Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19850617_regularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JUNE 17, 1985 179 Answeri g roll Courtney. all were Members Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor MINUTES of the Regular Council Meetings of May 6 and May 20, 1985, were approved as submitted by motion of Member Turner, seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED; TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT NO. 85-8 AUTHORIZED. placed on file. Mr. Hoffman recalled that the Council at its meeting of January 21, 1985, had heard the report of the consulting engineering firm, Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc., who had been commissioned by the City to study the traffic operations and safety characteristics of W. 70th Street between Highway 100 and France Avenue. One of the recommendations of the study was to signalize the 70th Street and Cor- nelia Drive intersection to enhance pedestrian safety in the neighborhood adjacent to the school and park. recommendations and authorized the staff to prepare and send a signal justification report to the State of Minnesota for approval. The State has approved funding of one-half of the cost of the signal installation from State Aid funds. Mr. Hoffman advised that the cost of the signal installation is estimated at $70,000.00 and that the remaining one-half of the cost or $35,000.00 requires a local funding source. are: 1) City General Fund, 2) City General Funds and School District Funds, and 3) Special Assessment of neighborhood at an estimated assessment of $42.00 per single family residence. Because pedestrian safety is one of the factors, Mr. Hoffman explained that the proposed area to be assessed is bounded approximately by West Shore Drive on the west, West 66th Street on the north, Valley View Road and Lynmar Lane on the east and Gilford Drive on the south. This is the approximate walking area for students attending Cornelia School. The construction of the project, if approved, is proposed to occur in the Fall of 1985. If a portion of the project costs are assessed, the assessments would be levied in 1986 with the assessment payable in 1987. Mr. Hoffman advised that this hearing is to seek authorization of the project and to discuss what funding method to use to provide the local share. Member Bredesen asked if the City's General Fund has previously paid for traffic signals. explained further that two legs of the subject intersection are local streets and do not qualify for State Aid funds. Persons speaking in objection to the traffic light and/or the special assessment funding were: Paul Green, 6945 Southdale Road, and Donald Johnson, 7137 Cornelia Drive. Donna Fry, 7208 Heatherton Circle and Gary Chlebowski supported using the General Fund of the City to fund the project. Sandy Phillips, 6817 Point Drive, urged Council to prrceed with the traffic signal project. Member Turner made a motion to authorize the traffic control signal system improve- ment, with the understanding that the funding method would be by special assess- ment to the School District and the City. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Member Turner stated that in this situation the primary justification for the warrants for the signal was the pedestrian crossing at this intersection as the result of the school located there. Because there are district-wide programs at Cornelia, Member Turner stated she felt the School District should be assessed, together with the other benefited property owner, the City, because of the park. located there which is used by families from all over the City. Member Richards commented that he could not support 'the motion because part of the impetus for the traffic signal came from the residents of the area who argued the need for the signalization that would be a benefit to the properties. He agreed that a portion of the.one-half not funded by State Aid should be picked up by the City and the School District, and that a portion should be picked up by the affected neighborhood that will particularily benefit by the signal. then called for rollcall vote on the motion. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered The Council gave concept approval to several of the The three proposed alternatives for funding the local share of the project Mr. Hoffman responded that this has not been Council policy in the past and Kathy Lucas, 4212 W. 70th Street; There being no further discussion, Mayor Courtney' Rollcall : Ayes: Kelly, 'Turner Nays: Bredesen, Richards, Courtney Motion failed. Member Richards then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, with the recommendation that the one-half of the construction cost not funded by State Aid funds be assessed one-third to the City, one-third to the School District and one-third to benefited property owners as identified in the staff report: RESOLUTION ORDERING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT NO. 85-8; S.A.P. 120-145-15 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners 6 I171 85 180 of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on a portion of the cost of the following proposed improvement: TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEN IMPROVEMENT NO. 85-8 West 70th Street at Cornelia Drive and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the con- struction of said improvement, including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for con- struction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT NO. 85-8 and the area that may be assessed for a portion of the cost of the proposed improvement is bounded approximately by West Shore Drive on the west, West 66th Street on the north, Valley View Road and Lynmar Lane on the east and Gilford Drive on the south. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen. Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. ZONING CHANGE AND PRELIMINARY PLAT $OR BRUTGER COMPANIES REFERRED TO PLANNING - COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved-and ordered placed on file. Planner Craig Larsen advised that the subject property is located west of Cahill Road, south of Dewey Hill Road and more specifically, north of the Windwood Condominiums and east and south of the Dewey Hill Condominiums. Preliminary rezoning was granted at the Council's April 1, 1985 meeting. the Community Development and Planzing Commission considered the final development plans for the site and approved the preliminary plat. The proponent, Brutger Com- panies, has returned with final development plans and is requesting final rezoning and preliminary plat approval. ing from the traditional townhouse unit (two floors) to a flat (one floor). All of the units in the development would be sold as condominiums. The buildings as pro- posed will be a combination of brick and cedar sidicg on the exterior with asphalt shingles. landscaping. On a site this size it would require 50 overstory trees (deciduous and coniferous trees). trees, 39 of which are specified as 4" in diameter as opposed to the 2%'' requirement in the Ordinance. All the remaining overstory trees meet the standards of the Ordi- nance. approval €or the project, subject to: 1) final platting, 2) subdivision dedication, and 3) developer's agreement. plan be characterized as compared'to the landscaping that has been implemented on the properties to the North and to the South. trees that are proposed at 4'' in diameter for this project are the same as the decid- uous trees on the Dewey Hill Condomiums site. this site are 6' as required by the Ordinance as opposed to 10 to 12 feet coniferous trees that were shown on the Dewey Hill site. rely on existing material along the northerly boundary. Companies, explained that a registered landscape architect was hired to develop the landscaping plan. In looking at the adjoining properties, what was done was to try to get a good mix of coniferous and deciduous trees between adjoining properties. The Dewey Hill Condominiums on the North is more heavily planted with coniferous trees and the landscape architect decided to go with deciduous trees on that side to provide a more balanced landscape plan. On the South it was noted that Windwood Condominiums is more heavily landscaped with a natural stand of deciduous trees, therefore, coniferous trees were proposed for that border. Member Bredesen asked if in total the proposed landscape plan'for the subject site represents as intensive a landscaping plan, with the relative degree of maturity, as is the case with the two abutting properties. Mr. Larsen responded that it was not, that Gittleman's Dewey Hill property is the most heavily landscaped plan that staff has seen, far above average. some time and has matured. Appearing and speaking in opposition to the rezoning and preliminary plat for Brutger Companies were: John Forciea, Alvin Miller, David McEnary, Earl Nelson and Doris'Pryor,' all OX 5501 Dewey Hill.Rd and PauI Thomas,'of Windwood Condominiums. close proximity of proposed buildings, compatibility of the development to existing abutting properties and building height. Mr. Wilson responded'that density, build- ing placement and building height are issues that have been addressed and that Brutger Companies has complied with what the City requested with regard to those issues. ing the landscaping and grading plans would be adequate to protect surrounding properties. have addressed the landscaping issue with the plans presented which are far in excess of the standards set by the City in the Zoning Ordinance. comment being heard, Member Richards made a motion to refer the zoning change and On May 29 The plans show the same footprint of 50 units, vary- Mr. Larsen explained that the Zoning Ordinance has requirements for The landscaping plan submitted shows a total of 118 overstory The Planning Commission recommended final rezoning and preliminary plat Member Richards asked that the proposed landscaping Mr. Larsen stated that the locust The coniferous trees proposed for The proposed landscaping plan does Steve Wilson, of Brutger Windwoods to the South has landscaping that has been in place for Concerns expressed were density , inadequate' landscaping, Preliminary rezoning was granted on the condition that before final rezon- Mr. Wilson added that they have complied with that condition and No further public . 