-47- FINAL SITE PLAN INCLUDING SETBACK VARIANCES DUE TO THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS FOR CYPRESS EQUITIES (7311 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH) CONTINUED TO MAY 16, 2006; AND TO GRANT A 60 DAY EXTENSION FROM ACTION Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Staff Presentation Manager Hughes noted the subject property was the AMC Theater site at 7311 France Avenue South. He noted the City Council had at their December 6, 2005, meeting, granted an overall amendment to the development plan and preliminary approval for final site plan for the proposed project. Page 1 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 Mr. Hughes said at their meeting March 29, 2006, the Planning Commission heard the final plan and recommended approval of the Final Site Plan including variances for buildings height subject to the following conditions: • Developer's Agreement; • Dedication of a transit easement across the property; • Cross-easements required to allow access to 7373 France Avenue property to the south; • Submission of plans and specifications to Park Director for any proposed work to City park property for approval; • Receipt of Executed Amendment (changes in land use triggers an increase in park maintenance fees reflecting the additional FAR or dwelling units) to existing covenant agreement addressing park maintenance assessment; • The Centennial Lakes paths must remain open and usable throughout the construction of the project; • Watershed District Permits; • Provide 20' X 120' sidewalk/pathway easement at the northwest corner of the site for a future pedestrian tunnel below France Avenue; • Agree to fund and relocate the main entrance into the site off Gallagher Drive with future development of 7235 France Avenue; (Mr. Hughes reported this condition had been met as of the meeting date); • Agree to limit the northerly loading dock to "non-public" use; delivery trucks only; • Delete the westerly exit for Condo Tower Visitor parking. Provide ingress/egress on the northerly side of the Condo Tower; • Provide signal agreement and roadway modification permits with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; • Submit proof of ability to eliminate the access to and from the upper parking structure of 7373 France Avenue; (Mr. Hughes reported this condition had been met as of the meeting date); • Enhanced paving in the Central Plaza area; • Convey water without curb and gutters in the Central Plaza; and • Adopt Findings for Variances from the Setback Standard prepared by the City Attorney. Mr. Hughes added the Planning Commission also wished to note this site could be developed without variances with a 19-story 235 foot residential condo tower if the building were relocated on the site. He recommended the Council allow the developer be allowed to speak on behalf of the project. Mayor Hovland commented that the Council was dealing with a request for a Final Development Plan of previously zoned property. He noted that no exceptions from zoning regulations had been granted at the preliminary stage, and would not be granted at preliminary approval; therefore the Final Development would be when the applicant must substantiate their hardship for any requested variances. Mayor Hovland noted the burden of proof of undue hardship was upon the proponent in their Final Site Plan request. Proponent Presentation Bret Witzig, 15601 Dallas Place, Addison, Texas, stated he represented Cypress Equities, the proponent of the redevelopment plan. He said that some changes had been made to the Development team since the preliminary approval. Mr. Witzig said that Good, Fulton and Farrell Page 2 Minutes adina City Council/April 18, 2006 were the project architects and Adolphson and Peterson was the general contractor. He introduced David Farrell of Good, Fulton and Farrell. David Farrell, 9444 Sherwood Glen, Dallas, TX said his firm was based in Dallas and has a land planning and interior design division within their architectural firm. He said the firm was founded in 1982 and although based in Dallas they work around the United States. Mr. Farrell introduced Scott Sower who would be serving as the project architect. Scott Sower, 7221 Lake Forrest, Dallas TX reviewed the proposed project using a power point presentation. He said the project was a mixed-use development located at France Avenue and Gallagher Drive and composed of five elements: • The upscale private 88 private residential units; • The retail along France Avenue; • The three Class-A restaurants overlooking the lake; • Structured support parking for the three components; • Heavily landscaped 25,000 square foot public plaza entrance to Centennial Lakes Park. Mr. Sower said "The District" would be located three blocks south of the Southdale Center at the southwest corner of Gallagher Drive and France Avenue. He used a power point presentation to illustrate the proposed building, placement, materials and landscaping of the proposed project. He also presented graphics depicting the views and elevations from vantage points on the site and from points toward the project. Kathleen O'Connell, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., Plymouth, MN, Project Landscape Architect, reviewed the proposed landscape plan, including what of the existing landscaping would be removed in order to build the new project and landscape it. Ms. O'Connell explained the project was designed to blend into and enhance the existing Centennial Lakes landscaping plan while also enhancing the "District". Member Masica asked if conifers that were planted on City Park property were scheduled to be removed. Ms. O'Connell replied there would be some trees removed to open up the views to the Lake,but anything that would be removed would have the permission of the Park Director. Member Housh asked for clarification of what the trees proposed to be removed were shielding. Ms. O'Connell explained there was a "wall" of evergreens shielding the AMC Theater building which was approximately twenty feet tall. Member Hulbert asked for the dimension of the courtyard oval proposed. Ms. O'Connell said the elevation of the courtyard would be identical to the existing park. She said the at its narrowest the ellipse would be about 130 feet and it would be about 170 feet on the longer side. Ms. O'Connell said the "oval" would be a roundabout with traffic moving in only one direction. Member Swenson asked for detail about lanes of traffic and parking adjacent to the courtyard. Ms. O'Connell explained that there would be one way traffic with parking and the developer intended to preserve parking adjacent to Centennial Lakes Park so park users could easily park and enter. Member Swenson asked about the eight foot Black Hill spruce proposed to be planted on the site. Ms. O'Connell used the landscape graphic and pointed out the location that would be void where Page 3 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18,2006 the 8-foot Spruce would be planted. Member Swenson asked what people would