HomeMy WebLinkAbout19980601_regularMINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT CITY HALL
JUNE 1,1998 - 200 P.M.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Faust, Hovland, Maetzold and Mayor Smith.
Member Kelly entered the meeting at 715 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Maetzold and seconded
by Member Faust to approve and adopt the consent Agenda as presented with the exception of
Agenda Item I.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Faust Hovland, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 18,1998, APPROVED Member Hovland
asked the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 18,1998, be removed from the consent agenda
for clarification of his testimony on page 6. Motion made by Member Hovland and seconded by
Member Faust approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 18,1998, as corrected.
Rollcalk
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION ORDERING CONCRETE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S-75 (MAPLE I ROAD) APPROVED Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file.
Engineers’ - Presentation
Engineer Hoffman noted the hearing is a continuation of the April 20th hearing held on Maple
Road Sidewalk installation. He pointed out this particular hearing would require a 4/5 vote of
the Council to order the improvement because there were less than 35% of the residents’
signatures on the petition.
Engineer Hoffman reviewed project issues brought up at the previous hearing:
1. Stop -- Signs/Traffic Control - Engineer Hoffman reminded that traffic data presented at the
previous meeting showed Maple Road to have an 85% speed at below 30 mph indicating
the issue is volume. He noted residents become uncomfortable when trips exceed
500/day. h the staff‘s opinion, pedestrian separation is always the best solution for traffic
situations to improve a “safe environment.’’
Financing - of Sidewalks - Current City policy is that sidewalks are assessed at 100% if they
are installed on local streets. Staff prepared a preliminary ”Sidewalk Financing Policy.” A
detailed presentation will be given in August of 1998. Engineer Hoffman stated the City
will be far enough along with their updated Comprehensive Plan and have enough input
from the School District.
a
2.
Four Categories of Financing Sidewalks: * State Aid Zones -- (100% State Aid) * School Zones -- .7 mile to Elementary Schools 1 mile to Middle and High
Schools (25% City, 25% School District, 50% Special Assessments)
Page 1
MinutesDdina City Council/Cune 1,1998 * Destination Zone - Retail Zones 1 mite to destination (25% City, 75%
Special Assessments) * Local/Low Volume Street Zones - (100% Special Assessments)
Engineer Hoffman noted the City began installing sidewalks in 1973. If the City
were to change its sidewalk program and add more sidewalks, the proposed
improvements would take the next decade to finish with the following estimated
costs:
e
Entiv costs
State-Aid $2.3M
City $0.5M
School $0.3M
Special Assessments $l.lM
TOTAL $4.1M
3. Other Maple Road Projects - Staff has discussed streets, curbs, gutters, etc. However, the
only project currently scheduled is a storm sewer improvement on the north end of Maple
Road that is separate from the sidewalk project.
Mayor Smith asked if staff had reviewed the petition submitted, and consulted with the City
Attorney, before determining a 4/5 vote is necessary to order the Maple Road Sidewalk
Improvement. Engineer Hoffman responded affirmatively.
Member Faust asked if the project is proposed to be installed in conjunction with curb and gutter.
She asked if the $700-$1,400 cost included persons on both sides of the street even if sidewalks
were only instaIled on one side. Engineer Hoffman replied that initially after receiving the
petition staff reviewed whether any additional improvements should be constructed at the same
time. Staff surveyed if interest existed in streets, curbs or gutter. The storm sewer is a separate
project. Eventually, Council will decide how the assessment should be calculated, i.e. on a per-lot
basis for the entire area vs. linear feet of affected homes where the sidewalk is instalIed
adjacently.
Engineer Hoffman introduced Assistant Engineer Houle, who reviewed the technical aspects of
the proposed sidewalk improvement. He noted at the original public hearings, questions arose
regarding distance from street, alignment and width of the proposed sidewalk. The background
of the project began with submission of a petition in June of 1997. Engineering staff met with the
petition group and analyzed the feasibility of the potential project. The City Council requested
additional information at the original public hearing on April 20, 1998. Staff analyzed four
options and feel all four are feasible from an engineering viewpoint. However, the Police and
Fire Departments do not support installing sidewalk adjacent to the roadway.
Assistant Engineer Houle noted the Americans with Disability Act accessibility guidelines
recommend against a three-foot sidewalk. They recommend a four or five-foot sidewalk with no
edge drop-off. The Engineering staff sent out a postcard survey along with the continued public
hearing re-notification of the forty-three project area residents. The survey results were as follows
(from 36 respondents):
1. Width of Sidewalk 4’ or 5’: 4’ - 20 preferred 5” - 0 preferred
2. Alignment of Sidewalk:
e West side of Maple Road 1 preferred
e East side of Maple Road 0 preferred
e Both sides of Maple Road 11 preferred
Page 2
MinutesEdina Citv Councwune 1,1998
a Adjacent to Roadway 11 preferred
3. No Sidewalks 20 preferred
Assistant Engineer Houle showed photographs of trees that had fallen during recent storms
reviewing the root systems of the fallen trees. Assistant Engineer Houle spoke with the City’s
Forester, Tom Horwath. Findings were that it did not matter where trees were located (48 trees
down in the Country Club area of Edina)--front yard, adjacent to roadway, sidewalk or
driveway. Findings indicate that if roots are cut correctly, wind throw will not be a problem.
Forester Horwath submitted a memo also stating that if the roots are cut correctly the tree will
not be subject to elm beetles. Alignment with Arden Avenue was compared with the proposed
project. The following four project options were graphically reviewed:
1. OptionA
a
a Construct at property line;
a
a Estimated Cost $69,700;
a
2. OptionB
a
a Construct at property line;
a
a Estimated Cost $79,600;
a
3. OptionC
a
a
a Estimated Cost: $44,700;
a
Construct a 4-foot sidewalk on both sides of street;
Meander alignment to avoid trees;
Potential Assessment (calculated per assessable lot including a 25% City
contribution to project cost, back and side yards rate @ 1/3 per lot cost) $1,400.
Construct a 5-fOOt sidewalk on both sides of street;
Meander alignment to avoid trees;
Potential Assessment (calculated per assessable lot including a 25% City
contribution to project cost, back and side yards rate @ 1/3 per lot cost) $1,600.
Construct 5-fOOt sidewalk adjacent to roadway;
Alignment along west side of Maple Road and north side of West 48th Street;
Potential Assessment (calculated per assessable lot including a 25% City
contribution to project cost, back and side yards rate @ 1/3 per lot cost) $900.
Construct 4-foot sidewalk along one side of street;
West side of Maple Road and north side of West 78fh Street;
Meander alignment to avoid trees;
I
4. OptionD
a
a
a
a Estimated Cost $34,800;
a Potential Assessment (calculated per assessable lot including a 25% City
contribution to project cost, back and side yards rate @ 1/3 per lot cost) $700.
Assistant Engineer Houle reviewed a potential schedule for the sidewalk improvement if the
Council ordered the improvement
July30,1998 Qpen Bids
August 3,1998 Award Contract
0 September 1998 Construction Begins
November 1998 Construction Completion
Fallof1998 . Final Assessment Hearing
Member Maetzold noted that since the last meeting several resident letters have indicated that
there should be some way to reduce Maple Road traffic and improve safety other than installing
Page 3
MinutesEdha City CouncWune 1,1998
sidewalks. He asked whether Engineering still recommends sidewalks as - - improve pedestrian safety.