61171 85 181 ri 0 00 .c> 5 a preliminary plat approval for Brutger Companies back to the Planning Commission and staff for review of the landscape plan to determine whether or not it is consistent with the adjoining properties, to provide an opportunity for the neighbors to offer their comments, and to then bring it back to the Council for action. Motion was seconded by Member Bredesen. Member Richards stated that at preliminary rezoning comments were made that there would be an extraordinary effort made on the landscaping plan and that there be an exchange of information with the neighbors who will be affected by this development. He stated further that he felt the developer has not responded to the concerns of the neighbors and the Council. concern at preliminary rezoning but suggested that the matter be continued to permit the developer to meet with the neighbors on the landscaping issue and not refer it back to the Planning Commission. Member Bredesen commented that he felt the proposed landscaping plan should have a formal review by the Planning Commission and staff to determine if it is consistent with the adjoining properties. Following further discussion, Mayor Courtney called for a rollcall vote on the motion. Member Turner stated that the landscape plan was also her Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Courtney Nays: Kelly, Turner Motion carried. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS DECISION UPHELD REGARDING 4528 BRUCE AVENUE. Planner Craig Larsen advised that the subject property is located at 4528 Bruce Av., just north of Bridge Street on the west side of the street. vacant, platted 50 foot wide lot which is owned by the northerly adjacent property owner. On May 16, 1985 the Board of Appeals and Adjustments considered a 25 foot lot width variance request to permit construction of a new dwelling. The Board granted the lot width variance with the following conditions: 1) that a survey be provided verifying that the lot was 50 feet in width, and 2) that the building plans for the house be approved by the Heritage Preservation Board. On May 24, 1985 an appeal from the Board's decision was received from Peter Mahon, 4530 Bruce Avenue. Since that time the proponent has submitted a survey of the property indicating that the lot is indeed 50 feet wide. the property were considered by the Heritage Preservation Board on May 28, 1985 and were rejected by the Board. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the subject property is a 50 foot wide platted lot that has been held in common ownership with the adjacent lot'since 1951. The Zoning Ordinance requires therefore that a lot width variance be granted before the lot wopld be buildable. The subject property is the last remaining vacant parcel on this block of Bruce Avenue. of 32 lots fronting on this block of Bruce' Avenue are 50 feet in width, and except for the two northerly corner lots, the remainder measure 55 feet in width. Similar lot sizes are found on both Arden and Casco Avenues.% Staff had recom- mended approval of the variance request to the Board of Appeals. Peter Mahon then explained that he had appealed the Board's decision for several reasons, that without a survey it did not look like a buildable lot, the building plans submitted did not meet code with regard to the fireplace and that a variance request should address the issue of hardship. regarding the pooling of water in the spring on the southwest corner of the vacant lot and that any change of grade may cause such pooling to move to his property. Member Richards asked if Mr. Mahon was still opposed to the recognition of the 50 foot lot. .Mr. Mahon stated he did-not take issue with building on a 50 foot lot, but was not sure how to reconcile the fact that there is only 48' between the edge of the driveway and the lot line and apparently his own sidewalk encroaches on the vacant lot. Jeff Gustafson, 7315 Tara Road, stated that he has a purchase agreement on the subject lot and the northerly adjacent property. Mr. Gustafson stated that there is approximately 9/10 of a foot of Mr. Mahon's sidewalk that is on the vacant lot, that the fence is one foot over the property line and that he had told Mr. Mahon that this could be taken care of by easement or deed. and has hired a different designer to come up with a house that will fit into the neighborhood. Karen Kaplan, 4527 Bruce Avenue, asked on what basis the variance was granted and stated that there was no hardship involved in this case. Member Richards pointed out that it would be unfair not to allow this lot to be developed in view of the fact that 25 of the 32 lots fronting on this block are 50 foot lots and that 7 of them are 55 foot 1ots.and that the proponent is asking for no more or no less than what those 25 lots got. comment, Member Turner's motion was seconded by Member Bredesen to move adoption RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby concludes that the procedural requirements of Ordinance No. 825 have been met, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the decision by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to grant the lot width variance request for Lot 15, Block 4, Country Club District Fairway Section (4528 Bruce Avenue) is upheld and the variance should be granted. The property is a Plans for a house on Twenty-five Mr. Mahon also expressed a concern Mr. Gustafson stated he had met with the Heritage Preservation Board There being no further of the following resolution: . .