Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-16 HRA Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON MAY 16, 2000 - 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, and Chair Maetzold. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Hovland and seconded by Commissioner Johnson approving the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Agenda as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR MAY 2. 2000, APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Hovland and seconded by Commissioner Johnson approving the Minutes of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment authority for May 2, 2000. Motion carried on rollcall vote -five ayes. PRELIMINARY REZONING AND OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OPUS/CLARK - GRANDVIEW SQUARE APPROVED Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved • and ordered placed on file. Staff Presentation Manager/Executive Director Hughes reviewed the actions needed: to review the preliminary rezoning and overall development plan; to consider and approve an indemnity agreement and a condemnation resolution with respect to the acquisition of parcels; to approve a land exchange agreement with Hennepin County with respect to the Library; and lastly to accept the assignment of a purchase agreement for the 5201 Eden Circle building. Mr. Hughes added that the Council had been provided with a draft redevelopment agreement for review purposes, however, staff recommended no action on that agreement until the time of final zoning of the redevelopment. Planner Larsen reviewed the actions that had occurred regarding the development thus far. He stated the initial action occurred November 1, 1999, when the City Council/HRA awarded the redevelopment rights to a team made up of Opus Northwest LLC and Ron Clark, Inc. Following that award and the Letter of Intent being signed in December of 1999, the developer began to develop plans to rezone the property for the necessary City approvals. The first of the City approvals would be the preliminary rezoning and approval of the overall development plan for the site. Currently, the project area includes all non- residential properties south of Eden Avenue, and west of the railroad tracks. Using a graphic depiction Mr. Larsen, showed the properties that are currently owned by the HRA and Zoned R-1. He also showed the two properties that have been Zoned commercial PCD- 2, the one property which was zoned office and the industrial parcel. The redevelopment proposal would take all of the properties and rezone them to Mixed Development District 1 No. 4 which is a medium density mixed development district. The original plan contained 80,000 square feet of office space, 190 condominium units, a 20,000 square foot library and a 15,000 square foot senior center. At the end of March, the Planning Commission reviewed a site plan that had one change from the original. The library and senior center moved to the west and became a two-story building with the senior center on the lower level and the library on top, each at 20,000 square feet. The Planning Commission recommended approval with several conditions as outlined in the Council packet. Mr. Larsen said the Park Board reviewed the plan April 11, 2000. At staff's request the Park Board consideration was limited to the impact of the proposed development on Sherwood Park. Both the Planning Commission and Park Board have made similar recommendations to the City Council, asking that the developer address the site plan and attempt to minimize the impact on the existing park. The developer has spent the time between April 11 and May 16, 2000, redesigning their site plan. He explained the modified site plan presented by the developers was intended to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and Park Board. Mr. Larsen reported the plan has been modified by removing 18 condominium units from the project and shifting the remaining units back from the park as much as possible; increasing the office building to 88,000 square feet. The library and senior center remain the same. Mr. Larsen said the action necessary was the overall development plan and preliminary rezoning. He added that the Planning Commission recommended the following eleven conditions of approval: 1. Final Rezoning; 2. Final Plat; 3. Final Site Plan approval for each phase; 4. Development Agreement between the City, Hennepin County and Grandview . Square LLC; 5. Developer's Agreement covering public improvements; 6. Watershed District Permits; 7. City Engineer En approval of Eden Avenue curb cuts; PP 8. Road adjacent to park/plaza and senior center should be changed from one-way to two-way; 9. Eliminate parking on southerly cul de sac to provide turnaround for emergency vehicles; 10. Maintain access to well house; and 11. Staff and developer should work to revise site plan to preserve as much of the park as possible in its present location and size. Mr. Larsen noted that conditions 8-11 had been addressed, in the opinion of staff, in the revised site plan presently before the council. Proponent Presentation Heidi Kurtze, Project Development Manager/Executive Director, Ron Clark