see looking at the side of the building where the spruce would be planted. She noted they would see eight feet of spruce, then what. Ms. O'Connell said that she did not think anything would be visible because there were pines and other plant materials in front of the location of the spruce that were much taller. The spruce would actually be sort of inflow plantings. Member Swenson asked what someone looking at the site from across the lake would see in terms of plantings and the beginning of the building. Ms. O'Connell displayed the projected images of the view from across the lake. Member Swenson questioned whether the graphic was accurate. Ms. O'Connell said she thought it was slightly conservative and that the existing spruce would be larger. Member Hulbert commented the plans did not seem to be finalized. She noted that on page L110 it looked like 54 spruce trees were going to be removed and she asked if the plan had been approved by the Park Director. Ms. O'Connell said there were several trees proposed to be removed. She said the Park Director saw the plans last Friday and had discussions about it. Ms. O'Connell emphasized that nothing would be altered in any way without the required approval and direction of City Park Staff. Member Swenson expressed her discomfort with trees being removed from City Parkland. She asked that the Final Plans reflect a clearly stated response from the Park Director relative to the removal and replanting of any Parkland materials. Mayor Hovland expressed his concern about the site plan where it appeared the parking on the south end of the ellipse had been removed and a walkway inserted. Mr. Sower said the east side was for still parking and specialty paving, and on the east side of the property beyond the ellipse and along the west side, it was just specialty paving. Mayor Hovland said that in order to maximize the way the site plan and the public realm space interacted, the parking spaces on the east side should be replaced with another way to access the ellipse. Mr. Sower said they specifically left the parking spaces immediately adjacent to the park entrance to facilitate park users. Mr. Farrell also stated he was in favor of leaving the parking spaces because he felt it would provide park users parking spaces. He added the spaces were far from the retail. He said that when further detailed plans were drawn, most likely sidewalks would be incorporated to allow park users to park and access the park without stepping into the street. Mayor Hovland asked the proponent to review slowly and in detail the shadow studies that had been completed. Mr. Sower used the graphic and reviewed both the summer and winter plan, pointing out the location of the shadows at 8:00 a.m. 12:00 noon and 3:00 p.m. Mayor Hovland expressed his disappointment that the shadow studies had not been completed for times after 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon as had been requested at the preliminary approval time. Member Hulbert added she believed when the preliminary approval had been given it had been requested that shadow studies for later times be completed. She said that in the summer, Minnesota had light until 9:00 p.m. Mr. Sower asked if the concern was that the shadows would cast across the lake. The Council replied affirmatively and stated they wanted to see studies done later in the day. Mr. Sower said they would provide further studies. Mayor Hovland said the issue of the France Avenue right turn lane needed to be addressed. He noted the turn lane had not been factored into the setback. Mayor Hovland noted the proponent Page 4 Minutes&dina City Council/April 18, 2006 had been asked by Hennepin County to put in a dedicated right turn lane along the length of their property on France. He added he understood the turn lane was not taken into consideration when computing the setback for the retail building, so the plan stated the setback at about 32 feet when in fact a larger variance might be needed. Mr. Sower replied that the bus lane and right hand turn lane were asked for in December, but it was not clear at that time that the setbacks would be coming from the edge of the new easement being provided. He said the proponent did not understand that anyone would be construing the easement as a right-of-way, so the building was left in its location. He said the bus and turn lane were provided on the plan and the buildings did not move. Mr. Witzig said the original plan did not have a right turn lane or a stop for public transportation. After the initial approval, the developer had been asked to build the bus and turn lane at their cost, which they agreed to do. He pointed out the developer did not have to build the bus and turn lane, but had agreed to build and pay for the improvement in the best interest of the City. Mr. Houle said Hennepin County could live with or without the bus/turn lane. He said City staff felt it would be advisable to build the bus/turn lane with the amount of right hand turns accessing the property. Mayor Hovland asked the proponent to speak to the issue of the requested setback variances. Mr. Witzig used the graphic from their presentation and outlined the site encumbrances: entry into site from private street, Gallagher Drive (access agreement with private property dictating the property entrance), no entrance to site from France Avenue, Centennial Lakes Park, nor through the back 100 feet; utility easements that run from south across the west side of the property; across the north side of the property a utility and sidewalk easement exists; a sanitary and storm sewer easement runs through the ellipse; a pedestrian tunnel easement at the corner of France Avenue and Gallagher Drive; setbacks along France Avenue and along Gallagher Drive; transit easement for the trolley through the site; cross access agreement to allow the medical office building access to their loading dock; and park easement allowing access to Centennial Lake Park. Mr. Witzig said these encumbrances plus the parcel's irregular shape were the hardship that the requested variances were necessary. He said these encumbrances carved the site into two, and forced the location where buildings would be places. Member Masica asked the total size of the property. Mr. Sower replied the site was 4.19 acres. Mayor Hovland asked what could be built on the property without any setback variances. Mr. Witzig replied that the developer could build a building on the property without any setback variances. He used a graphic to depict the location of a proposed building. Mr. Witzig said such a building would block access to the park and end up with a different feel on the property. He said his outline of the encumbrances on the property illustrated the hardships necessitating the requested variances. Member Hulbert pointed out that the Galleria had an easement going right through it, so easements do not necessarily limit what can be built on a property. Mr. Witzig replied a building cannot be constructed on top of an existing 72 inch storm pipe. Member