- 6/17/85 Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS EXPRESSED. Ray Ehlers, 4212 W. 70th Street, made the follow- ing comments: 1) that the striping from France Avenue to Valley View Road was con- fusing drivers, 2) that he understood the Valley View Road exit onto W. 70th Street was to be closed but has not been, 3) whether there was any possibility that the bn/off ramps at Hwy. 100 and W.,66th Street could be reopened and 4) that signing be placed at France Avenue/W. 66th Street indicating access to southbound Hwy. 100 from W. 66th Street. Engineer Hoffman responded that the striping on W. 70th Street is not completed and will when finished guide cars into the one lane section, that the Valley View Road exit onto W. 70th Street will be closed shortly, that when Hwy. 100 was reconstructed the steep grade was eliminated by lowering the roadway. and that ramps at W. 66th Street to the north would cause a dangerous situation as they would have to interface with the Crosstown exists and that staff will look at possible signing at France and W. 66th Street. Bertha Erickson, 7320 York Avenue, stated that she feltl that the $18,500,000 Revenue Bonds for the Edinborough project to provide 203 rental units for the elderly, of which only 40 units would be reserved for low and moderate income persons, would provide far too much money to the developer at a low rate of interest and that the 40 units reserved for low and moderate income persons did not begin to meet those needs in the City. expressed his concern that the civil defense sirens in his area were not activated on Sunday, June 16, when the sirens were sounded within the metropolitan area and urged that this be remedied. Mr. Hoffman stated that there were several sirens in the City that did not go off because there was a problem in the phone line system which should.be eliminated shortly when the radio activated system is in place. No formal action was taken by the Council regarding these concerns. INSURANCE RENEWALS AWARDED. ting quotes for the City’s liability, worker compensation and property insurance. Unfortunately, the responses have been less than positive and the insurance companies are reluctant to split out the premiums for.the various coverages. premium of $300,000 for liability coverage but did not quote worker compensation coverage. and workers compensation at $515,930 and property at $122,566.. Quotation from Home Insurance Company for liability and worker compensation insurance was approximately $448,500. This quotation is a three-line retro in which a formula containing a loss control factor, a tax factor, a basic factor and losses incurred are used to compute a final premium. 30% after six months. Kemper at $46,331, American International at $57,000, Zurich at $62,000, Great American at $73,700, Home Insurance at $85,634 and Fireman’s Fund at $75,000. Staff would recommend award of quotation to Home Insurance for liability and worker compensation insurance and to Hartford for property insurance. advised Ehat we have no definite quotations for the City’s umbrella coverage and paramedic malpractice coverage but will continue to pursue renewals. sen raised the question of a reduced premium if the City took the risk of-a deducti- ble of $100,000. Mr. Rosland responded that we must have insurance renewals in effect by July 1, 1985 but that staff would attempt to get quotations based on a deductible of $100,000. Company for liability and worker compensation insurance and to Hartford for property insurance, subject to determining if a lower premium is available*with a deductible tied in. James Grotz, 5513 Park Place, Mr. Rosland advised that staff has been working on get- Penco quoted a Quotation received from the League of Minnesota Cities showed liability I The premium is payable at 40% down, 30% after three months and Quotations for property insurance were: Hartford at $45,308, Mr. Rosland Member Brede- Ifember Turner moved to award quotation to Home Insurance Motion was seconded by Member Richards. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. BID AWARDED FOR UTILITY VAN. Department showing Suburban Chevrolet at $9,539.90, Rosedale Chevrolet at $9,936.60 ~ and Freeway Ford at $10,128.00. Member Turner’s motion was seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid to recommended low bidder Suburban Chevrolet at $9,539.90. Mr. Rosland presented bids for a van for the Utility I Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. BID AWARDED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLE. Mr. Rosland presented quotes for a &door sedan for Administration showing Walser Buick at $11,805.00, Win Stephens Buick at $12,063.00 and Nelson-Lenzen at $13,284.00. Member Turner’s motion was seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid to recommended low bidder Walser Buick at $ll,805.00. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. BID AWARDED FOR SPRINKLER MODIFICATIONS FOR C0M”ITY CENTER PARKING LOTS. Bids were presented by Mr. Rosland for sprinkler rnodications for the Edina Community Center parking lots showing Green Acres Sprinkler Company at $8,265.00 and Albrecht Landscape at $8,400.00. Member Kelly’s motion was seconded by Member Turner for 6/17 /85 183 award of bid to recommended low bidder Green Acres Sprinkler Company at $8,265.00. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1985 APPROVED. There being no requests on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends approval or denial, Member Bredesen's motion to acknowledge Section C of the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of June 11, 1985 was seconded by Member Richards. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. CDBG FUNDS APPROVED FOR WOODHAVEN PROJECT. Mr. Hughes recalled that the Council granted preliminary rezoning approval to PSR-4 for Woodhaven on April 1, 1985. This proposed project includes 29 units designed for senior citizen occupancy and is located west of Summit Avenue and south of Interlachen Boulevard. Sponsors for the project are the Community Development Corporation (a division of ths Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis) and a group of Edina churches. from the Community Development Corporation (CDC) outlines the present status of the project. In short, the sponsoring churches have raised 75% of their goal of $75,000 and are now asking that the City of Edina commit $195,000 toward the project. The source of the commitment would be from Community Development Block. Grants (CDBG) principally; some funds may be repaid from the tax increment district that the property is located in. cipated in several similar low and moderate income housing projects, e.g. Yorkdale Townhouses, Oak Glen and Southhaven. The City has funded the major portion of the cost necessary to acquire the property for these projects. the City fund $195,000 of the $212,000 land acquisition cost for Woodhaven. past cases, the City has agreed to its financial commitment at the time of final zoning and redevelopment contract approval. In this case, a preliminary commitment is request to assist in securing financing from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Mr. Hughes explained that HUD has become more stringent with their rules and the preliminary commitment would demonstrate to HUD the City's willingness to do the project. CDBG budget for land acquisition. programming other CDBG accounts or through the tax increment process. recommend that the City agree to a preliminary commitment of not more than $195,000, subject to execution of an acceptable redevelopment project at the time of final rezoning. Larry Laukka, chairman of the lay committee for the project, advised that the sponsors do control the site under an option that would be granted to the City should HUD select this project for a mortgage. Funds from the Federal government, the City of Edina and the community must be pledged to be able to build the proposed project. . An application for mortgage, funds and for rental assistance has been submitted on behalf of Woodhaven to HUD who will assign funds by October, 1985. James Grotz, 5513 Park Place, stated he-objected to CDBG funds being given to the proposed Woodhaven project. there are three parts to this, funds from HUD, the City and the community to allow the fa.cility to be built to provide low income housing for elderly people. further comment being heard, Member Turner moved adoption of the following resolu- tion: BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that it hereby approves a preliminary commitment of not more than $195,000 from CDGB funds, subject to execution of an acceptable redevelopment project at the time of final rezoning. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen. A letter Mr. Hughes pointed out that the City has parti- It is proposed that In Currently there is a balance of $178,192 in the The remaining funds could be provided by re- Staff would . Member Bredesen pointed out that No RESOLUTION Rollcall : Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Turner, Courtney Nays: Richards Resolution adopted. UPDATE GIVEN ON CARSON GIFT OF LAND. Mr. Rosland recalled that the City waki recepient of a gift of land from Dr. and Mrs. Paul Carson, which property is located east of Blake Road and south of Mirror Lakes Drive, in October of 1983. The Carsons are now prepared to dedicate a second parcel to the.City for open space. Pine Grove Road, regarding her donation of property to the City. has been surveyed and the City Attorney has been instructed .to prepare the deed. Mrs. Bonn has been told that the City would pay for an appraisal of the land to be donated to the City. No action was taken. Mr. Rosland also advised,that he had met with Mrs. Jessie Bonn, 6005 The parcel HOMART REDEVELOPMENT OF FXANCE AVENUE THEATRE: SITE/BLOOMINGTON DISCUSSED. Mr. Hughes advised that he has received draft copies of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Homart redevelopment of the France Avenue Drive-in Theatre site in Bloomington and are available for the Council's review. A response has not been received from the Bloomington City Council to Mayor Courtney's letter requesting a joint meeting to discuss the impact of the proposed redevelopment. 6/17/85 Homart has expressed their willingness to come to the next Edina City Council meeting to explain their proposed project. In response to question of Member Richards on input to the EIS, Mr. Hughes stated that an information meeting and hearing on the EIS is scheduled for July 9, 1985 at which we can submit comments to be incorporated into the final EIS which will be used by the Bloomington City Council to help them make a decision on the project. Member Richards suggested that any facts that can be heard about. the project would be helpful in offering constructive criticism and/or appropriate objection and urged that the Council -ask Homart to make a presentation. Mr. Hughes said he would arrange for Homart to be at the July 1, 1985 Council Meeting. with the County staff regarding their’review of the EIS and they have been very reluctant to comment on the