Assistant Ejlgineer Houle replied the Traffic Safety Cownittee discussed this
the best way to
I issue at their last meeting. The Committee reviewed all the opti6ns submitted bv the Maple Road ad hoc
committee, including: “No Left Turn” signs, STbP signs, etc. The cdnsensus 02 the Traffic Safety
Committee was the area did not meet warrants for STOP signs, and “No Left Turn” signs would
have repercussions throughout the entire area to Wooddale and beyond. Staff will work with the
City of Minneapolis to coordinate the lights at Halifax and 50th and France in order to move the
traffic more effiaently, perhaps precluding some left-turn cut-through traffic. Data indicates the
P.M. rush hour includes the most cut-through traffic and synchronizing the previously
mentioned lights wiIl help. He reminded that each neighborhood residence generates between 13
and 14 ~ps per day, so overall volumes will not significantly decrease.
Member Maetzold continued, asking if in staff‘s opinion the traffic volumes generate a safety
hazard for pedestrians. At some points when volume exceeds 500 cars per day a public safety
issue exists. Assistant Engineer Houle replied that most people become uncomfortable when
traffic on their street ranges between 500 - 1000 trips per day.
Member Maetzold asked what was the average width of the sidewalk in the County Club area.
Assistant Ehgjneer Houle stated sidewalks in the Country Club area are typically five feet in
width, however, Sunnyslope and Bridge Street are four feet in width.
I Member Hovland asked about a potential water run-off issue if sidewalks are installed on bofh
sides of the street, Assistant Engineer Houle replied that if sidewalk were installed adjacent to
the street, hard surface would not be increased so no increase in m-off would occur. Installation
of boulevard sidewalks where hard surface is added, run-off still should not be a problem
because water should have a tendenq to run-off into the grassy areas and the ten-foot boulevard
should be adequate to handle the run-off. He added the slopes of the sidewalks would be
designed to mitigate run-off, noting driveways are existing hard surfaces. Assistant Engineer
Houle noted the existing drainage problem on the north end of Maple Road between 48th and 49*
Streets is scheduled for a storm sewer improvement.
Member Faust asked if traffic on Maple Road is extensive enough to make people uncomfortable
walking; why then, are warrants not met. Engineer Hoffman responded that when volumes
reach 750 cars per day people become uncomfortable. Adding a stop sign Wiu not decrease
volume. There will be a short effect on either side of the stop sign of reduced speed, but not
fewer cars. In staff‘s opinion, the best way to make pedestrians safer is to separate them from the
traffic.
Mayor Smith asked if a majority of residents from either side want sidewalks installed, based on
the petitions submitted. Assistant Engineer Houle replied that based on the petition signers
neither side has a majority requesting sidewalks be installed.
Mayor Smith opened the hearing to public comment, asking residents to keep their comments to
new issues.
Public Comment
Page 4
MinutesBdina Citv Council/Tune 1,1998
Mike Stolee, 4824 Maple Road, stated he opposed the sidewalks, adding the project as presented
was not what residents requested in the petition. Mr. Stolee appreciates that the Traffic Safety
Committee has been working with Minneapolis to improve traffic efficiency, but installing
sidewalks now is too early. He urged Council to wait and see if there is any improvement in
traffic resulting from the coordination of the lights. Mr. Stolee stated he has reviewed all of the
Maple Road documentation and did not see any reference to what improved property value
would result from the sidewalks. He called attention to a letter from his attorney, Thomas J.
Barret from the law firm of Hinshaw and Culbertson, alleging that if the Council proceeds with
the Maple Road sidewalk project they would violate Minnesota Statutes. He noted his attorney's
letter would be only his first step and urged that the Council not proceed with the Maple Road
sidewalk. He called attention to an earlier letter sent to the Council from Mr. Mark Stennes of
Top Notch Tree Care. Mr. Stolee stated Mr. Stennes was present and would like to address the
Council on behalf of some Maple Road residents.
Ed Claire, 4825 Maple Road, stated he is against the sidewalks. The problem that has been
created on Maple Road appears to be a result of the growing business section at 50th Street and
France Avenue. The City of Edina encouraged the commercial development to increase the tax
base without taking into regard the potential problems that would develop from the one lane
road in each direction. Because the City of Edina created the problem, Mr. Claire stated the
75%/25% split of the potential assessment should be reviewed and the City should contribute a
greater share since they allowed the commercial development to happen.
Chris Elliott, 4107 West 48th Street, stated he did not understand Mayor Smith's questions
regarding how many persons requested sidewalks on each side of the Street. Mayor Smith stated
his previous question was whether a majority of residents on either side of Maple Road
requested sidewalks. Assistant Engineer Houle answered they did not. Mr. Elliot continued
stating that twenty participants responded no to the survey. Mayor Smith explained he was not
questioning survey results, but rather persons signing the petition. Mr. Elliot stated he felt it was
important to decide which side of the street is encumbered with sidewalks. Secondly, Mr. Elliot
stated that some original petitioners signed only requesting review of potential sidewalk project
costs. It was not a petition in favor or against. He continued stating that two residents had
requested their names be removed from the petition, so could residents also add their names to
the petitions. Engineer Hoffman replied that he believed Mayor Smith had answered Mr. Elliot's
question and there was not a clear majority on either side of Maple Road requesting sidewalks.
Engineer Hoffman stated staff did not believe that 35% of the residents had signed the petition so
if Council decides to proceed and orders the improvement, a 4/5 majority vote is necessary.
Wayne Kostroski, 4815 Maple Road, stated he has learned in the process. Mi. Kostroski stated in
his opinion the issue is safety. Everything started out pointing at safety, but opposition came
from concern over the trees, general aesthetics and costs. He added that selective reasoning needs
to be avoided and encouraged the Council to keep focused on the public safety issue. Mr.
Kostroski noted the staff report finding that the best way to improve safety is by separating the
pedestrians and the traffic. In Mr. Kostroski's opinion, safety is the only basis for the judgment.
In light of the safety issue, the trees, aesthetics and costs are not as important. He believed the
cost of sidewalk installation is a pretty inexpensive insurance policy, ensuring pedestrian safety.
Mr. Kostroski urged installation of the sidewalks.
Mayor Smith asked about the questions brought up regarding the need for an improvement
project adding value in order to be specially assessed against the property. Manager Rosland
Page 5
Minutes/Edina City CouncilJune 1,1998
explained that Minnesota Statutes require that the value added must be equal to the amount of
the assessment In Manager Rosland’s experience, no City improvement project has deterred the
property’s value of those parcels that were specially assessed. Attorney Gilligan added that the
law governing special assessments states the mount of the special assessment cannot exceed the
benefit to the property. This is a separate issue from the decision the Council is considering in
whether or not to order the improvement. At a future hearing, the Council will decide whether
the value of the property has increased by the amount proposed to be assessed.
Member Faust questioned if the property value is increased by the amount of the assessment, is
the property therefore assessed more and also taxed more. Attorney Gilligan replied that this
could be true.
Member Hovland asked if because of the issue raised by Mr. Stolee, can the City order the project
and hold the assessment hearing, but not proceed with construction until it is ascertained
whether any objections will be filed. Attorney Gilligan replied it was possible to hold the
assessment hearing at the same time as ordering the improvement, allowing the appeal period to
run before constructing the Improvement.
Mark Stennes - Top Notch Treecare, explained he was present at the request of Maple Road
residents. Mr. Stennes has been in the tree care business since 1981 and has an extensive
knowledge of the biology of trees and what holds them up. He continued stating if a sidewalk
were installed as proposed, the functional root system of the mature trees will be disturbed with
the potential for failure of the trees. In his opinion, the functional root crown of the trees are
under where the potential sidewalk would be installed. Sidewalk installation wiII remove, in Mr.