Masica asked what the setback was from the park property. Mr. Witzig said there was no setback from the park property. Member Masica asked why no setback from the park was required. Attorney Gilligan explained that in the MDD-6 District, setbacks were measured from the edge of the tract which was the outline of the zoning district or from a public street. So it was not measured from the park because that was not the edge of the tract or from the medical office building to the south. He pointed out every development had zero setback to the park which was the City Code. Member Hulbert asked if this was for every City Park or just Centennial Lakes Page 5 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 Park. Mr. Gilligan explained it was for this zoning district. He said that generally the planned districts have zero internal setbacks. Mayor Hovland asked why the developer had located the proposed buildings on the property for what particular reasons. Mr. Witzig replied that buildable areas were being placed based upon their previously approved 88 residential units and 86,000 square feet of retail. He said the proposal worked and tied into the park and in his opinion there was no other way to do it. Mr. Witzig said that the proponent felt that the plan, as proposed, was much better for the community than the alternate plan blocking the parking and depicting a taller building. Also the public plaza that gives back to the community would not be built. Member Hulbert asked Mr. Witzig to comment on the variances requested for the retail portion of their plan. He replied their preference was to leave the building where it was currently sited, but there would be architectural solutions that could change the building and avoid all the variances. Mayor Hovland asked if it would be possible to move the building if the Council felt it necessary in potentially granting approval. Mr. Witzig said he was not sure the developer should provide the bus/turn lane if they would be required to move the building and end up with,in his opinion, a lesser product. Member Hulbert asked how many restaurants were proposed. She commented that she thought in the preliminary plans two restaurants were illustrated. Mr. Witzig said they were planning for three restaurants, but that was not finalized. They were planning two on the lower level and one on the upper level. Member Swenson said on December 6t" she had asked if three levels of parking could be placed below and allow two parking levels above. She said they had allowed 17 stories total building above ground. Member Swenson said the plans in front of the Council illustrate a total of seventeen stores, with two levels of parking below ground and three levels of parking above ground. She asked how this was accomplished. Mr. Witzig explained that one level of residential was eliminated from fifteen to fourteen floors instead of building an additional level of parking below ground. He said that the size of the condos had been reduced allowing them to accomplish their plan in fourteen stories. This saved them the high cost of building an additional level of parking below ground. Member Swenson asked if the condo tower was the same exact depth and width as that shown on December 5, 2005. Mr. Witzig said it was very close, the current building was about 18,000 square feet and he believed it had actually decreased in size. Mr. Farrell explained that when they became involved, the size of each unit was reduced so the square footage of the parking structure and the condominium was lower. Member Swenson asked if the square footage of each floor had increased, decreased, or stayed the same since December. Mr. Witzig said he did not have exact numbers, but he believed it had decreased. Member Swenson asked to have some details of the exterior views of the parking garage visible to the public from various vantage points and the difference to the restaurant flowing into the terrace. Mr. Witzig outlined those changes for her using the plans. Mr. Sower addressed the issue for the Council. The amenities level was discussed as well as the potential lighting of the area, noting the pool has been eliminated, with two hot tub areas, an outdoor fire area, outdoor common space with seating, a raised deck and three units have private green space on that level. The exterior of the building was briefly discussed and Mr. Witzig stated they did not intend to light the exterior of the building. He said Page 6 Minutes/Edina City CounciVApri118, 2006 that it was their intent to create a dark sky environment for both the neighbors and building residents. Member Masica asked if the same building had been built elsewhere. Mr. Witzig said he has built a similar building adjacent to the Galleria in Dallas. Member Masica commented that it seemed to her that the proposed building seemed to be a rectangle that could be taken anywhere, she wondered if anything had been done to architecturally fit the building into the environment of the park since it was not apparent to her. Mr. Witzig said that the key element was the way the park has been tied into the site. He said that months of planning and many hours of work had been put into that design. Member Housh said that he noticed there have been some changes over the planning of the project. He acknowledged that after the initial appearance before the Planning Commission there have been some different iterations of the building. Mr. Witzig said the building had changed significantly since it was first presented to the Planning Commission, based on the feedback received from staff, Planning Commission, Council and public comment from the hearings. Mayor Hovland suggested that the proponent review the site plan again. Mr. Sower briefly reviewed the project. Member Hulbert asked if exterior materials had been brought to demonstrate proposed exterior finishes. Mr. Farrell displayed the sample board of finish materials and explained the rationale for the use. The Council discussed and asked questions about the proposed finish materials. Mayor Hovland asked what role if any the limited access and shape of the property have with respect to the requested setback variances. Mr. Witzig noted that the access points were set by their neighbors and could not be adjusted which limited the location of the buildings on the property so that did make a hardship in developing the property. He said the odd shape of the building also dictated where the buildings could be placed which again constituted a hardship. Member Swenson questioned the access to 7373 France Avenue. She asked if both accesses would be maintained. Mr. Witzig said that the lower one was party to an access easement for service. He commented that the upper access had expired and would be eliminated. Mr. Witzig said that garbage dumpsters would be serviced through that access. Public Comment Ann Marie Gromme, 602 Coventry Lane expressed her dismay that a developer may propose building a project over neighborhood objections. She asked how heavily citizen voices weighed into the decision process. Ms. Gromme expressed concern that the character of the neighborhood would be changed if the project were built. Lenny Bieskin, 7220 York Avenue, expressed concern about effect of project on the neighborhood. He said Centennial Lakes was a hidden jewel that needed preservation. JoEllen Deever, 7405 Oaklawn Avenue, stated her concern over the aesthetics of the project. What will happen if owners have 88 different types of patio furniture, hanging basket and flowers. She asked about snow removal and urged the Council to keep in mind aesthetics. Page 7 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18,2006 Diane Anselmo-Lacey, 7400 Edinborough Way, stated that with the problems already experienced with Southdale Shopping Center, Edina did not need any more empty retail space. Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, said that the general will must be preserved. He said he believed there was too much project in too small a space with out enough landscaping. Mr. Persha said land has value in a natural state. He asked about emergency vehicle access to the site. Mr. Houle said the plans had been reviewed and necessary vehicles could access the site. Mr. Hughes pointed out that no parking variance was being requested for the project. Member Housh asked about the Watershed District Permits. Mr. Hughes said that could be made a condition of approval and added no building permit would be issued without watershed district permits. Vicky Bleise, 412 Coventry Lane, asked if the architecture of the proposed project fit that of Centennial Lakes. She said she felt there were too many restaurants and too much retail. She commented Target's proposed reconstruction had been denied by the Planning Commission because they had not included a housing component. Ms. Bleise asked what strategic planning had been done for this area. Mr. Hughes said this Mixed Use Development District permitted a wide variety of principle uses, many of which were already represented at Centennial Lakes. He said that housing, medical offices, multi-tenant office, any kind of retailing were all permitted uses. Mr. Hughes said that alternatives could be conceivable for an office development, a retail development or a mix of these uses. He added the common architectural style in the mixed development district was in the public realm space and not in the buildings. Mr. Hughes said a wide variety of styles, heights and designs existed in the area. Mr. Hughes said the study that had been commissioned was to see how the park design could be extended up to the Galleria as opposed to trying what private development designs would happen. Member Housh commented that the City did not have the ability to plan each parcel along the strip that went up to where the Target store sat. He pointed out the land was owned by individuals who would, to the best of their ability, develop their property to their best interest. Member Housh said that all the City could do was to formulate a plan for the next twenty to thirty years as to what they would like to see happen. Having the park would entice people to live, or sell things, or have office developments, but the City could not develop the area like Centennial Lakes which was a blank aggregate pit that turned into a beautiful facility. The City could not master plan each parcel because they were under individual ownership. Member Housh pointed out that over the last nine to eighteen months the City had undertaken the Greater Southdale Area Study to help guide the vision for the area. Mark Chamberlain, 7004 Bristol Boulevard, asked how high the proposed Pinehurst Building had been that was proposed for the site where Sunrise Assisted Living was eventually built. Mr. Chamberlain asked what the specific height limit was for the site in question. Mr. Hughes explained that height was not limited specifically, but was determined through the use of building setbacks. Member Swenson added the proponent could build a taller building in the middle of their site and not require any variances. Mr. Chamberlain said that Centennial Lakes was a wonderful retreat and the proposed project would change the character of the neighborhood. He said he did not like allowing the developer to not answer the question about the size of the building footprint. Mr. Chamberlain urged the Council to not grant the variances. Page 8 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 Sara Noah, 511 Coventry Lane, said the park was a quiet peaceful place. She urged denial of the requested proposal because of the potential for loss of the park's character due to the restaurants and "amenity" level of the condos. Scott Sower said the building proposed at the December 6, 2005, meeting had been 80 feet deep X 225 wide. He added the building's current foot print was 65 feet deep and 217 feet wide. Mayor Hovland asked about the concerns expressed over potential retail clients and vacancies relative to the Southdale issues. Mr. Witzig introduced Bob Banks, 10761 Smetana Road, retail consultant. Mr. Banks said he had been in the commercial retail leasing business for twenty-six years. He said he could not divulge names, but the uses he could report were seventy percent of the companies indicating interest currently were not represented in the Twin Cities. He said there was a lot of interest in home furnishings,Starbucks, upscale hair salons and restaurants. Mayor Hovland commented that the condominiums would be a land lease and who did he think that his market would be and how successful would they be selling land lease condos. Mr. Witzig explained the lessor had granted language in their agreement that would allow them to do the land lease. He said they were targeting empty nesters and felt that they would have no problem selling their units. Member Hulbert asked how many liquor licenses were remaining in the City and could the proposed restaurants all be granted licenses. Mr. Hughes explained that there was no longer a statutory cap on liquor licenses issued to restaurants. There would only be a limit on the number of bars that could be licensed and Edina regulations do not allow bars. Janet Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, said she was a member of the Centennial Lake Cornelia Neighborhood Association. She said she thought a performing arts center could also be placed on the site. Ms. Bohan said that April 5, 2006, a petition was sent to 1200 households in the Centennial Lakes and Cornelia Neighborhoods. She presented to the Council a book containing over 300 petitions that have been received. She read the petition urging the Council to follow the seven points listed therein. Ms. Bohan told the Council that their vote against the Cypress project would demonstrate support of their petition. The petition and Ms. Bohan s comments were placed in the Council record for the April 18, 2006, meeting. Sharon Ming, 1603 Coventry Place, stated it was rather intimidating, but she was in favor of the project. Ms. Ming said she believed that Cypress had worked with the City to develop a project that would benefit all stakeholders. She added she much preferred the proposed tower over the theater building. Ms. Ming urged the Council to approve the project. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, stated that permitting a high rise next to a park and across from residential property was akin to eminent domain taking his property and money. Mr. Bohan reviewed his chronological timeline for the project and stated no variance had been requested at the preliminary review. He urged denial of the project. Bruce Malkerson, 220 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, appeared representing John and Janet Bohan. Mr. Malkerson said he also had one of his associates, Patrick Steinhoff of his firm who would also be addressing the Council. Mr. Malkerson said that based on his 33 years of experience as a land use attorney he believed as a matter of law the requested variances could not be requested. He said he did not feel the applicant had met the statutory burden of hardship. Mr. Page 9 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18,2006 Malkerson asked for the encumbrances from the applicant and he asked the Council to not act on the issue until he can review the applicant's encumbrances. Mr. Malkerson requested he be able to review the covenant documents restricting the access to the parcel. He said that variances may be refused for any reason if there was a potential negative impact upon the neighborhood or city. Mr. Malkerson said the burden of proof was upon the applicant. He suggested that the applicant could build all types of buildings on the property without any variances that the easements did not constitute a hardship and that nothing the applicant noted constituted a hardship. Patrick Steinhoff, 220 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, said he would list what he found to be the projects deficiences: • thirty foot setback from Gallagher Drive-Zoning Code minimum setback 35 feet; • retail buildings too tall for setbacks; • applicant has not gone through Zoning Board of Appeals to secure the requested variances; • even if 19 story building were able to be built, at the proposed location the proposed tower was six times too tall under Edina Code; • four acre site-crazy to suggest they cannot build on site without variances; • similar, but much smaller project would be a reasonable use, no undue hardship and no reason to grant approval. Mayor Hovland asked the City Attorney to respond to the point that the applicant had not made an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Gilligan commented that if the applicant had gone to the Zoning Board and the decision was appealed it still would be heard by the City Council. He added that for a final development plan under Edina Zoning Code variances that were integral to the development plan were heard by the Planning Commission and granted by the Council as set out in Code and as a long time practice. Member Masica asked if this was contrary to State Statute. Mr. Gilligan said it was not because it was laid out in our Zoning Code. Mr. Hughes added that the reason the Code was drafted the way it was, many mixed use developments were being presented for consideration. He said the matter would go through the Planning Commission and City Council and then go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board was comprised of persons who were already members of the Planning Commission, whose action was appealable to the City Council. At the time of re- codification in the early 90's the City Attorney suggested streamlining the process in the case of the planned development requests. He added this was how the City had operated since that time. Member Housh asked staff to comment upon Mr. Steinhoff's comments about setbacks and his understanding of Edina setbacks. He said that he understood the entire development area, including Coventry to be on the Park. Mr. Gilligan said that on the subject site the front foot setback from France Avenue of 35 feet which may be raised because of the height. He said there was a side yard setback on the northerly portion of twenty feet which also would be raised because of height. Since the park was not on the edge of the tract, there would be no setback required. Also there was not setback from the medical building because it was not the edge of the tract of the outside perimeter of the zoning district and or the public streets. Member Housh said that at the preliminary approval, it was discussed at some length how the 88 residential units and 84,000 square feet of retail space was determined. Mr. Hughes explained that when staff first met with Cypress, the discussion whether the Cypress site was a mixed Page 10 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 development district unto itself or was it part of the broader Centennial Lakes Mixed Development District. He said staff took the position that the Cypress site was still part of the overall development plan for the entire Centennial Lakes Property. Therefore, when computing density it would not be proper to compute the allowed number of residential units and allowed floor area ratio (FAR) of non residential buildings based on just the Cypress property. The City had approved an overall development plan for all of Centennial Lakes and that overall development plan was never realized from a density stand point. The number of units constructed were not as many units as approved in the overall development plan and the amount of non residential FAR was not up to the approved full plan potential. He said that staff took a pro-ration of the remaining development rights for Centennial Lakes and applied the share that the Cypress site was entitled to based upon a ratio of their lot area to the lot area of the entire development. Mr. Hughes said that seemed to be the only reasonable way of calculating the density for the site. If only the Cypress site were reviewed, it would have allowed a greater density of both residential and non residential uses than under the formula explained. Member Hulbert asked what were the responsibilities of the Council in granting the preliminary approvals, then what would the responsibilities of the developer be in preparing final plans, and the Council's responsibility in considering such plans. Mr. Gilligan said the preliminary approval gives a developer direction to proceed, expend additional funds and prepare the final site plan approval. He added that under Edina's Code any variances would be considered under the final site plan approval. Member Hulbert asked what were the requirements for final approval. Mr. Hughes said the requirements would include: the exact location and elevation drawings of existing and proposed structures, a landscape plan and schedule, location dimensions, design features of all streets, driveways, etc., location and preliminary layout of watermains, sanitary sewer, and other utilities, other information in the opinion of the Planning Department necessary to