it. requesting the County to review and comment on the EIS. the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) are the other governmental agencies that are involved. permit. parking lot, the amount of air pollution, etc. MNDOT is involved in commenting on the EIS. Nember Turner then moved adoption of the following resolution: WHEREAS, Homart Development Company is proposing to redevelop the Mann Theatre site in the City of Bloomington; and WHEREAS, the proposed development is adjacent to County Road 17 (France Avenue); and WHEREAS, the proposed development is very intense by City of Edina standards; and WHEREAS, the current improvement of the 1-494/France interchange is underway; and WHEREAS; the proposed project will have a major impact on the new interchange; and WHEREAS, the City of Edina is aware that completion of the new interchange will result in additional capacity for undeveloped properties near 1-494/France Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Edina is concerned over the traffic impact of the proposed project on the county and state road systems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council urges Hennepin County to very rigorously review the Homart EIS as to trip distribution, capacity analysis on County intersections and interchanges, and adequacy of base line data used to develop the above information in traffic analysis. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Mr. Hoffman advised that he has talked I He recommended that the Council adopt a resolution Mr. Hughes commented that __._ The PCA actually has a They can either approve or deny the project based on the size of the RESOLUTION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD : .- - I Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. 3 RESOLUTION ADOPTED COMMENDING RALPH LIEBER. Member Turner commented that the fare- well reception for Dr. Ralph Lieber, Superintendent of Schools, is to be held on June 27, 1985. he is leaving this community. lution: She suggested that a resolution of appreciation be passed because Member Turner moved adoption of the following reso- RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Dr. Ralph R. Lieber has served Edina School District No. 273 and the Edina communi-Cy as Superintendent of Schools since October 1971, and WHEREAS, he has during those years shown outstanding leadership and sincere dedi- cation in promoting the Edina public schools, and WHEREAS, he has shown his commitment to the community to all with whom he has had contact, and WHEREAS, the Edina Public Schools under his guidance have contributed significantly to the quality of life in our City and have gained national recognition for excellence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council, the City staff and the residents of Edina hereby express their- thanks and appreciation to DR. RALFH R. LIEBER for his dedicated service in helping make the City of Edina an outstanding community in which to learn, work and live. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. - Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney I Eollcall : Resolution adopted. , PHAMPLET ON DOMESTIC ABUSE NOTED. efforts of Chief Swanson and the Police Department in implementing the informational phamphlet on domestic abuse to be distributed to participants in domestic assablt calls. Member Turner stated she was appreciative of the STRATEGIC PLAN RECAP TO BE PREPARED. Council’s participation in the special meeting at 5 p.m. to review and discuss the Mr. Rosland expressed his appreciation for the Strategic Plan for the City. summarizing that discussion. ’ He advised that he would prepare a draft memorandum 6/17/85 185 JOAN LONSBURY APPOINTED TO THE METROPOLITAN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION. Mr. Rosland announced that Joan D. Lonsbury, Edina, has been appointed to the Metro- politan Parks and Open Space Commission and will be representing Council District F, which includes St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Edina, Richfield and Bloomington. CITY MANAGER'S VACATION NOTED. Mr. Rosland informed the Council Members that he will be on vacation the first week in July and that Gordon Hughes, Assistant City Manager, will be acting in his stead.. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 1 AT 5 P.M. Mr. Rosland suggested that the Council hold a Special Meeting to review and discuss the City's Capital Plan. It was informally agreed to meet on July 1, 1985 at 5 p.m. to review the Capital Plan. to her as soon as it was ready, INDUCING RESOLUTION ADOPTED FOR EDINBOROUGH PROJECT. conjunction with its approval of the Edinborough redevelopment contract on May 6, Member Kelly commented she would be absent but would like the material sent Mr. Hughes advised that in I 4 0 m 5 1985 the City has tentatively agreed to authorize the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the construction of the 202-unit senior citizen building. an issuance, the City Council must first adopt an inducing resolution which includes a program for the development of the project and its financing. adopts the resolution then the program and an application are submitted to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for approval. The total bond issue as requested is $18.5 million. These are revenue bonds and, therefore, are not backed by the general funds of the City or the tax increments