Stennes’ opinion, up to 2/3 of the functional root crown, leaving the trees very exposed to wind
throw when the next strong wind storm hits.
Mayor Smith noted that City staff had reported the loss of trees also on the golf course. He asked
Mr. Stennes to help explain this wind throw. Mr. Stennes acknowledged that the combination of
strong winds with saturated so& contributes to the loss on the golf course.
Member Hovland asked Mi. Stennes if his company did maintenance work for the City of
Minneapolis. Mi. Stennes replied affirmatively. Member Hovland then asked Mi. Stennes if his
company in their maintenance function in Minneapolis, trimmed trees’ roots under the
sidewalks. Mk Stennes responded his company did trim tree roots; however, the difference is the
Minneapolis trees grew with the sidewalks already in place. Member Hovland asked whether or
not maintenance workers remove sidewalks, trim the roots and replace the sidewalks, when
M3nneapoIis residents complain about a sidewalk that has heaved. Mr. Stennes responded that
was correct. Member Hovland commented that in driving through Minneapolis he does not see
evidence of tree die-back from the root trimming Minneapolis practices. Mr. Stennes disagreed
that tree vitality is diminished.
Member Kelly stated as a follow up that he had been unable to locate anyone from the City of
Minneapolis with statistical data regarding greater tree loss from areas with tree roots triwned
than those areas with no root trimrmn ’ g, during the recent storms. Mr. Stennes reiterated that in
Minneapolis the trees grew up with the sidewalks in place.
Member Maetzold stated he was in favor of the four-foot sidewalk installed on both sides of
Maple Road, noting the additional correspondence received from the neighbors. Member
Page 6
MinutesBdina Citv Council/Tune 1,1998
Maetzold thanked the neighbors for their feedback, but stated his opinion that the sidewalk is
still a safety issue. The risk the Council must manage is pedestrian safety for adults and children.
Member Maetzold acknowledged the importance of tkees to neighborhoods and Edina, but tree
loss is a lesser risk than pedestrian safety. For that reason Member Maetzold would support the
installation of four-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. He added he had considered
supporting installation on only side of Maple Road, but felt that still left a safety issue of people
crossing in heavy traffic to get to a sidewalk.
Member Faust stated she appreciated the letters from the residents. She intends to vote the same
way she would have at the previous meeting. Member Faust pointed out that it was not just a
simple majority opposed to the sidewalks, but two thirds of the residents do not want the
sidewalks installed. She also believes this is an issue of the potential special assessment. Member
Faust said there are seniors in the Edina community who will not be able to stay in their homes if
assessed for schools and sidewalks they do not want. She suggested that persons who want
sidewalks installed could petition and pay for the installation. Member Faust said she also would
vote no because of the precedent set, opening the floodgates for the weekly requests for
sidewalks. Member Faust added she does not know where the City will find the resources to
contribute the 25% to the cost of installation of the sidewalks requested to be installed. She
pointed out the Parkwood Road, West Shore Drive and the Edina School District requests. The
City must make policy, many on things such as streets, sewers, and water lines. Evidently people
want sidewalks installed. The Council must prioritize what people want the most. She cautioned
against committing 25% towards Maple Road sidewalks before all the needed improvements
have been reviewed and prioritized.
Member Hovland noted that 1,000 cars daily use Maple Road. Of the 1,000 cars 75% are
neighborhood residents and that factor is not going to change. The fact is that in 1998 more
people are taking more trips, and there are more cars in every family. While we may not like that
Edina has become more urban, it is a first ring suburb. As previously pointed out, this
neighborhood is close to the retail district of 50th and France. Flfty-five children living on Maple
Road deserve the protection of sidewalks on both sides of the streets. The neighborhood survey
said that approximately 90% of the people believe that traffic is a problem and 62% believe that
safety is a problem. The City’s experts have stated the best thing to do is to separate pedestrians
from the streets. Member Hovland voiced his concern regarding the issue raised by Mr. Stollee
that the assessment recover the cost of the improvement, and be based upon actual increases in
the property value after the improvement is in place. For this reason, Member Hovland would
favor running the two issues together, developing the assessment before the actual improvement
is made so the City may be sure of the proper legal position precluding the entire City of Edina
from paying for the installation of sidewalks on Maple Road.
I
Member Hovland said he did not believe the trees would be injured. The City’s forester has been
replacing sidewalks in the County Club area for years, without difficulty of tree loss. He voiced
concerns relating to:
Speed Issue (86% of neighborhood view speed as an issue). Not opposed to posting signage
reading 25mph even knowing it is unenforceable
STOP signs -- three way STOP signs at 49fh Street should be looked at more closely; 1000 cars
a day and speed make this a matter to investigate more;
Are sidewalks alone adequate for this neighborhood. Personally believes curb and gutter and
storm sewer should be considered.
I
Page 7
Minutes/Edina Ci€y Council/Tune 1,1998
Member Hovland intends to vote for Option A, in favor of the four-foot sidewalks installed on
both sides of the street. He noted that most of the Country Club has five-foot sidewalks, but
added the Maple Road area has a slightly more rural nature and in his opinion the four-foot
sidewalks will enhance this “feel”. He concluded that he would not comment any more on the
assessment issue or city‘s policy at this time.
Mayor Smith asked Member Hovland to clarjfy whether he advocated acting on both the
improvement and assessment at this time.
Member Hovland stated that a policy statement in the packet noted Council would review the
City’s assistance on sidewalk assessments. Some of the figures show a 25% City contribution to
the sidewab, Member Hovland stated he was unaware if the City had made this type of
contribution before. Also in the packet were data stating that the City could use an arbitrary
number of, for example, 700 cars per day as a threshold for determining whether the City would
participate in the cost of sidewalk installation. He believes this notion requires more thought,
before such a policy is put into effect. At the present time he would be uncomfortable deviating
from the City’s present policy of having the benefited home owners pay for the special
assessment.
Member Kelly stated he agreed with both Members Maekold and Hovland regarding the
installation of sidewalks on Maple Road. Member Kelly stated he would like to speak to Mr.
Barrett’s point about the value of the special assessment being related to the increase in property
value. Looking at the turnover of the homes in the Maple Road neighborhood, it is more likely
than not that the homes will be sold to younger people. For that reason, it is difficult to imagine
that property values will not increase, since safety would be and is a critical concern of all
parents. Secondly, it is a fact that traffic has increased exponentially, whether because of cut
through traffic or more trips per day from each residence. Traffic will continue to increase as long
as highways and highway departments attempt to divert traffic onto residential streets. For this
reason, Member Kelly felt it necessary to separate the pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
Mayor Smith thanked staff for responding to his request for a reduced size sidewalk. In light of
the testimony and public feeling, the City must do the best job possible in designing the project
for the neighborhood. Secondly, cost is a concern, especially when installing sidewalks in a
neighborhood where many residents do not want it installed. He voiced concern over requiring
these residents to bear 100% of the improvement, when perhaps part of the problem is traffic
from a commercial area, such at traffic from 50th Street attempting to funnel into single lane
streets in two directions. This area was designed intentionally, and perhaps there is cause to
assist in cost sharing for this reason. However, traffic counts indicate that three fourths of the
traffic is coming from the neighborhood. He is a proponent of sidewalks, but believes people
desiring sidewalks should petition and pay for them. Yet in an area where a safety issue exists
and staff recommends the best way to improve safety is to separate the traffic and pedestrians,
perhaps the sidewalks should be installed and the City contribute to the installation. Mayor
Smith stated his belief that historically there have been occasions when the City has shared in the
cost of sidewalks, however, in most cases the projects have been either on State-Aid streets or else
100% paid for by the benefited property owners. Mayor Smith agreed with Member Hovland
that further thought needs to be given to the cost sharing and would support making that
decision at a future meeting. He concluded that Maple Road Sidewalks are a public safety issue
and for this reason he supports their installation.