Construction, said she had the entire development team available to answer any questions. Ms. Kurtze reviewed the goals of the City that were part of its RFP process: create a multi-purpose neighborhood in a key area of redevelopment for the City; create a senior center for Edina; create a new library enabling the City to expand and renovate City Hall; create a European village "feel" in the redeveloped area; and creation of a stronger more vital tax base in the Grandview area. Creation of the senior center was of high importance in the redevelopment. The new library will allow Hennepin County to take advantage of the 2 technological changes and improve their parking situation. Ms. Kurtze said these were a • great number of objectives to accomplish with a small amount of land and limited resources. Ms. Kurtze said she believed the Opus/Ron Clark team was chosen because of their long standing reputation and the strength of their financial commitment to the City. The project financing does tie into the site plan development. The developer will be making a $3,700,000 equity contribution to the project. The funds will be used to retire 1997 bonds issued to pay for acquisition of the Kunz/Lewis properties. The funds also help cover the public costs associated with the new development of the library/senior center, public administrative costs, and public improvements on the site. New bonds will be issued to pay for the construction of the library and senior center. The developer's note will be subordinate to the City's bonds, meaning the City has minimal risk, being in the senior position to be paid back when the taxes come on line. Tax increment is being used to cover the site improvements and acquisition costs, but this is limited to a ten-year period. The district expires in 2010 which puts some constraints on the project, but is a benefit to the City since due to the short life the developer is only being reimbursed for a portion of site improvements. The project, when complete, will create over a million dollars in annual taxes. Ms. Kurtze said that the short life of the tax increment district and the land area to be redeveloped have put constraints on the developer in both the timing of construction and the project's design. Ms. Kurtze reviewed the five site plans beginning with the plan submitted as part of the RFP process. Originally Opus/Clark proposed 190 residential units with 80,000 square feet • of office. The senior center and library were on one level side by side over the bus garage. Also below the office building, plaza and public space, a very large underground public/private parking area housing the Edina School District's bus garage. While this plan allowed the developer to become a finalist, they were asked to reconsider the use of the park land. Opus/Clark shifted the 190 residential units out of the park entirely which substantially reduced the central plaza area. The senior center/library and bus garage remained relatively unchanged in the plan, but the office building was turned to the side as well as the residential area re-oriented towards the north side of Eden Circle. Upon selection as the developer, several changes to the site plan occurred. The bus garage issue was eliminated from the plan. This eliminated the need for the underground structured parking. Hennepin County expressed the need for a more prominent location on the site with greater visibility and access from Vernon Avenue. Therefore, the plan flipped the office and senior center/library putting them on the western portion of the site. The traffic and City Engineer recommended two access points instead of one for the park. The first plan had one entrance for the residential space and one for the senior center/library office space. Providing two accesses would allow for better circulation but, resulted in separate parking areas for the office and senior center/library; and forced the residential units south into Sherwood Park's western edge. This was the plan submitted with the Letter of Intent to the City Council in 1999. Ms. Kurtze stated that she personally sent this plan along with a letter to all the Richmond Hills neighborhood group in December. She added she also used this plan for her presentation to the Vernon Terrace residents in • January. Ms. Kurtze stated the developer did not receive any verbal or written feedback so the plan was refined until it was presented to the March 2000, Planning Commission. 