of the Southeast Edina Redevelop- ment District. The City Attorney has advised that prior to the actual issuance, the City can withdraw from participation and not issue the bonds if it determines that it is in the best interest of the City not to do so, or should the City be unable to reach agreement as to financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required. Mr. Hughes noted that Henry Hyatt, the developer of the senior citizen project, is present to answer questions. Member Richards asked Mr. Hyatt to summarize the City's role in issuing the revenue bonds for the project. Mr. Hyatt explained that essentially this is a housing revenue bond issue which is not actually an industrial revenue bond issue and therefore there are no caps. City is not pledging any of its own resources or taking any risk. by the FHA insurance which guarantees that if there are any defaults the insurance well pay off the bondholders. advantages of tax except financing which lowers the effective interest rate to approximately ten percent for this issue which is below market rate. As implied by revenue bonds, the rents from the various tenants provide the revenues to pay off the bonds. is a program that is the most popular form of financing rental housing in the country today. Bertha Erickson reiterated her remarks made earlier in the meeting that she objected to the aroject being called housing for the elderly as units at $90,000 applies to only a small percentage of the elderly. There being no further comment, Member Turner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: To effect such If the Council The The risk is taken This.process has to be taken in order to get the . The program is administered by a trustee selected by the City and It is used very extensively throughout the metro area. - RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROGRAM, AND GIVING PRELIMINARY STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE PROGRAM TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FOR REVIEW . APPROVAL TO A DEVELOPMENT AND ITS FINANCING, UNDER MINNESOTA AND APPROVAL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina Minnesota (the City), as follows : SECTION 1 Recitals and Findings 1.1. By the provisions of the Act, the City is authorized to plan, administer, issue and sell. revenue bonds or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments within its boundaries, which revenue bonds or obligations shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development. 1.2. thereon after notice published at least thirty days prior thereto, has adopted the housing plan and submitted it for review to the Metropolitan Council and has received its comments. 1.3. The Act provides that the City may plan; administer and make or purchase a loan or laans to finance one or more developments of the kinds described in Sub- divisions 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, upon adoption of a program setting forth the information required by Subdivision 6 of Section 462C.05 of the Act, after a public hearing thereon, and upon approval by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (the Agency), as provided by Section 462C.01 of the Act, on the basis of the considerations stated in Section 462C.04 of the Act. The City haspdeveloped a housing plan and, after holding a public hearing 6/17/85 -- 1.4. or all of the cost of a proposed multifamily housing development under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the Act), consisting of the acquisition of land from the East Edina Housing Foundation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the Foundation) and the construction and equipping thereon of a residential rental facility containing approximately 203 housing units together with parking and other functionally related and subordinate facilities (the Development), to be located in the City at 7800 York Avenue. be a limited partnership to be .formed (the Developer), whose general partner or partners will be Partners for Senior Communities, an Illinois partnership, or Partners for Senior Communities, Inc., an Illinois corporation, (Partners), or one or more of the following partners or shareholders of Partners: Heney Hyatt, Daniel Epstein, Sheldon Baskin, William De Woskin or Manuel Kramer. 1.5. The City has caused to be prepared a program with respect to the development and its financing (the Program). At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on June 17, 1985, in accordance with the Act and Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, on the proposal to undertake the Program and finance the Development, all parties who appeared at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to undertake the Program and finance the Development, and interested persons were given the opportu- nity to submit wirtten comments to the City Clerk before the time of the hearing. 1.6. The Developer has requested that the City issue its revenue bonds in one or more series pursuant to the authority of the Act in a maximum aggregate principal amount of approximately $18,500,000, to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Development, and to make the proceeds of the bonds available to the Developer for the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Development, subject to agreement by the Developer to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the bonds. 