Page 8
MinutesEdha Citv Council/Tune 1,1998
Mayor Smith would 1)support four-foot sidewalks, 2) would not support assessing the project at
this time, rather wait to review the policy and make a decision at a future meeting whether the
City will participate in the cost of installation; and 3)ndte the engineer’s estimate is $1,800 per
assessable lot; and 4) acknowledge the coordination efforts between Edina and Minneapolis I regarding traffic calming in the area.
Member Maetzold introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption noting the
following: 1) Maple Road sidewalks to be four feet as per Option A; 2) the assessment hearing
and decision on cost sharing will be made after a policy review at a future meeting; 3) noting
the engineer’s estimate for Option A of $1,800.00 per assessable lot, and 4) acknowledging the
traffic-calming efforts being coordinated by staff of Edina and Minneapolis:
RESOLUTION
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT NO. S-75
MAPLE ROAD SIDEWALKS
WHEREAS, a certain petition requesting the improvement of Maple Road between
West 48& Street and West 50th Street was received by the Edina City Council June 16,1997; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the Council adopted March 16,1998, setting the
public hearing on April 20,1998; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution of the Council a report has been prepared by the
Edina City Engineer with reference to the Maple Road Sidewalk Improvement and this report
was received by the Council on April 6,1998; and
WHEREAS, ten days’ mailed notice and two weeks’ published notice of the hearing
was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 20th day of April, 1998, and continued to
the 1st day of June, 1998, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity
to be heard thereon.
1. The Maple Road Sidewalk Improvement No. S-75 is hereby ordered as proposed;
2. The Edina City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The
City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement.
3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to advertise and take bids for Maple Road
Sidewalk Improvement No. S-75.
Adopted by the council this 1st day of June, 1998. Member Hovland seconded the motion.
Rollcall was taken.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Edina City Council: I
Aye: Hovland, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Nay: Faust
Resolution adopted.
CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH’S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND REQUEST TO
VACATE A PORTION OF WEST 6gTH STREET AND REDEDICATE NEW RIGHT OF WAY,
BUILDING AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST
70TH STREET AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 100, APPROVED Affidavits of Notice were
presented, approved and ordered placed on file.
Mayor Smith noted that at the last meeting regarding Christ Presbyterian Church’s request
Council comments showed fmo members supported the plan and two did not support the plan.
Therefore, Mayor Smith asked for a continuation of the hearing and requested the two sides meet
and negotiate. The first week passed with no activity so Mayor Smith asked the City Manager to
set up a meeting including representatives from Christ Presbyterian, representatives from the
neighborhood, the City Manager, and the Mayor. That meeting was held and Mayor Smith laid
Page 9
I
MinutesEdina City Council/Tune 1,1998
out concerns he had dealing primarily with the impact of the project on the surrounding
property owners. Mayor Smith took that initiative because he had previously stated he needed a
continued hearing.
Mayor Smith then reviewed his concerns and how they were addressed.
Beginning from the south end of the project
There had been a recommendation that the driveway on 70th Street should stay where it exists
today, but there had been no improvement for the people who reside on the south side of the
driveway from the headlight wash. Installation of the island "V" with shrubs in the driveway
will mitigate the impact of the headliglits.
The first two houses east of the Church are set back quite a distance from the street with long
driveways. Prohibiting on-street parking on West 70th Street from in front of these two
properties can allow traffic to queue up to turn right into Christ Presbyterian Church.
I
Moving to the north end of the project -- The Kovack house will be turned into a corner lot if the street is moved north. This would
open the Kovack's up to the potential of a corner lot assessment, somefhing they did not have
when they bought the house. Mayor Smith felt the Church needed to absorb the potential
detriment.
Mayor Smith reported that when Mr. Kovack bought his house he had a sideyard setback
from his neighbor, however, in moving the street, Mr. Kovack would lose that setback and
have an utility easement on his property instead. Mayor Smith felt the Church should gLft
some property to the Kovack's to ease this setback and easement impact.
Mayor Smith looked at taking ten feet off of the Church property, then suggested it should
come off the Church's education phase. This would result in a reduction to the development
Mayor Smith noted the proponent looked at his suggestions and was not pleased. The
neighborhood also reviewed the changes and paraphrased, "...that is well and good, but they
have not yet begun to hit target."
I
Mayor Smith added another issue that came up in 1989 when the Church last explored
expansion, and has surfaced in many instances during this review process is whether the Church
intends to maintain their property and buildings properly. Does the Church intend to be a good
neighbor. Mayor Smith noted he had the minutes from 1989 indicating lis concern regarding the
maintenance of the CPC property. He reported a voice-mail he had received threatening that he
would not be re-elected if he votes a certain way on this issue. Mayor Smith said if you run for
Mayor you are elected to make decisions, and if he is making decisions on whether or not he
would be re-elected he would not deserve to be there. He reminded that there are five members
of the Council who were elected to make policy decisions. The Council may not always agree, but
the Council is respectful of each other, and of citizens and developers who come before the
Council on issues. Mayor Smith stated he was accused of telling the Church in 1989, "We wiII let
you do this this time, but do not ever come back." Upon hearing the voice-mail accusation, he
researched the minutes and noted they do not reflect that statement. He said he will be consistent
as the CPC discussion progresses. In his opinion the Church must step forward and provide
assurances out of its governing body that if the proposed expansion project moves forward the
Church wilk mitigate traffic, maintain its property, be a good neighbor, and ensure its lights do
not shine into neighbors' property.
Mayor Smith said there are issues that wi3l be discussed tonight, such as: whether there should
be one or two lots subdivided on the north end; die lots' size; drainage issues; whether the City is
getting the same amount of street re-dedicated as is being vacated; when will church proposed
Page 10
MinutesEdina City Counciwune 1,1998
lots be reviewed before Planning Commission; why were they removed from the May 27th
meeting; and covenants to be placed on future lots. Mayor Smith said there was an additional
issue: the addition of parking on the south side of West 6gth Street (CPC has added 8 feet of
parking in revise site plan #6). This seems to enhance the two new lots to be subdivided.
Mayor Smith reported that after the first meeting the neighborhood was not happy. In addition
the proponent was not happy because they were being requested to: absorb any potential
assessments to the Kovack property; add on-street parking; install a sidewalk on West 69th St.;
and reduce the size of their educational facility. The meeting participants agreed to get together
again. In addition, at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Kovack, they attended the second meeting
attempting to move forward on the proposed church expansion.
Mayor Smith reported the following outcomes of the second meeting:
Christ Presbyterian would glft the Kovacks with ten feet of property; if an agreement could be
reached with the Kovacks;
Christ Presbyterian would shrink the proposed 2nd phase education facility by ten feet,
measuring out to a 4800 square-foot reduction to the education wing on the north side; and
West 70th Street access/ingress changed incorporating the island median and landscaping.