3 Ms. Kurtze reported that the fourth plan expanded the plaza area and created a link • between the plaza and Sherwood Park. This link shifted the housing slightly into the park. The plan met with considerable objection from the neighborhood group. The neighborhood asked that the developer leave the play area (tot lot), leave the backstop in place, and eliminate the housing units on the western edge of the park. The Planning Commission did approve the plan, but asked the developer to work to minimize impact on the park noting that eliminating any use of the park would be desirable. Ms. Kurtze said the developers have revised the plan to the one which is before the Council. The plan reduced the residential units to 170, increased the office building to 88,000 square feet, while leaving the library and senior center the same. She said that a small section of the park (.33 acres) along the western edge of the parking has still been incorporated into the residential development. However, that land has been replaced within Sherwood Park by adding green-space where Eden Circle currently sits. The redesign results in a net gain to the park, but in a different configuration. The developer believes the current plan meets the redevelopment objectives and responds to the Planning Commission and Park Board requests, while still maintaining a financially viable development. Ms. Kurtze said the plan was presented to the Park Director, and she reported, he agreed with the new configuration. She added the developer believes the plaza area depicted on this last site plan is very important to the new residential and office development. Library staff have indicated excitement about potentially holding children's reading time in the plaza. Specific programming has not been determined, but the developer intends to work closely with the Park Department to develop its plans for passive use. Ms. Kurtze acknowledged that comments will be received from people who do not support • the proposed overall development plan, but she said in her opinion, much of this discontent is in response to any change to the redevelopment area and not to one specific plan or another. Ms. Kurtze asked the Council to remember/Commissioner that many people who will benefit from this development will not be heard, citing the developer's waiting list of 92 names for the residential development. She said 75 of those people are current Edina residents who want to move out of their homes,but stay in Edina. Member/Commissioner Kelly asked for confirmation of his understanding that the site plan results in an increase in park land. Jack Buxell confirmed that before the redevelopment the park had 13,500.01 square feet and after development the park will have 13,680.45 square feet. Mr. Hughes reviewed the change in the parkland using an aerial photograph of the area. Member/Commissioner Faust said she had several questions. Would the development require a parking variance? Mr. Larsen replied the plan met Edina's code requirements for parking. Do City standards allow a public street to have a median strip and trees; and could someone explain the street circulation? Mr. Buxell explained the access/egress points to the development and pointed out the internal circulation. Member/Commissioner Faust stated she had understood that Opus would be constructing the senior center and library. Mr. Hughes answered that under the redevelopment agreement they would be the construction Manager of the senior center and library and provide to the HRA a guaranteed maximum • cost. However, under state law, they would still have to publicly bid the components, but 4 would serve as the architect and construction Manager. Member/Commissioner Faust • asked what components of the development would be built during Phase One and Phase Two and the proposed time table. Ms. Kurtze said that Phase One is the office building and forty units of the first residential building, to be started fall of 2000 and completed by December 2001. Phase Two would be the remaining 32 units of the first building, the beginning of the second building, and the senior center/library. Phase Two is planned to begin construction during 2001 completed by December of 2002. Phases Three and Four would be the completion of the remainder of the residential development if everything goes well in 2004. Member/Commissioner Faust asked if more units were sold up front would the construction schedule be moved forward. Ms. Kurtze said that could be a possibility, but would be unlikely because of the volume of individual options to the construction. Member/Commissioner Faust asked if the NURP ponds are adequate for the site. Engineer Hoffman answered that a preliminary review from the watershed districts indicate they are adequate. Member/Commissioner Kelly asked if the environmental studies will delay construction. Ms. Kurtze stated the Phase II's have been completed, however, there are issues, but the developer will hopefully know the parameters and needs by June. Member/Commissioner Kelly asked when the plaza will be developed. Ms. Kurtze answered the plaza will be developed during Phase One. Member/Commissioner Hovland asked the developer what would be the effect on the proposed redevelopment if the existing configuration of Sherwood Park was not altered as • proposed. Ms. Kurtze said the development would loose an additional 30 residential units which could not be recouped by another increase in the office building. The office building as proposed is as large as can be supported by parking on the site. The loss of thirty more units would most likely preclude the developer's ability to proceed with the project due to the additional loss of potential taxes. Member/Commissioner Hovland expressed concern to the City Attorney about the indemnification agreement, regarding the relocation costs. Attorney Gilligan explained the indemnification agreement had