evaluate the plans, and to demonstrate that the final site plan would be consistent with the overall development as approved and modified by the Council, and contain conditions imposed by the Council. Mr. Hughes said that on December 6, 2005, the Council modified the Overall Development for Centennial Lakes and granted a preliminary approval of the site plan submitted. He added that Mr. Gilligan was correct, under the terms of the ordinance, the exceptions/variances that might be required were approved at the time of the final site plan, i.e. what was presently before the Council. Member Masica asked if Mr. Gilligan was aware of case law or precedents that spoke to extreme variances of the nature of those requested by Cypress. Mr. Gilligan said the test for undue hardship was not that they could not put a property to a use, but that they want to put a property to a reasonable use not permitted by the zoning regulations. So, if what a proponent proposed to do with a property was a reasonable use for the site that was not permitted then the test for undue hardship was met. Member Masica again asked if the extreme nature of the requested variance constituted a legal problem. Mr. Gilligan said he did not know the request was for an extreme variance. He said if the proponent could put up a nineteen story building up in that location, but would move it north and build a shorter building that was not an extreme variance request. The proponent wanted to make a reasonable use of the site by locating the building where proposed. Page 11 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18,2006 Member Masica said she felt that by the very fact that a nineteen story building could be built on a different location within the property spoke to the fact that there was no hardship. Mr. Gilligan said that was not correct, the hardship issue dealt with whether or not the proposed use was reasonable that was not permitted by the zoning ordinance. He added that hardships were due to unique circumstances to the property which in this case would be the access issue: northerly access to France Avenue only; the irregular shape of the lot which were circumstances to that property. Member Masica commented that the irregular shape of the lot next to the park would be an amenity. Member Hulbert expressed concern in taking a vote because they have not gotten any information from Mr. Gilligan about the issues raised by Mr. Malkerson. Mayor Hovland suggested allowing any other public present to comment. Joni Bennett, 4003 Lynn Avenue, said she had concern about the access on Gallagher Drive (a private drive) that there was not adequate connection to France Avenue. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert to close the public hearing. Aye: Housh. Hulbert,Masica,Swenson, Hovaand Motion carried. Member Hulbert said she would like to receive a briefing from the attorney on the issues raised. Mr. Gilligan said that the France Avenue issue must be finalized, but he pointed out that findings had been prepared that provide a reasonable basis to grant the variance. Member Hulbert said she wanted to go through Mr. Malkersori s document from April 14th. Mr. Gilligan said that it was possible to build the proposed condominium tower somewhere on the property without a variance. Member Hulbert said she wanted the proponent to sketch out on their site plan exactly where they could build their building on the site without any variances. Mr. Witzig used a site plan and illustrated where he would locate a building approximately 142 feet from Gallagher. Based on his calculations the tower could be 249 feet in height, assuming 3 levels of parking at 11 feet and 17 stories of residential at 12 feet that would result in a 245 foot building of twenty stories. He added the building, as designed, would meet a 35 foot setback from France Avenue if no bus/turn lane were provided. Mr. Witzig said if the 8-foot bus/turn lane became the right-of- way line, then the building would not meet the height restriction. He pointed out the bus/turn lane was not a requirement. The tower was so far from France that there was not a setback issue. Mr. Hughes suggested looking at the December 6, 2005, maximum building height was 35 feet as to the retail portion. The distance from the curb line to the building was about 45 feet as proposed. Under the new plan, the building has become taller - between 39 and 44 feet in height. Then when the bus/turn lane was put in place, the distance from the curb to the face of the building narrowed from between 28 feet to 32 feet. He expressed concern over the proximity with the bus/turn lane and suggested that the bus lane might be optional and if it were removed a slight building adjustment could be made to bring the building into compliance with setback. Mr. Gilligan said that the height and setbacks review was what the Council was currently undertaking. He said he felt that all the variances requested have been outlined. Member Hulbert interjected she wanted them listed for the vote. Mr. Gilligan said the undue hardship the Council Page 12 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 must consider was does the proponent wish to use the property in a reasonable manner that would be prohibited by the Edina's Zoning Ordinance. Member Masica asked if undue hardship were the only consideration in granting a variance. Mr. Gilligan replied that unique circumstances of the property must be considered and also whether the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the City, and that economic consideration alone may not be the only determinant(although they may be considered). Mayor Hovland asked about the comment Mr. Malkerson made relative to the Sagstetter case. Mr. Gilligan said that it was no different whether a City would grant itself a variance or grant a variance to a private citizen. Member Hulbert questioned the transit easement which in her mind was the only reason the lot was difficult to develop. Mr. Gilligan said the easement in question was sewer easement, not a transit easement. He also said that there were access issues, plus there were existing cross easements with the building to the south. Mayor Hovland stated he still had a lot of unanswered questions, such as the shadow study, lighting study, glass, landscaping, France Avenue bus/turn lanes, variances, final plans that do not seem quite final. He said there were things that Mr. Malkerson said he had not seen before such as the declaration of covenants and the schematic. He asked Mr. Gilligan what encumbrances might affect the issuance of variances,noting this had only been briefly addressed. Mayor Hovland said he would like to think about the proposal based upon what was presented by the applicant and whether they met the standards for granting the requested variances. He said he thought it was probably a reasonable use for the land under the strict provisions of the code, but he wanted to think about it a bit more. Mayor Hovland said that beyond that, he wanted to see the shadow studies he