Mayor Smith read into the minutes the outline of the agreement between Christ Presbyterian
Church and Mr. & Mrs. Dean Kovack dated May 29,1998:
"In outline form, summarized below, are the action that CPC will take on behalf of the Kovacks.
1. The church, at its expense, will proceed to pay application fees and professional service fees
and amend its subdivision to include the Kovack's property divided into three lots; the
homestead, one lot facing 69th Street and one lot facing Normandale;
2. The church will join with the Kovacks if they so choose to submit a petition to the City for
STOP sign at Normandale and 6gth Street;
3. CPC will cause all overhead wires to be placed underground subject to NSP and Us West
approval;
4. CPC will add to the Kovack's underground irrigation system such that gdted property (10
feet) and the boulevard (13 feet) will be irrigated, as long as this land is part of the homestead;
5. The fire hydrant at 69th and Normandale will stay at its present location;
6. The church will glft ten feet of land to the Kovacks from Normandale to the existing rear lot
line along their southerly border;
7. A berm will be designed and built essentially to the Kovack's specifications;
8. Plant materials will be specified and located with substantial input from the Kovacks;
9. CPC will hold the Kovacks "harmless" from any future assessments that the City might levy
for their homestead property fronting 69th Street; with the exception of a sidewalk on the
north side of 69th Street. (The church will be constructing a sidewalk on the south side of 69th
street from Normandale to Brittany).
This outline constitutes what CPC has agreed to do if its Conditional Use Permit is approved by
the City of Edina-Plan #6, as generally described." Mayor Smith noted the outline agreement
had been signed by the Kovacks and Peter Jarvis on behalf of CPC.
Mayor Smith stated the Council has previously heard testimony from: proponents, neighborhood
representatives, and individuals in the neighborhood that object or support the expansion. He
explained his intention to provide time for Council to comment after allowing representatives
from the Church and representatives from the neighborhood association time to speak. Member
Page 11
I
Minutes/Edina City Council/fune 1,1998
Kelly asked if individual testimony would be allowed. Mayor Smith replied no. Member Kelly
objected stating in his opinion revised Plan 6 was an entirely new proposal. Mayor Smith
disagreed that revised Plan 6 was a new plan. Following a brief discussion Mayor Smith said he
would let a Church representative, Mr. Brown and if they wished, Mr. and Mrs. Kovack, speak.
He said he would think about taking further public testimony.
Steve Brown, representing the Woodhill Association, confirmed that Mayor Smith had properly
characterized the meeting and thanked the Mayor for the opportunity to address the meeting.
Mr. Brown stated it was the bottom of the ninth, the bases are loaded with a full count, and you
might even say the fat lady is warming up. But a lot can happen in the bottom of the ninth. He
would like to talk to the Council along those lines. He seriously thanked Mayor Smith for
conducting the meetings during the last montli. Mayor Smith had accurately stated that Mr.
Brown does not support the plan. In fact, Mr. Brown is vehemently opposed to the plan. Also Mr.
Brown said he knew when the doors are beginning to close and stood before the Council
applauding the convictions by especially Member Hovland and Member Maetzold about safety.
He was a little puzzled that the issue of safety had not risen to the level in the CPC issue it rose
on Maple Road. Mr. Brown stated that a vote by the Council to support the revised plan #6
would leave 200 people extremely disappointed and feeling like it was a win loose situation. It
will allow the Church to walk away feeling like they have accomplished what they wanted to
accomplish. Mr. Brown said he had been an advocate of tvin-win since the very beginning and he
proposed the following compromise plan that he believed does nothing to compromise what had
been heard before Council thus far. Mr. Brown offered the following:
1. Take the CPC plan and cut it into two parts; allow church to expand their sanctuary now
giving them the additional sanctuary space and the additional educational space so they may
deal with the growing demands of their church;
2. Consider leaving 69th Street where it is;
3. Based upon previous testimony from CPC that they will not need the educational wing for 5-
6 years, place a moratorium on phase two for six years;
4. Place restrictive covenants that are consistent with the discussions at Council on all church
properties.
By enacting the above, you accomplish a number of factors and allow the interested parties to
walk away feeling like they truly participated in the process. The church would be allowed to
expand, there would be no disruption of 69a’ Street (a keen neighborhood issue), the Church
would be allowed to demonstrate their intention to be a good neighbor and maintah their site, it
also gives them time to evaluate what their real needs are and establishes an end, because of the
restrictive covenants. It would also allow the Church, neighborhood and City to assess the real
risks and safety issues that surround this expansion, not only from the Church itself, but from
Centennial Lakes, from Opus’ project on 77th Street, and from Diversified Pharmaceuticals, all of
which are currently under construction, and all will have an impact on traffic in the Woodhill
area. Mr. Brown said he did not believe that the study the Church had conducted thoroughly
undertakes, evaluates and considers all of the traffic risk associated with what is going on in the
Woodhill neighborhood. Mr. Brown added that if the Council agrees to breaking the project into
two parts, all of the 200 people in the Woodhilll neighborhood will feel as if the Council heard
their concerns. Mr. Brown said he does not understand what the hurry is to approve everything.
He added he realizes that his compromise had not previously been under consideration,
however, the Council are the decision makers. Mr. Brown urged Council to adopt a compromise
plan as outlined.
I
Page 12
MinutesBdina CiW CouncWune 1,1998
Dean Kovack, 6817 Normandale Road, stated he would like to make it perfectly clear for the
record that he had received a call from Mr. Peter Jarvis on a Thursday afternoon and at the
request of the Mayor, was asked to sit down and talk with Mr. Kovack. Mr. Kovack stated he
asked Mr. Jarvis if they should not include the neighborhood or the board, to which Mr. Jarvis
replied no the Mayor asked Mr. Jarvis to sit down with Mr. & Mrs. Kovack. They met with Mr.
Jarvis on Monday evening. Mr. Jarvis informed Mr. Kovack that the road was going to be moved.
Mr. Kovack reported that Mr. Jarvis told Mr. Kovack the Mayor was endorsing the CPC plan and
that this was the plan that was going to be approved. Mr. Kovack stated he was left with no
choice, that at the meeting he gave Mr. Jarvis a letter of intent from a family interested in buying
the white house next door to Mr. Kovack if the Church's plans were turned down. Mr. Kovack
said he and his wife had discussed if road was going to moved they would like to get at least one
lot and according to Planner Larsen, possibly two lots. For the record Mr. & Mrs. Kovack do not
really endorse the plan/ but if this is what going through, they would like an opportunity to have
an extra lot, possibly two. Mr. Kovack invited Mr. Brown to his meeting with Mr. Jarvis because
he cares about the neighborhood and did not want them to think he sold the neighborhood down
the river.
I
Mayor Smith clarified that the second meeting had been planned to include the neighborhood
representative, Steve Brown, church representative, Peter Jarvis and that the Kovacks had asked
to be included. Mr. Kovack agreed, adding that he had been in a tough position.
Mayor Smith asked Peter Jarvis if he had comments. Mr. Jarvis stated he had no additional
comments, the plan has been revised to site plan #6 and is an evolution of plan #5, because of the
public testimony and meetings between the last meeting and present. The church came back
before the Council hoping and requesting that a majority of the Council would see fit to approve
the conditional use permit. Mr. Jarvis concluded the Church will proceed with the Kovacks, if the
conditional use permit is approved, to seek the subdivision of the new lots from the City. Mr.