been amended since the Council's packet was sent out. Mayor/Chair Maetzold asked if the developer were to leave the existing park as is, could a story be added to the east residential building. Ms. Kurtze explained the buildings were as high as they can be using wood frame construction. Beyond four stories construction switches to commercial code which adds substantial costs which would make the project not financially feasible. Mayor/Chair Maetzold asked for specific perimeter descriptions of the north side and east side of the park in terms of landscaping and a potential sidewalk. Mr. Buxell said that the buildings have about fourteen feet of patio located eight feet from the edge of the sidewalk. There will be an eight-foot landscaping space between the edge of the building side of the sidewalk and the structure leaving the 14-foot patio area that will most likely include plantings. Wally Case, landscape architect, explained that along that edge is a common sidewalk serving both the residents and people using the park. They also have a combination of over-story deciduous canopy trees along the sidewalk. There are some existing trees the developer will attempt to preserve along the edge and along the • edge of the residential area. In addition, there will be lower shrub plantings to further separate the park from the residential area. Mayor/Chair Maetzold asked what the height 5 of the trees would be that are to be planted. Mr. Case replied the landscaping will meet the City code requirements with respect to percentage of small trees. They will range from 2" • caliper to 51/2 " caliper trees. He said the larger trees will be selectively placed primarily to the perimeter of the project. Flexibility is needed in utilizing the smaller trees since they actually grow better due to less transplant shock. Mayor/Chair Maetzold asked if a person stood in the middle of the park would the feeling be that of a park or as part of the residential development. Mr. Case replied that once the trees get growing well, a person would be surrounded by large trees. He pointed out that there are trees already in existence on the north and western sides of the park. Eventually the deciduous trees will be 40-60 feet high. There will also be a heavy planting of coniferous trees approximately six to eight feet in height, on the site. Public Comment John Menke, 5301 Pinewood Trail, stated that he could not support the rezoning until the Sherwood Park issue is resolved. Mr. Menke said there are 48 houses in Richmond Hills and these residents do not want any land taken from Sherwood Park. He added they do not agree with the developer's statement that the latest plan results in a net gain of parkland. Mr. Menke stated Richmond Hills supports redevelopment, however, they are gravely concerned about loosing Sherwood Park. Mr. Menke said that when the City received RFP's originally, in October of 1997, the proposals were supposed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding neighborhood. The current Grandview Square proposal has multifamily housing 50-54 feet in height, next to existing single family homes. Mr. Menke said that the letter he received from Heidi Kurtze did not include any graphic depiction of the site plan as Ms. Kurtze had previously stated. Mr. Menke said that Sherwood Park is • very important to the Richmond Hills neighborhood because of all the neighborhood play that happens in it. The part of the park that Grandview Square will take is the only flat area and is used often by older children (even adults) to play soccer, football, baseball, etc. Mr. Menke urged the Council to not rezone or approve the redevelopment until Sherwood Park is left alone. Art Heiam, 5205 Richwood Drive, stated that he wanted it pointed out that Heidi Kurtze's letter states that only a few neighbors are concerned. Mr. Heiam said that Sherwood Park will be devastated. He added that because of the slope, the land lost was virtually the only area that children could play any sort of game. Steve Loehr, 5216 Richwood Drive, asked if the current park was going to be taken, then expanded with land from Eden Circle how would it be configured and who would be the planned users of the expanded park. Dr. Dan Shebuski, Edina Pet Hospital, 5237 Eden Avenue, stated he had owned the pet hospital since 1976. Dr. Shebuski added that he invited the Council and City staff to visit his hospital to see the type of operation it is, but no one came to see him. Dr. Shebuski added that he recently hired another veterinarian with the thought of selling him the practice and retiring. Now, because Dr. Shebuski s building is being taken against his will, he is not only loosing his livelihood, but also his retirement. The Edina Pet Hospital is one of 26 veterinary practices within a six-mile radius. He said that statistics show 86% of the people choose a vet hospital based upon location. Therefore, moving him to another 6 location, damages his practice. Dr. Shebuski said he needs to continue his business in the • same area and that he needs to own the land and building. Jack Abrahamson, 5209 Richwood Drive, said it would be extremely difficult to endorse