1.7. financing is available to pay the capital costs of the Development only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the scope of the Develop- ment and the economic feasibility of operating the Development would be signifi- cantly affected, but with the aid of municipal financing the Development can be constructed as designed and its operation can be made more economically feasible. 1.8. Bosworth Incorporated, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, that on the basis of information available to them and their discussions with the Developer and potential purchasers of tax-exempt bonds, the bonds could be sold at favorable rates and terms to finance the Pro j ect . 1.9. for the payment of the principal of, or premium or interest on the bonds. 2.1. would be desirable for the City to issue its revenue bonds under the provisions of the Act to finance the Development in the maximum aggregate principal amount of apprcccbnately $18,500,000. 2.2. this Council hereby declares its present intent to have the City issue its revenue bonds under the Act to finance the Development, provided that the Deve- loper enters into an agreement with the Foundation to acquire the land for pur- poses of constructing the Development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed to establish a legal obliga- tion on the part of the City or its City Council to issue or to cause the issuance of such revenue bonds., The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the bonds should the City at any time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the bonds, or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the structuring of the financing or as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. All details of such revenue bond issue and the provisions for payment thereof shall be subject to review and approval of the Program by the Agency and may be subject to such further conditions as the City may specify. The bonds, if issued, shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the revenues of the Development specifically pledge to the payment thereof; and each bond, when, as and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenues of the Development and the property specifically pledged under the revenue agreement to-the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 2.3. Subdivision 2 of the Act, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to cause the Program to be submitted to the Agency for review and approval. City Manager, City Attorney, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to provide the Agency with any preliminary information needed for this purpose. This Council has received a proposal that the Municipality finance a portion The developer and owner of the Development.wi.11 I The.City has been advised by the Developer that conventional commercial u This Council has been advised by representatives of the Developer and Dain The full faith and credit of the City will not be pledged to or responsible SECTION 2 I On the basis of the information given the City to date,.it appears that it It is determined to proceed with the Development and its financing and .' I The Program is heeeby approved, and in accordance with Section 462C.04, The 6 / 17 / 85 181 4 0 a c') U m 2.4. Pursuant to Subdivi in1 the loan to finance acquisition, f Section 462C.07 of the Act, in the making of construction and equipment of the Project in the issuance of the bonds or other obligations of the City, the City may exercise, within its corporate limits, any of the powers the Agency may exercise under Chapter 4628, Minnesota Statutes, without limitation under the provisions of Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes. 2.5. direct and indirect costs incurred by the City in connection with the Program and the Development, whether. or not the Development is carried to completion, whether or not the Program is approved by the Agency, and whether or not the City by resolution authorizes the issuance of the bonds, will be paid by the Developer upon request. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina this 17th day of . The Developer has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and all June, 1986. \ Attest: 34%. u c City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Bredesen and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney and the following voted against the same: None whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. CLAIMS PAID. Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by Member Turner, for payment of the following claims dated 6/17/85: Fund $600.00, Park Fund $20.21, Art Center $2,351.78, Swimming Pool Fund $3,550.65, Golf Course Fund $53,944.50, Recreation Center Fund $5,344.33,.Gun Range Fund $319.39, Water Fund $118.5OY'Utility Fund $221,189.59, Liquor Dispensary Fund $115,766.97, Construction Fund $49,214.73, IMP Bond Redemption #2 $207,675.00, Total $1,068,339.25; and for confirmation of the following claims dated 5/31/85: General Fund $196,840.87, Art Center $386.09, Swimming Pool Fund $66.26, Golf Course Fund $8,199.49, Recreation Center Fund $3,465.72, Gun Range Fund $75.61, Utility Fund $2,590.89, Liquor Dispensary Fund $304,350.10, Total $515,975.03. General Fund $408,244.05, Working Capital I There being no further business appearing on the Agenda, Mayor Courtney declared the meeting adjoined at 1O:OO p.m. City Clerk