Jarvis thanked the Mayor for arranging the meetings last month. Mayor Smith asked Mr. Jarvis
for an assurance that the Church's governance will assure the neighborhood of its intent to
maintain the property. Mr. Jarvis replied that both he and Ms. Bowles had attempted to represent
to the Council and neighbors their intent to improve the neighborhood relations. Mr. Jarvis called
on Rev. John Crosby, specifically to address the Church's plan not only relative to
communication, but to also ensuring that maintenance is a top priority with the governance of
the Church. Mayor Smith interjected that this was a top concern of his in 1989, and the job has not
been done since 1989, and he wants it done now and into the future.
I
Rev. John Crosby, of CPC, stated the Church is run by a group of people called the "Elders" that
form a "Session." The Session has been concerned (in increasing ways) by their learning that the
proposed expansion has brought out the negative images of the Church in the neighborhood. He
added this has been a painful lesson for many members. The Church did not want to act before
the Council took action, fearing they would look manipulative, however; in March a standing
committee of the Elders was formed and charged to deal with neighborhood relationships and
appointed an ombudsman and a committee to work with that person to improve the relationship
between the neighborhood and church. He introduced Ombudsman John Mitchell.
Member Kelly asked if public testimony was going to be allowed. Member Faust pointed out that
Mr. Mitchell was a neighborhood resident. Mayor Smith asked that the Council allow Mr.
Mitchell to speak because he was addressing the maintenance issue that had been an historical
issue with the Church and neighborhood.
Page 13
I
MinutesEdha Citv Council/iune 1,1998
John Mitchell, stated he was a member of CPC and had been asked by the Session to serve as the
ombudsman between the Church and the neighborhood. He said he stood before the Council at
their last meeting and stated that the Church in designing the new plan is acknowledging the
magnitude of their maintenance issues. Mr. Mitchell reiterated the Church's intent to be a good
neighbor and care for their property to the salisfaction of the neighborhood. He promised that
CPC will move forward doing a better job than in the past
Mayor Smith stated that since the question has been raised that the revised site Plan #6 presented
tonight is an entirely new plan then public testimony will be allowed. However, the testimony
should speak to only the land use issues.
Member Hovland stated he had received a call from a resident with a concern that the proposed
landscaping plan was under-budgeted. Mr. Jarvis explained that CPC did not budget the
landscaping plan; they purposely designed the landscaping plan, then priced it. The number
shared with the Council and Planning Commission is the cost to implement the plan. He
deferred to City staff that the landscaping plan meets and exceeds all City regulations. In his
twenty-five years experience he believes the plan is enormous for a project of 8.6 acres and of this
scale.
Public Comment
Therese Kakalios, 6825 West Shore Drive, appeared representing herself, her three children, and
her husband, who spoke to Council a few weeks ago regarding traffic and STOP signs on West
Shore Drive. Ms. Kakalios stated a month ago she appeared before Council requesting they
address concerns of traffic safety and aesthetics. She said the new compromise does not seem to
address the traffic/safety concern. CPC has reached an agreement with one neighbor, but what
about the rest of the neighborhood. There may be a settlement with the neighbor who will feel
the greatest impact, but that does nothing to the other neighborhood concerns. The issues of
tra€€ic, safety and the implications of moving an entire street still have not been adequately
addressed. She added 200 residents signed petitions requesting the project not be approved. Ms.
Kakalios urged the Council to turn down the request for expansion.
Floyd Grabiel, 4817 Wilford Way, stated he is not on the Woodhill Board. Mr. Grabiel said the
debate has been characterized as having two sides, where in 11% view there are really four sides
to the issue: Christ Presbyterian, the Woodhill Association Board elected by the neighborhood,
residents in the neighborhood not represented by the board, who are neutral or in support
(personally he supports) the Church, and the City of Edina who must represent what is best for
the whole city. Mr. Grabiel continued saying if the issues are truly weighed he believed it would
be found that the proposed CPC expansion is good for Edina. Mr. Grabiel stated he felt a little
disenfranchised in all the discussion that there were orily two sides.
John Rogan, 4720 West 70th Street, explained at the last meeting, the Mayor stopped at CPC on a
Tuesday and was impressed with the crowds. The Tuesday crowd is "ren€al" crowd. The Bible
Study Fellowship is not a function of Christ Presbyterian; they rent the space. Tuesday there is
more traffic without any control on West 70th Street than on any given Sunday. Mr. Rogan added
at the last election only seven parking spots were designated for voters in the CPC parking lot.
Mr. Rogan questioned what restrictions the City has on this type of facility and its rentals. The
proposed "cathedral" could potentially be rented six days a week. He stated they do not need
this traffic on West 70Ul Street
Page 14
I
Minuteskdina Citv Councwune 1,1998
Mara Brown, 6624 Southcrest Drive, stated she was Steve Brown's wife. Mrs. Brown said it
amazes her that the CPC plan has gotten this far. To hear h. Jarvis say to Mr. Kovack that it is a
done deal, in his cocky attitude way, drives her nuts to think that this is happening. Mayor
Smith, said one thing at the meeting last week, and then the next thing she hears is the plan is
going through. She asked her husband how can something like this happen. It is politics and
frankly she has had it. Mrs. Brown charged that the Council has not even heard their concerns
and are ready to just say this is a great plan. This needs to be re-negotiated. This is a totally new
plan as Mr. Kelly has said, and in Mrs. Brown's opinion she did not think that the WoodhilI
neighborhood had agreed on it. The day before the Bible Study someone called her neighbor (it is
still taped so the Council could hear if they wanted) and said to carpool or walk from Southcrest
because they are monitoring traffic on Tuesday. Then CPC wonders why the neighborhood does
not trust them. It makes her so angry that she can hardly speak. Mrs. Brown asked if the Council
had blinders on. She asked if the Council had driven by and seen the "For Sale" signs going up.
There are three houses for sale. Does the Council not think that people are scared about what
CPC is going to do to the neighborhood. They are all scared and all will be affected and she does
not feel like any of the Council is listening. None of the Council, except Mi. Kelly, live in the
Woodhill area. Mrs. Brown challenged the Council wondering what they would think if the
safety of their children were in question. She stated she grew up in Edina and has lived here all
her life, from a family of eight. Her mother could ring a dinner bell so the children could come
from all over Edina, but today she would not dare let her daughter go a block on her bike
because of the traffic. She continued stating that John Mitchell getting up making promises is
ridiculous. Mrs. Brown thought that Mr. Mitchell should think about what he is talking because
she drove by the Church the other day, and the weeds coming out of the bushes are
embarrassing. She stated she felt bad that with all this going on someone from CPC did not go
out and pull the weeds. Mrs. Brown added you would think that with all the publicity and
contention CPC would at least try to make their property look presentable. She said what is
going on is not right. Mrs. Brown informed the Mayor that a rumor is going around that someone
got the Mayor and someone paid him off. She said the neighborhood wants to be heard. The
safety issues have not been addressed. All she is saying is hear the neighbors and hear who is
talking, other than Peter Jarvis, and threatening what Edina will lose if the CPC plan is not
approved.
I
Mayor Smith stated he has been around this town for a long time and has been involved in some
pretty difficult decisions. He has closed schools out of neighborhoods where people said if we do
not have a school we do not have a neighborhood. He has dealt with development in this town
where people wanted to put up a six story office building backing up to houses, after a church
closed. He spoke up for the people in the neighborhood, and has worked with developers
requesting densities that are too high. Through negotiation reasonable densities were achieved.