the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Abrahamson said that in his experience OPUS was a very fine company, but the proposed redevelopment puts 47-48 homes into a tunnel. He added that a problem exists now with parking on Sherwood because of the doctors' office in the Edina Realty building. This problem will increase with the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Abrahamson said if there is an increase in green space there is a loss of playable area. He added that the four homes abutting the park are in the TIF District. Attorney Gilligan corrected Mr. Abrahamson, stating no residential homes are in the TIF District. Mr. Abrahamson concluded asking that because of the traffic problem, the loss of parkland and the lack of sympathy on the part of the developers to the adjacent neighborhood, the Council should not rezone the property, but look again at different redevelopment plans. Jean Shebuski, said that she and her husband are asking the redevelopment be delayed. She said they have lived through seven months of extreme hardship and that the developers have not been negotiating in good faith. Mrs. Shebuski contended they were offered less for their pet hospital than they paid twenty-five years ago. She believes a new plan should be submitted that includes the pet hospital. Pat Olk, 5315 Pinewood Trail, commented that it appears the problem with the site is that the Edina Bus Garage is not included. Mr. Olk asked if the City could somehow make the • Edina School District relocate the bus garage. Mayor/Chair Maetzold said that was a very complex issue that has been attempted to be resolved for many years. Linda Presthus, explained she was a Park Board Member/Commissioner. She informed the neighbors that the Park Board had reviewed the plan. Ms. Presthus explained her belief that the play area was to be expanded and the entire park re-graded. Judith Menke, 5301 Pinewood Trail, said she felt insulted as a neighbor by Ms. Kurtz's assertion that the neighbors are objecting to any change. The Richmond Hills neighborhood has attempted to stay informed because they realize that the property must be redeveloped. However, Sherwood Park, needs to accommodate children from toddlers to teens and as proposed, use by older area children will be lost. Mrs. Menke stated the Richmond Hills neighborhood would like to stay actively involved in the development, but the developer has not listened to the neighborhood. Margery Peters, 5120 Duggan Plaza expressed her concern over the redevelopment. Rod Krause, attorney for Ed Noonan, stated he wanted the Council to understand that the proposed redevelopment should not involve Ed Noonan s building. Mr. Krause asked the Council to revisit the scale of the project. He added that Mr. Noonan was very concerned about the timing of the proposed redevelopment. Mr. Krause said they were unable to get a response from the developer's representatives. They need a firm understanding of the • project's time table. 7 Leonard Hadden, President of Cross Technology, 5201 Eden Avenue, explained his firm has 40 employees working three shifts a day. Mr. Hadden said he would be willing to re- locate, but it will be difficult to do so. He said he sympathized with the neighbors. Mr. Hadden said in his opinion the biggest users of the park are the TAGS' mothers waiting for children who are taking gymnastics and his own Cross employees. He urged the Council to make a decision and move forward because in his opinion, businesses do not survive in a period of great uncertainty. Council Discussion and Action Member/Commissioner Johnson made a motion closing the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Member/Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Ayes: Faust,Hovland,Johnson, Kelly,Maetzold. Motion carried. Member/Commissioner Faust asked staff what kind of park Sherwood Park was and if it is currently designed for softball? Park Director Keprios explained it was considered a mini- park, two acres or less and not scheduled with any activities such as softball. The park serves the neighborhood for a one-quarter mile radius. The park is designed to allow younger children to play, but he said it would not be adequate for baseball or organized activities. He continued stating that in his professional opinion the proposed layout will offer the best design in light of the proposed redevelopment and the existing parkland. Member/Commissioner Faust continued asking if the parking was studied when the medical office building was relocated. Mr. Larsen said the parking meets Edina's code, but he acknowledged it does spill out. He added this is believed to be happening because of the construction,but a parking improvement has been approved for the location. Member/Commissioner Kelly said that his only regret with the proposed redevelopment was that the bus garage has not been included. He acknowledged that the City cannot force the school district to relocate the bus garage. Member/Commissioner Kelly said he believed the proposed redevelopment was well designed and thought out. He added that one of the advantages of being a long time Edina resident is that he knows Mr. Clark, Mr. Brown and