Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19871012_specialN m m Q: MINUTES 45 OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL OCTOBER 12, 1987 Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner and Mayor Courtney. LANDSCAPING FOR FOSTER GREEN ADDITION (BRUTGER COMPANIES) DISCUSSED. Manager Rosland referred to a letter dated October 6, 1987 from Robert Koch, President, Dewey Hill East Cbndominium Association Board, addressed to the Council stating the Board is gravely concerned about the size and density of the proposed plantings on the north side of the Brutger development on Cahill Road just south of their property. property is four feet lower at that point than the Dewey Hill property thus further reducing the screening ability of the proposed trees. The Board requested that a moratorium be placed immediately on any further plantings and landscaping until an on-site inspection has been accomplished with the Council, staff and their Board. approved that.the plantings in the landscape plan that was approved were represented to be bigger and similar to the plantings on the Dewey Hill property. Manager Rosland said that the landscape plan called for 4" deciduous trees and 10-12 foot conifer trees which are larger than required by ordinance and that they are following the landscape plan which was approved. of Brutger, he indicated that some of the trees will be larger than 12 feet. Manager Rosland recommended that Brutger representatives meet with che association board to try to work out an agreement regarding the landscaping. commented that it was a good suggestion and that the role of the Council at this point is be sure that the landscape plan which was approved is in fact being followed, and beyond that she would hope the individual parties can resolve this matter. talk about the matter. No formal action was taken. In addition, they found that the elevation of the Brutger They felt that at the hearing on July 15, 1985 when the rezoning was In talking with Mr. Wilson Member Turner Manager Rosland said that he would try to get the two parties together to PRELIMINARY REZONING TO MDD-5 MIXED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT GRANTED FOR HEDBERG SITE (UNITED PROPERTIES).. public hearing held October 5, 1987 on the request of United Properties for preliminary rezoning to MDD-5 Mixed Development District and preliminary plat for the Hedberg site had been continued so that the developers and staff could provide additional information on issues raised by the Council. discussed were: 1) the public park, and 2) the housing concept. Public Park - He noted that the park design is not finalized at this point and that this unique park is intended to compliment the indoor park at Edinborough. Manager Rosland then presented a comprehensive review of the proposed public park and explained the various areas for the recreational activities which would be used by the entire community in the winter as well as during the summer months. feature that would attract and bring people to the park is the path that would encompass the water component. He said it is designed to provide recreational opportunities for individuals and families that are not available in the existing public park system. amphitheater area on the west side of the pond. goal is to design something that meets the needs of the residents and will be good for the whole City. of an amphitheater as it would mean more maintenance and programming costs. said that in looking at the various cost figures for the project there is no provision for depreciation as for the City's other enterprises, e.g. Braemar Arena, Art Center, Gun Range. She also expressed concern about additional ' . liability for the City because of the water element and that according to the Police Department report approximately 40% of the calls come from southeast Edina. Manager Rosland responded that the policy has been that depreciation on those enterprises have never been funded and that only the operating fund losses are funded. As to liability he said there are existing parks now such as Cornelia which have water and that it is possible that insurance premiums may go up some because of this added facility. Edina area, that is mainly because of the concentration of commercial and senior population in that quadrant. strengthened and that is the purpose of the monthly fees and the contribution to the operating trust fund. it is that will bring people to the proposed park. civic kind of activity or the sell that you would not have to bike down to Lake Harriet because the City now has a large passive park in Edina that would attract residents to the park. for individuals who wish to'use the park and why there is a need for a park office building. In response, Manager Rosland said that it would be both, that this park will be programmed to coordinate with Edinborough activities and that it would fill the need to go to an area like Lake Harriet. the office and commercial areas which would approximate 2,000 spaces. The recreational building would have multi-uses, e.g. warming house in the winter and other uses in the summer months. As to upkeep of an ice skating area, he said it would not require the maintenance expense that is associated with the upkeep of hockey rinks. surrounding the water, both on the residential side and the commercial side. was explained that the green space from the water to the residential/commercial Manager Rosland recalled that the The two major issues The main Cultural and performing arts events could take place in the In conclusion, he said that the Member Kelly said that she was not totally. sold on the idea She Regarding emergency calls from the southeast Emergency services to that area will have to be Member Smith commented that he still has not seen what He asked if it would be a He also asked how much public parking would be available Parking would be shared with Member Richards asked what the scale is of the green space It 10/12/87 ranges from 50 feet to 125 feet in depth, and that the total water area is just over 10 acres in size. Boyd Stofer, representing United Properties, pointed out that the two bridges over the water are grade separated which permit the park to operate as a continuous event without having to cross the public streets. added that one of the important concepts behind the park is the formality of it, not necessarily the volume of it and that approximately one-third of the total site is devoted to the public park. a lot of intricate areas for people to gather. made the presentation on the housing concept for the project summarized as follows. housing potentials in the Hedberg site versus what was accomplished in