Mayor Smith stated he did not run for office to be popular and he did not run for office to be paid
off. If anybody wishes to address that issue with him any further, his home phone number is in
the Edina book or they may write him letters and he will respond. Mayor Smith stated he does
not socially see Peter Jarvis or anyone that has come before this group. Mr. Grabiel is correct that
there are supporters in the neighborhood who are not members of CPC, and there are neighbors
who do not support the expansion, who are members of CPC. Mayor Smith thinks there are
enough people in this town that understand he likes to do his homework. He did not leave that
meeting a month ago and say that there is not going to be any expansion north of 69th Street. He
started to set some parameters for negotiation and Mr. Jarvis indicated to him that was is unfair
to put that kind of parameter up and then expect negotiations. He saw issues that were wrong
Page 15
I
Minutes/Edina Citv Council/rune 1,1998
with the plan based on what he has represented to the meeting tonight. He could have sat there a
month ago and gone ahead and voted. Remember it takes three, not four and Mayor Smith is in
the middle. He tried to seek some further compromise regarding size and the other issues he has
previously mentioned. The Mayor stated he felt he had to lay out some parameters and he
believed he did. Now they are moving forward based on what he could have voted on four
weeks ago, but did not because he felt there were some issues in the northwest corner and on the
south. He asked if the parties could get back together, but certainly did not say, the parties could
only compromise on the issues the Mayor wanted addressed. Mr. Brown had an opportunity to
present the idea of delaying the educational wing. I€ you want to personalize things and attack
him, then go ahead; he does not think it has anything to do with the issue at hand. Understand
that there may be some folks here who do respect that point of view.
Marty Probst, 6629 Brittany Road, said an overwhelming majority of the neighborhood has
spoken and they do not want the CPC expansion. He thinks that is the key point here. Mr. Probst
said CPC's elders have a long history of lies, outlined in all of the neighborhood presentations.
CPC always says its a different group but they are outright lies. The biggest one in his opinion is
their parking lies. Four weeks ago Mr. Jarvis stated twice that CPC WilI never need street
parking. CPC is going to more than triple the size of their sanctuary and only are adding 200
parking spaces. No one has addressed this issue.
Don Barck, 4807 West 70th Street, said he would like to talk a little about the curb cut on the south
side; also, nobody has commented on the fact that CPC is going to tear down the Smiley house
that is a perfect berm for the people who live on 70th Street. He added tlie Smiley house is just
east of the existing driveway. He asked Mr. Janris if a berm is planned between the sidewalk and
the parking lot. Mr. Barck noted the Smiley house is the oldest house in Edina. He asked for a
berm to cover taking away the house. I
Mayor Smith asked Mr. Jarvis to respond to the question regarding the berm. Mr. Jarvis replied
there would be a berm of 3 ?h to 4 feet with plant material on top of it. Member Hovland asked if
it was indeed true that the Smiley house is the oldest house in Edina. Mr. Jarvis stated that three
house movers have looked at the house and refuse to move it. Member Hovland wondered
whether the house has any historical value. Mr. Jarvis said he did not know, but that the house is
the subject of the 1989 parking agreement, and was subject to being torn down at the initiation of
the City or the Church. The church would be happy to have the historical society review the
house and if there is anything of a historical nature, the Church would cooperate in any way
possible.
Robert Castle, 6628 West Shore Drive, not a member of CPC, but is very concerned about the
issue and has done his best to follow it. Mr. Castle stated he spoke to the Planning Commission
after moving to the community a few years ago and finding the greatest controversy over a
church, he was saddened. He lives on West Shore Drive, and has a four year old daughter. Mr.
Castle and his wife are very concerned about traffic and speed on West Shore Drive. They do not,
however, view the Church as the principal contributor to the problem. He would like to seek that
addressed through increased enforcement of speed and perhaps the installation of sidewalks.
This he suspected would require another hearing. Mr. Castle said the neighborhood has
mentioned the 200 signature petition and he urged die Council to invite the association to submit
the actual petition to the City. M. Castle applauded the Mayor's efforts to facilitate a
compromise and believes the revised plan represents a reasonable plan and compromise and
urged its approval.
Page 16
MinutesBdina CiW Counciwune 1,1998
Karol Schneider, 6905 West Shore Drive, stated she attended the last Council meeting regarding
the STOP sign issue on West Shore and D‘unberry a%d added she is really disappointed tonight
because so much concern was expressed over the traffic in the area. The Council is faced with
what Ms. Schneider feels is a new proposal, not a compromise, and the traffic issues are not
being addressed. Ms. Schneider supported Steve Brown’s idea to split the CPC into two parts
and she urged Council to consider the proposal.
I
Penny Smith, 6600 West Shore Drive, not a member of CPC, but attends on numerous occasions,
and has lived in the Woodhill neighborhood for 27 years. When she first moved in there were
five very active associations, on either side of 70*, between France Avenue and Highway 100.
The Woodhill area of 11 streets was one of these associations. There was another group called the
Coalition of Homeowners with representatives from each of the five neighborhood associations.
All six of these groups fought against change of any kind, even sidewalks. Ms. Smith felt is was
very important to note that five of the six groups all within biking or walking distance of the
Church have chosen not to reactivate and fight that expansion. To her that it a very quiet yet very
loud message of support for the neighborhood church. Another quiet yet loud message of
support was mentioned during the last Planning Commission. Helen McClelland mentioned that
she had been keeping track of all of the CPC letters received. After eliminating all the duplicates
she stated it was a resounding 4 to 3 in favor of the expansion and road move. Six weeks ago, Ms.
Smith surveyed just her immediate neighborhood and the results were similar. The reality of this
is that even though there is a very small group (200) of dedicated people fighting this project
there are many more who are supporting the expansion. This gives the clear message that CPC
has become an important asset to our neighborhood and the Edina community. Recently Ms.
Smith researched land use and while reading the dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, noticed that
one qualification of good land use is to identrfy if it produces revenue or other benefits, and if the
use of land produces the most advantageous development of the community. Very clearly CPC
by its very goals and objectives, by its very own mission statement, brings a multitude of benefits
to thousands of people within Edina, in the surrounding communities, in the inner city, around
the nation and finally around the globe as far away as Africa. In addition, to these obvious
benefits, the people who frequent CPC bring a lot of revenue to Edina. After each of these
Tuesday morning Bible Study ends, groups of women go out to lunch to local restaurants, or to
shop in Edina, or buy groceries at local supermarkets. On Sundays if you go out to brunch, you
see CPC members all over Edina. In other word CPCs land use does fit the qualifications; it
benefits the City and the community and brings a lot of revenue to Edina.
John Huepenbecker, 6705 Southcrest Drive, challenged whether a four-to-three letter writing
campaign is a resounding victory. Three thousand church members against 200 petitioners
should have been more like 16 to 1. In addition, that Planning Commissioner told neighbors not
to write, then based her vote on the letters she received. There has been a huge issue regarding
the entrance point to the Church. No one has addressed the right angle turn impact on traffic. He
expressed disappointment that some Council members minds were already made up in favor of
the expansion. He urged consideration of the safety issues. Mr. Huepenbecker asked that with
the degree of animosity; approve Mr. Brown’s proposal to allow neighbors to see the impact of
the sanctuary expansion. He felt that there were too many issues yet un-addressed. Mr.
Huepenbecker also asked why the Church dealt with ody one person, adding he would like to
also get ten feet more on his property.