Mr. Lund and had a great deal of respect for their professional judgement and their strong history of positive development. Member/Commissioner Kelly stated he understood the neighbor's concern regarding the proposed buildings' height, but the site must be developed. This plan is as good as any plan that has been previously presented. He said it was a fact that the park is being increased in size and he believes the people of the community will be benefited by the ability to walk through the park, the neighborhood, and the plaza to either the library or the senior center. Member/Commissioner Kelly also spoke to the condemnation process. The condemnation process was designed to provide people with a fair price for their property. It provides, not only a fair price for the property, but it provides relocation benefits. In his years of practice in the real estate area, the people who were most opposed to condemnation are those who are not willing to settle for a fair price. Condemnation is not designed to provide a windfall, it is an opportunity to find a fair price through the use of a neutral party. As a result, Member/Commissioner Kelly stated he believed condemnation was an important part of • getting the development accomplished. He stated his strong support for the proposed 8 redevelopment, noting the strong development team, a well-planned and thought out proposal, an increase in park land exclusive of the plaza, and added benefits from the • plaza, library and senior center. Member/Commissioner Faust stated her concern with the final plan was the residences and stated the park has not only been made whole, but actually improved. Member/Commissioner Faust said that she and Member/Commissioner Hovland just measured the plan and the residences will be 200 feet from the lot line of the proposed condominiums. This seems very adequate and she added her support to the project. Mayor/Chair Maetzold stated he had very strong concerns about the park. He said he took to heart the lawn play for older children for soccer, youth baseball and so on. Mayor/Chair Maetzold expressed his concern for the loss of "playable' area even though the square footage remains the same or increases. Mayor/Chair Maetzold asked the Park Director to comment on the loss of the area where pick-up games could be played. Mr. Keprios stated he also was sympathetic to the neighbors understanding the situation. In the best of all worlds he would like to see the existing park left alone or added to, however, he also understands the compromise that has been proposed. As far as the park's function, it is debatable when you loose the type of linear design you may loose a little bit of that type of play. In his opinion, the proposed design would be better offering more feeling of openness than leaving the park in the current configuration crowded by the condominiums. Reorienting of the park is further limited by the well- house located in the center of the park. Mayor/Chair Maetzold continued stating that with more participation in soccer this • was a great place for kids in the neighborhood to gather and play. The neighbors are loosing an important amenity unless it can be replaced somehow. Mayor/Chair Maetzold indicated that he probably will vote against the plan, because in March he spent some time in Washington D.C. lobbying in favor of Denali National Park. One issue was about ten acres that was attempting to be preserved from commercial development so in his heart he supports preserving park land and for this reason does not support the plan. Member/Commissioner Hovland noted the proposed redevelopment plan is very complex. The plan has all the elements asked for in the RFP. He added the problems created tonight came about because of the library's need to have greater visibility. This has caused problems that no one foresaw. Member/Commissioner Hovland stated he had one problem and that was in November when Ron Clark was asked what would happen if the proposed redevelopment needed to be downsized. Mr. Clark answered that they would have to modify their proposal and develop in the best interest of the City. He stated he found it troubling that now the developer must have the neck of the park in order to make the development viable. Member/Commissioner Hovland questioned whether the decision should be pushed back and an attempt made to solve the problem. If the library is the core problem, then maybe the library staff should be spoken with. If forced to vote he would, because he finds Member/Commissioners Kelly and Faust arguments compelling but also finds merits in the Mayor/Chair's concerns. He added that perhaps the Wanner property should be included in the redevelopment at this time. • Member/Commissioner Johnson said that when he was appointed to the City Council they had already decided that redevelopment was needed with the site. After a deliberative 9 process, the Council (without Member/Commissioner Johnson) determined the best use of the redevelopment property would be a mixed use development. Member/Commissioner Johnson got involved about the time the City had eleven RFP's from eleven developers. The . Council narrowed them down to three