the Edinborough project. He reviewed the planning process for the Edinborough project and explained the development of the public park concept in the mixed use project; a public use that would allow the developers to bring office, elderly, rental and for sale people together in a hub manner with the park as a basic, formal separation that would also allow them to inter-act with one another. side (performing and fine arts) is yet to be developed and can be done tangentially at the Hedberg site and will provide for the community what Edinborough does not have. A social fabric needs to be established in the Edinborough communities so that they participate in the park programs and become involved in it. Mr. Laukka said he could foresee the same thing happening at the Hedberg site but in an entirely different fashion. There is an opportunity for a full arena of recreational choices for not just the young people in the community but for everyone else. Edina's recreational and play activities. to work on the Edina cultural need and that we should use these developments to try to make it happen. In reference to the public park, Member Richards interjected that the private sector has moved faster than the public sector in the project development; that he was troubled by someone saying that a lineal park with an average of 75 feet in depth around the water element is the right dimension for the public component of this proposed project. has spoken to other Council members he is troubled that he doesn't know and has to know before the public sector can move hand in hand with the private sector. said time has been spent in trying to analyze what the private development will be without fully understanding what the public development is going to be. Mr. Laukka submitted that more time has been spent by the project development team on the 24 acre park element of the project than with anything else on the master plan. what should be there and how the public park would work. He said his position is that without that kind of facility in mixed use developments he is out of it. He said people would not buy into an environment that doesn't work. The lineal park with the water body will be in an urban setting that is dense and is vital to the success of the project. place all the housing on the east side of the water by an exchange of the housing on Site B-1 with the proposed office building on Site E-2. He said he feels that makes sense so that all the housing is on the east soft edge of the water. As to the park and the programming of it, he stated that he felt it was not possible to design a successful program today that would deal with all the needs of the community and that the park will have to be flexible. That is the pu.i-pose of the soft edge; it is a place for the residents of the project to come out in the sun. The hard edge is the commercial side of the project, very urban, and an active' side where people will go to work, to a movie, to a restaurant, etc. and then leave. He noted that people are coming to the Edinborough Park.because it is there and that they are using the facility. Mr. Stofer said that what we are really talking about is a concept - does it make sense and has it been. thought through so that it can go foqard and be developed successfully.. project has to be looked on as a whole package. It isn't just a park but is a mixed use project that involves 1500 housing units, 1,500,000 square feet of office space and the commercial development which through the vehicle of tax increment financing will pay for a public amenity like this and bring something back to the community. this kind of concept and under the HRA's control, will enable the City to choose its destiny in southeast Edina as opposed to letting development happen. Returning to the housing concept, Mr. Laukka said he had not designed a package of housing for the project. served at Edinborough which had specific mandates which have been served. It is felt that it can be carried on into the Hedberg project in much the same manner. There is a strong market for the first time home buyer under age forty, that earns less than $38,000. moderate to luxury rental housing. A third market will be aimed'at: a) the empty- nester, 40-55 years old, wanting living space in excess of 1,000 square feet, 2 bedrooms plus, spending range of $125/140,000, and b) moving residents out of east Edina, the Morningside area or the far east side to free up those modest homes. He said both of these markets will be researched as to their potential and that they will have to proceed cautiously in determining those potential buyers. Marketing of the housing units will be done by means of a model of the project so that potential buyers can actually see how the entire project will look. Member Smith asked if the housing units would be mixed. moderate and the up scale units would be mixed and would be an architectural He It was designed as a formal arrangement with Housing ConceDt - Larry Laukka The concern expressed by the Council was for a broadening of the mix of I The cultural There is a need to work towards the cultural side of In summary he stated that we need to go He said that as he He I' Lists have been generated, discussions and arguments have taken place about - Mr. Laukka added that he has asked the project team to Secondly, the I It is 90 acres that is master planned and, when put in I I They looked initially at the continuation oC the market There will.likely be a rental facility zone that will be Mr. Laukk-a said that the ' 10/12/87 requirement for the project. of the mixed use development is to provide affordable housing for people who work in the area and that we should not lose sight of that. Mr. Laukka responded that in Edinborough 25% of the residents work in either Edina, Richfield or Bloomington and that 8% are retired. In looking at the continued development of the 1-494 corridor, he said that communities need to look at putting a housing component into the typical commercial development. examples supports the fact that people are victims of convenience and want to live close to where they work and in the nicest community they can afford. comment being heard, Member mer moved preliminary rezoning to MDD-5 and preliminary plat approval, subject to conditions: 1) Final rezoning, final plat approval, and the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for retail sales, 2) Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the development pursuant to the master plan as approved by the Council, 3) Approval by the Council of an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed development, and 4) Execution of a redevelopment contract between the developer and Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority as approved by the Council, with First Reading of the ordinance and adoption of the resolution as fiillows : Member Turner commented that one of the objectives Data from European and West Coast No further ORDINANCE NO. 825-A20 I BN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING 0RDI"CE (NO. 825) BY ADDING TO THE MIXED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (EIDD-5) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding the following thereto: Section 1. "The extent of the Mixed Development District (Sub-District MDD-5) is enlarged (\I m m by the addition of the following property: Tract A: Parcel I: The South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest l/4 of Section 32, Township 28 North, Range 24, except the West 50 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 11: The Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28, North, Range 24, except that part platted as Eden Place Addition; and except the West 50 feet thereof; and except that part described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; thence North along the West line thereof a distance of 43.0 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 50 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence South parallel with the West line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 10.0 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 10.0 feet; thence Northwesterly on a straight line to the actual point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel IV: The We'st 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28 North, Range 24, except the West 50 feet thereof; and except that part described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; thence South along the West line thereof a distance of 43 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 50.0 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence North parallel with the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 10.0 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 10.0 feet; thence Southwesterly on a straight line to the actual point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Tract B : Parcel 11: That part of the North One-half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 27, Range 24, described as beginning at a point on the North line thereof 1304.875 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 5; thence West along said North line 354.75 feet; thence South, parallel to the East line of said Northwest . Quarter, South along a line drawn parallel to the East line of said Northwest Quarter from the point of beginning; thence North along said last described parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. And That part of the South One-half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, described as beginning at a point on the South line thereof 1304.875 feet West along said South line from the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32; thence West along said South line U 475.5 feet; thence Northeasterly to a point which is 327.7 feet 10/12/87 48 354.75 feet; thence North, parallel to the East line of said Southwest Quarter, to the North line of the South One-half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32; thence East along said North line 354.75 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a line drawn North, parallel to the East line of said Southwest Quarter, from the point of beginning; thence South along said last described parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, mesota. Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 388764." Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UNITED PROPEXTIES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "(Name to be determined)" platted by United Properties, a division of The Northland Company, a Minnesota corporation, and presented at the special meeting of the City Council of October 12, 1987, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion for preliminary rezoning and plat approval was seconded by Member Smith. Member Turner comented that she supported the development because it is exciting, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the amended Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan and specifically the area goals to ameliorate traffic congestion, achieve housing, accomplish the storm water holding pond and the park, but also an opportunity to develop the last major piece of property in the City in a unique manner that benefits the whole community. She stated that prior to final approval she will look for a resolution of these major concerns: 1) Traffic Area - that in Phase I the four road improvements mentioned in the BRW traffic report would be constructed, that Travel Demand Management methods would be included, that the sidewalks as now shown on the master plan would be constructed, that the transit way would be specifically defined, and that in Phase I1 the project would be subject to the 1-494 Corridor Study recommendations and may have to be staged to match capacity in the 1-494 corridor or some traffic mitigation methods to accommodate traffic generated from the site; 2) Housing Area - that in Phase I there be a mix of housing that would include affordable housing for those who added that she liked the idea of the theatre use and the proposed hotel because both those uses would be off-peak trip generators and complimentary to the office buildings. everything they could to enhance recycling in the development; that in order to draw people to the park it should be convenient and look like more space rather than proprietary space for the neighborhood; and that the project should make a dramatic statement. Member Kelly indicted her support for the project and said that a fine development team has been put together, that there is a good mix of uses, that she hoped it would develop as a world class statement, that she had reservations about mixing the housing, that she was not ready to commit to a programmed park and that the project should not be rushed. he shared Member Kelly's concerns and would support the project with reluctance although he was not sure the footprint of the development is a good one that we can live with.. Mayor Courtney then called for a rollcall vote on the motion. I I would work in this area; 3) City Services - that services be self-supporting. She Member Smith commented that he hoped the developers would do Member Richards said Rollcall: - Ayes: Kelly, First Reading The meeting was Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney granted; resolution adopted. adjourned by Mayor Courtney at 9:00 p.m.