requested in December from later in the day than the 3:00 p.m. studies presented. In addition, Council would like to see a lighting plan, and more importantly final plans. Member Hulbert added she wanted to see the materials proposed for the decks which would amount for a large percentage of the surface of the building. Mayor Hovland agreed stating this would and should be included in "Final Plans". He told the proponent, when they came to the Council, their plans would show what they intended to build, because if a plan received Council approval that was what the developer would be required to build. Mayor Hovland said they did not want to be in a bait and switch situation. Mayor Hovland said he wanted the right turn lane issue dealt with the developer. He wanted to see how that turn lane would impact the France Avenue variances and the overall building. He said they were not yet at a point where he felt they could make a decision. Member Masica said that the shadow studies and final plans can be reviewed, but that would not deflect that this was a project requesting major variances and would a situation of spot zoning be created by granting approval of the request. She said that the situation rendered inequities for everyone involved and she could not with any degree of comfort support it. Member Housh said he was a bit confused, and that the neighborhood's attorney has suggested there were a number of variances requested, but he thought Mr. Gilligan had stated the single Page 13 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 variance was the one from Gallagher Drive. Mr. Hughes clarified that there were two variances at issue. The first was from the north property line, where he believed 34 feet was provided where a requirement would have been 116 feet. Mr. Hughes said that from France Avenue the requirement was 35 feet plus some additional setback due to the retail building height would be required which he estimated to be between 37 and 39.5 feet. He added that installing the bus lane and right turn lane would leave a setback of approximately twenty-five feet. Without the bus and turn lane approximately 30 feet would be provided. Mr. Hughes said he believed those were the variances in question for the development. Member Housh clarified that the France Avenue variances were necessary because the retail building height had changed since the December 6, 2005, meeting. Mr. Hughes confirmed that was correct, the preliminary plans showed a building height of 35 feet and the current plan showed a height of between 39 and 44 feet. Member Swenson said she believed that the north setback variance would be 85 feet. Mayor Hovland said he believed there was sentiment for a continuance of action. Mr. Hughes suggested the Council could continue action until May 16, 2005 and also grant a 60 day extension from action. Member Swenson made a motion introducing the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 200647 GRANTING 60 DAY EXTENSION FROM ACTION AND CONTINUING ACTION UNTIL MAY 16,2006 WHEREAS, Cypress Equities Final Plans need further detail in the following: 1) provide more detailed shadow studies depicting shadows cast later in the day such at 5:00,7:00 and 9:00 p.m.; 2) provide detailed lighting plan for project; 3) resolve the right turn lane/bus lane on France Avenue; 4) provide detailed plans for deck materials of the residential tower; and 5) provide Final Plans accurately reflecting building placement, size and exterior materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL that action on the proposed development for "The District" be continued until the regular meeting on May 16, 2006;and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL that an extension from action is hereby granted on the Final Development Plan submitted by Cypress Equities until June 22, 2006. Dated April 18,2006. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh,Swenson, Hovland Nays: Hulbert, Masica. Motion carried. Member Swenson asked if on the 161h of May would there be additional public testimony. Mr. Hughes explained that the Council had already closed the public hearing. He said if they wished to hear further testimony on May 16,2006, they would need to decide whether or not they wished to re-open the hearing. Mayor Hovland asked if the hearing would need to be re-opened to hear legal counsel. Mr. Gilligan said that the Council could if they desired allow legal counsel to speak. Mayor Hovland recessed the meeting at 11:00 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Page 14 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS Steve Rusk, 5040 Hankerson Avenue, reported his property was not affected by the proposed Interlachen Trail. He added the current design was more dangerous than riding on the road and asked that the plan be reconsidered. Mr. Rusk said Edina was lacking bike routes, but residents believe what has been proposed would not be safe and asked that another open house be held with open dialog between residents and staff. Engineer Houle indicated the trail issue open house may not be held until late summer because of on-going projects. He added the next open house would be conducted either in a similar manner to the last one or could include a formal presentation by the SRF, Consultants on the project. Mr. Houle stated before any path was built, every aspect will be studied to make it safe. Mayor Hovland asked at what point the plan was presently. Mr. Houle said comments from the open house and letters received were being compiled to show residents how the path would affect the landscape of the area. Member Housh reiterated that the decision on the trail will only happen following a public hearing. Member Hulbert said she suggested to the Mayor that a bicycle advisory committee of citizens was formed that would be a subcommittee of the transportation commission. Mayor Hovland suggested the idea of forming a bicycle advisory committee would be given to the transportation committee. Member Hulbert noted the committee would need to work with a "two wheels to town" group that has developed a model bike system for the area. Mr. Rusk noted that approximately $25 million of state funds were available for trails and Edina should get their share. Peter Simpson, 509 Blake Road South, voiced the following concerns: 1) the map depicting the trail was not accurate, 2) information was not accurate about amount of land and easements being taken for the path, 3) the cost of relocating power lines and infrastructure being disturbed, and 4) the project was not reasonable for safety reasons. Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, voiced support of the presentation by Mr. Rusk. He stated there were a lot of talented people in Edina and he believed their opinions should be honored. Mr. Persha said he believed equal time for presentations should be given to residents as were given to developers and lawyers. *AWARD OF BID FOR HALF TON PICKUP FOR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT -Motion made by Member Hulbert and seconded by Member Masica approving the award of bid for one half-ton pickup to recommended bidder, Superior Ford under State Contract No. 1962A5- 232,at$16,746.00 and sales tax payable when licensed at$1,088.49. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. BID AWARDED FOR ADVENTURE PEAK SLIDE EXPANSION FOR EDINBOROUGH PARK Director Keprios said Edinborough Park's Adventure Peak has been popular. In order to keep it new and exciting, a slide expansion has been proposed. The new element will draw more children to the higher levels and away from the most popular event - the triple wave slide. Page 15 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 Several new platforms and cubicles will be a part of this addition and allow access to and from the new slide. Mr. Keprios said the original structure was purchased in 2003 and has been a huge success. He showed a rendering of the existing play structure as well as the expansion and explained that Earl F. Andersen, Co., was the only supplier for this structure. The price at$33,105.95 will include all equipment, installation, shipping and sales tax. Member Masica inquired which months were the largest revenue producing months. Mr. Keprios responded that the winter months were the strongest months. Member Masica asked what the annual operating costs were for Adventure Peak. Mr. Keprios said he would be able to estimate a cost for all of Edinborough Park but he would be guessing with a figure for only Adventure Peak. Member Masica asked where the funds were coming from for the expansion. Mr. Hughes said the Capital Improvement Plan had a figure of$25,000 estimated for improvements to Adventure Peak and history shows that estimated figures were sometimes over and sometimes under. Member Masica asked if Edinborough Park will need to be closed while the slide expansion was installed. Mr. Keprios said the Park would need to be closed but he did know for how long. Mr. Hughes said installation would be in mid-summer during the slowest time. Mayor Hovland stated that Adventure Peak was a wonderful idea and a phenomenal success. Member Swenson suggested if someone came to Adventure Peak during construction that a coupon be given stating to come back, after a certain date, and 'bring a friend'. She said this might encourage new people to become regular users of the Peak. Member Masica made a motion approving the award of bid for the Adventure Peak Slide Expansion for Edinborough Park to sole bidder Earl F. Andersen, Inc., at $33,105.95. Member Housh seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh,Hulbert, Masica,Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *AWARD OF BID FOR RE-ROOFING AND ROOF REPAIR FOR EDINA ART CENTER Motion made by Member Hulbert and seconded by Member Masica approving the award of bid for re-roofing and roof repair at the Edina Art Center to recommended low bidder, Palmer- West Construction,Inc., at$22,235.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote -five ayes. *AWARD OF BID FOR 2006 AMBULANCE REMOUNT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT Motion made by Member Hulbert and seconded by Member Masica approving the award of bid for Type III Ambulance Remount for the Fire Department to recommended low bidder North Central Ambulance at$80,837.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote -five ayes. *FIBER OPTIC CONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH EDINA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LOGIS Motion made by Member Hulbert and seconded by Member Masica authorizing execution of a Fiber Optic Connection Agreement with the Edina School District and LOGIS by the City of Edina Mayor and City Manager. Motion carried on rollcall vote -five ayes. Page 16 Minutes/Edina City Council/April 18, 2006 *SET HEARING DATE OF MAY 2, 2006, FOR TEMPORARY INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR 50TH & FRANCE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Motion made by Member Hulbert and seconded by Member Masica setting a hearing date of May 2, 2006 for consideration of a temporary intoxicating liquor license for the 50th and France Business and Professional Association for the Edina Art Fair,June 2,3 and 4,2006. Motion carried on rollcall vote -five ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-46 ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland explained in order to comply with State Statutes, all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Swenson made a motion approving the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2006-46 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed donations on behalf of its citizens. Donations for Edina Fire Department Equipment as follows: Mike &Karen Callan $25.00 Byron Memorial Fund Daniel and Delores Casey $10.00 Byron Memorial Fund Mo Warner $40.00 Davanni Gift Card Appreciation for service to Father Donation to the Braemar Memorial Fund for future Golf Course equipment purchases as follows: Braemar Men's Club $50.00 Donations to Edina Art Center as follows: Gary Diamond $ 10 Pustarino,Tilton, Parrington, Jennifer and John Feld $ 60 and Lindquist, PLLC $ 10 Stephan Courtwright $ 10 Community Foundation Grant $485 Alison Bray $ 60 Barbara Bindgen $433 Gloria Smith $ 60 Richard Fesler $ 60 Michael and Ellen Bendel/Stenzel $ 60 Dated: April 18,2006. Member Hulbert seconded the motion. Ayes: Housh, Hulbert, Masica, Swenson,Hovland Motion carried. *TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW OF APRIL 10, 2006, APPROVED Motion made by Member Hulbert and seconded by Member Masica approving the Traffic Safety Staff Review of April 10,2006, Section A, Section B,and Section C as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote -five ayes. Page 17 Minutes/Edina City CounciVApril 18, 2006 *CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Member Hulbert made a motion and Member Masica seconded the motion approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated April 5, 2006, and consisting of 28 pages: General Fund $204,759.05; Communications Fund$21,832.27;Working Capital Fund $7,495.33; Art Center Fund $10,586.10; Golf Dome Fund $2,026.15; Aquatic Center Fund $351.60; Golf Course Fund $29,847.84; Ice Arena Fund $6,772.42; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $8,147.28; Liquor Fund $156,281.43; Utility Fund $33,486.87; Storm Sewer Fund $43.86; Recycling Fund $894.60; PSTF Fund $2,671.84; TOTAL $485,196.64; and for approval of payment of claims dated April 12, 2006, and consisting of 21 pages: General Fund $77,823.77; Communications Fund $3,949.74; Working Capital Fund $43,045.85; Construction Fund $25.90; Art Center Fund $1,299.81; Golf Dome Fund $1,901.06; Aquatic Center Fund $44.93; Golf Course Fund $19,016.37, Ice Arena Fund $17,068.10; Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Fund $2,204.63; Liquor Fund $186,261.56; Utility Fund$21,736.45; Storm Sewer Fund $510.86; PSTF Fund$5,556.47; TOTAL $380,445.50. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. City Clerk Page 18