finalists and after much discussion unanimously voted in favor of the Opus/Clark team because of their proposal, reputations, and past experience. Member/Commissioner Johnson said he personally checked with the City Attorney of the City of Minnetonka that the proponent had done an outstanding job in attempting to meet the needs of their city and its citizens. From what he had heard today, there has been an effort by the developer to accommodate the needs of the City and respond to the neighbors concern within the constraints of the land available. It is hoped that with re-grading and reconfiguration, a more desirable park will be available for the residents. Coupling this with the ability to walk through the property over to the library, there appears to have been an enhancement. Member/Commissioner Johnson stated he also checked with someone knowledgeable in this area, as to the effect over time on the value of the homes in the Richmond Hills neighborhood. His source's opinion was that over time the values would be increased. Member/Commissioner Johnson added that in his opinion, the developer has dealt with the business in an above-board manner. He added that he also is concerned about the height issue on the residences and the "tunnel effect". The proposal seems a very reasonable plan. Member/Commissioner Johnson said he believed the process the Council started was rational, that due notice has been given to all, and that uncertainty is very undesirable from a business standpoint. For these reasons, to delay the decision is not in the City's or the developers best interest. Member/Commissioner Johnson said he intends to vote in favor of the proposal. Member/Commissioner Faust commented that she and Member/Commissioner Kelly • have been looking at the proposed redevelopment property for three years. The decision was not made easily, they have been wrestling with it for a long time. She acknowledged hearing from the neighbors and from eleven developers so this was not an easy decision. Member/Commissioner Hovland acknowledged the height concern expressed by Member/Commissioner Johnson. In November of 1999, no one had expressed any concern over height. At that time it was a non-issue. Member/Commissioner Hovland said that he found Member/Commissioner Johnson's comments persuasive and in spite of having tremendous difficulty he would also vote in favor of the project moving forward. HRA Actions Mr. Hughes noted that the "Redevelopment Agreement" was provided for informational purposes only. The agreement is still in the process of being redrafted and will be presented to the HRA when the final rezoning is presented June 20, 2000. The other items that can be acted on this evening would be to accept the Assignment of the Purchase Agreement for 5201 Eden Circle. By accepting that assignment, the HRA would be agreeing to acquire the 5201 Eden Circle property which is commonly known as the TAGS property even if this development did not receive the final approval at the June 20, 2000, meeting. This means the City would be taking on the responsibility of to acquiring the property. Mr. Hughes said the Indemnification Agreement relates to the condemnation resolution. • Staff recommended adopting the Indemnification Agreement before the resolution because 10 • the developers would be indemnifying the HRA from any claims resulting from the • condemnation of other properties; and any action taken by the property owners relative to the condemnation even if the project was later abandoned by the HRA because it did not proceed. Mr. Hughes explained that the condemnation resolutions would apply to all four pieces of property in the area even though one of the properties, 5201 Eden Circle, would have a negotiated purchase. Lastly, the Land Exchange Agreement where Hennepin County and the City would agree to exchange the new library for the old library. Mr. Hughes said this agreement has a number of contingencies that would need satisfaction. The contingencies include: county approval of the construction plans for the new building and various condominium documents that will not occur until later this summer. Hennepin County has not yet approved the exchange, but the City, by approving the exchange, moves it onto the Board's agenda for consideration in June. Member/Commissioner Faust asked if voting on the condemnation was a vote for a quick- take condemnation or any kind of condemnation the developer requests. Mr. Hughes said that specifics on any actual proceedings will be brought back for review. The intent at this point was to adopt the resolution, but to still acquire the property through negotiation. At this time it is not known if some properties will require the 90-day action or whether the longer process will be followed. Commissioner Kelly made a motion to accept and approve the Indemnification • Agreement as prepared and drafted by staff. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland,Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold Motion carried. Commissioner Kelly made a motion to accept and approve the Assignment Purchase Agreement for 5201 Eden Circle as prepared and drafted by staff. Commissioner Faust seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust,Hovland,Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold Motion carried. Commissioner Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: HRA RESOLUTION NO. 2000-3 RESOLUTION OF CONDEMNATION WHEREAS, it is necessary, advisable, and in the public interest that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota (the "HRA"), a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, acquire for redevelopment purposes, and pursuant to the redevelopment plan entitled, "Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan" dated May 30, 1984, approved by the HRA on June 18, 1984, as amended by amendments approved by the HRA on April 7, 1997, and December 7, 1999, (as so amended, the "Redevelopment Plan") and a redevelopment project being undertaken • pursuant thereto (the "Redevelopment Project"), property within the area subject to the Grandview Redevelopment Plan;and 11 WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the objectives and purposes set out in the Redevelopment Plan and the Redevelopment Project, it is necessary that the properties • described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part be redeveloped;and WHEREAS, the HRA has been advised that said property will not be made available for redevelopment in a manner that would allow the HRA to undertake the Redevelopment Project and meet the objectives and purposes of the Redevelopment Plan and the Redevelopment Project unless it is acquired by eminent domain;and WHEREAS, in order to undertake the Redevelopment Project and provide for the redevelopment of said property in a manner that would meet the objectives and purposes of the Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project, it will be necessary to procure the same by the right of eminent domain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to undertake the Redevelopment Project and provide for the redevelopment of the property described on Exhibit A hereto in a manner that would meet the objectives and purposes of the Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project the HRA proceed to acquire the property described on Exhibit A hereto and all interests therein under its power of eminent domain; and that the attorneys for the HRA be instructed and directed to file the necessary petition or petitions therefor and to prosecute such action or actions to a successful conclusion, or until it is abandoned, dismissed or terminated by the HRA or the Court; and that the attorneys for the HRA, the Director and Executive Director of the HRA and the Chairman and Secretary of the HRA do all things necessary to be done in the commencement, prosecution and successful termination of such eminent domain proceedings. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is hereby found and declared that the • acquisition of the property described on Exhibit A hereto and all interests therein by the HRA under its power of eminent domain is necessary to redevelop blighted and substandard areas in the area subject to the Grandview Redevelopment Plan. EXHIBIT A 5201 EDEN CIRCLE Lot 3, Block 1, Wanner Addition, together with an easement over and across the south 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Wanner Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof,Hennepin County,Minnesota. 5244 EDEN CIRCLE All of Lot 7, Block 1, and that part of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Edenmoor, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying North and East of the Northerly line of Eden Circle (formerly known as Downing Street) as described in Document No. 31643311; Also, the Southerly six feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Edenmoor, Hennepin County,Minnesota. 5237 EDEN A VENUE Lot 2, Block 1, Edenmoor, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the south six feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 5241 EDEN AVENUE Lot 3, Block 1, Edenmoor, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin • County,Minnesota. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. 12 Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland,Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold Motion carried. Commissioner Kelly made a motion granting City staff the authority to proceed in the process with Hennepin County to pursue the land exchange as presented in the proposal prepared by staff. Commissioner Faust seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland,Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold Motion carried. Mr. Hughes noted the redevelopment will go back to the Planning Commission at their May 31, 2000, meeting and come back to the HRA/City Council at their meeting, June 20, 2000. CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Commissioner Johnson approving the Check Register dated May 10, 2000, and consisting of one page totaling $541,261.59. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Johnson, Kelly, Maetzold Motion carried. There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, Chair Maetzold declare the ' int meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. xecutive Director 13