Page 17
MinutesEdha City Council/Tune I, 1998
Mayor Smith clarified his suggestion that the two lots east of the Church access on West 70& have
no on-street parking to allow for stacking of cars waifhg to turn. Mayor Smith reiterated his
position dative to the meetings with the proponent, Mr. & Mrs. Kovack and Mr. Brown,
pointing out that he could have voted a month ago, but waited hoping the interested parties
could arrive at some compromises and that his concerns could be addressed. He stated that he
had said if his concerns could be addressed, he would support the proposed expansion. Mayor
Smith stated he would not have characterized the approval or denial as a done deal, but that Mr.
Jarvis could count noses of the positions stated by the members of the Council and in Mr. Jarvis’
opinion perhaps he felt it was a done deal.
I
Fritz Conrad, 4009 Wood End Drive, said he does not really live in the Woodhill area. He said he
would like to correct a misconception regarding rent being paid by the BSF to the Church. They
do not pay rent. They make an occasional contribution of a very small amount CPC regards
housing the BSF as part of the Church’s mission. Secondly, the enlarged parking lot will handIe
the BSF cars off of the streets of the neighbors.
Mike Young, 6936 Hillcrest Lane, stated he was troubled by Mayor Smith telling parties to get
together and work out issues. He does live not in WoodhilI, but is affected by traffic in the
neighborhood. Mayor Smith aside, Mr. Young asked to address his concerns to the four Council
members who were not part of the so called mediation/brokered deal. He said that when two
parties get together on their own and work out differences that is compromise. Now, if the
parties are having difficulty reaching compromise, you bring in an objective third party mediator
to assist the parties. Mr. Young stated he is an attorney and does this alI the time to resolve
commercial disputes. He added he is seriously troubled by the Mayor brokering and facilitating a
deal. Mr. Young said the deal smells like rotten fish, because the Mayor has a fiduciary
responsibility to the City to make decisions in the best interest of the City. With this in mind the
Mayor cannot get involved in mediating disputes. Mr. Young would have been willing to pay a
portion of the cost of a third party mediator. What happened, however, feels like Mayor Daly of
Chicago. Mayor Smith disagreed with Mr. Young, saying what he was interested in finishing
touches to a plan that he could have voted on at the last meeting. Mr. Young echoed the conc&m
previously stated and added in his opinion that the Mayor intended to facilitate the meeting. In
addition, it seems disingenuous for a church that for years has not taken care of its property to
have John Mitchell get up in a public meeting and say we promise we will do better. Mr. Young
suggested some type of escrow arrangement be entered into to ensure that necessary
maintenance is completed.
Sandy Kuehn, 4813 Upper Terrace, asked if the property involved was only that property south
of 69th Street and does the Church have to come back for approval of the new proposed lots. She
continued her opposition to the expansion of the parking lots. Ms. Kuehn said she is the kind of
person who does not like conflict and she apologized for what has happened during this process.
Mayor Smith thanked Ms. Kuehn for her comments and explained the issue is the development
of the Church property as shown on revised site plan #6. The issue of the new lots of the Church
or the Kovacks will be dealt with at a later date.
I Lee Scofield, 5601 Kellogg Place, explained he has been a CPC member since 1960. During that
time he has been involved in church activities. He noted he had been an elder for years and was
surprised to hear himself called a liar. Secondly, the ment sanctuary seats 450 and can squeeze
in 500. Every Sunday there are about 200 people in the overflow room watching the service on
video. Mr. Scofield stated his surprise that people would be willing to come back and put up
Page 18
MinutesEdina City CounciWune 1,1998
with being relegated to the overflow room. The rest of the building is jammed with Christian
education classes and additional space is rented at Cornelia School. Four buses shuttle people
.l, . * every Sunday. ,* , ;:I4 ' ;r I,
Peg Gallagher, 6812 Brittany Road, stated she lived on the adjoining lot to the Marty property
being proposed to be developed into new lots. Ms. Gallagher asked the time frame for the new
lot subdivision. Planner Larsen said the subdivision will be at the July 1, 1998, Planning
Commission and then heard by Council on July 20, 1998, if the Planning Commission find
favorably for the subdivision.
I
Council Discussion/ Action
Member Kelly stated that if anyone believes that the Mayor has anything but the best of the City
at heart, they are sadly mistaken. As long as Member Kelly has known the Mayor, and that has
been since he was a kid, Mayor Smith has always done his best to represent the City well.
Member Kelly stated he supports the expansion of CPC and has from the beginning. Many
members of the neighborhood support the expansion of CPC. He noted Mr. Scofield's comments
of the number of non-members taking advantage of CPC programs, adding he personally took
part in activities as a youth. Member Kelly believes there is a need for a new sanctuary and the
City should accommodate that need. He does not support the plan and he does not think the
plan resembles true compromise. He continued stating that Ms. Smith and Mr. Castle live on his
street, West Shore Drive. Most of West Shore Drive did not sign the petition, but they did talk
about the expansion a lot. What Ms. Smith did not tell the neighbors she spoke to, including his
neighbors, is that this plan is not just an expansion, it is a proposal to build the largest church in
the City of Edina by 25%. It is the largest church on the smallest comparable lot of any of the
major churches. It is an expansion that is 25,000 square feet or a larger sanctuary than Our Lady
of Grace uses to accommodate the same number of people, plus OLG houses a school of eight
grades. This is why he is so disappointed. If CPC sat down and talked with these people and
came back with a plan that was comparable to the large churches in Edina, say 100,000 square
feet he could support such an expansion. He thinks in that situation the expansion would be
supported and the rift between the neighborhood and the Church could heal and the people
would go home grudgingly satisfied. Member Kelly stated he was very disappointed that this
was not accomplished. The reason he believes this was not accomplished (and he agrees with
many of the things said here by the neighborhood tonight) is because the process failed. It was
not a failure on the Mayor's part; the problem was, in his opinion, that the process was deviated
from what was appropriate in this circumstance. Member Kelly stated he was as @ty as anyone
because he did not object strongly enough, but the problem is that the plan in front of the Council
today results from a grudging compromise with Dean Kovack, only when he was faced with
literally no alternatives. But what we are calling a compromise here is the Mayor's whim and
caprice in tossing out ten feet of a reduction between the Church's boundary line and the
neighbors. This resulted is no sigruficant change of the plan. At the last meeting, the two sides
were told to get together and work out the differences. If the two sides could not work it out,
then someone should intervene. He strongly believes the person who intervenes should not have
a vote. Every single plan that he has been a part of the City staff works with the parties. The staff
then comes to the Council with the results; but in this case, this did not happen. What happened
was the Mayor tossed out ten feet that was not the result of a study, not the result of data, not the
result of any kind of examination of what impact that would have on the project, and that is a
mistake. If staff had looked at the plan and stated they believed ten feet was appropriate because
they have looked at factors on both sides of the equation, then the issue would be brought before
the entire Council and they would all have the opportunity to reflect on it coolly and calmly
Page 19
Minutes/Edina Citv CouncWune 1,1998
before deciding if that was the decision to make. Because the Mayor tossed out ten feet, Mr.
Jarvis, the developer, leapt on it because it resulted in literally no signd?cant reduction in square
foot; there was no meaningful redesign of tlie site. We sat at tl&i meeting the last time and raised
the concern that CPC was building the largest churcli in Edina on the smallest comparable lot.
We are here today after what was apparently some sort of compromise discussion, looking at a
plan to put the largest church in Edina on the smallest comparable lot. Mr. Kovacks' concerns
have been met, but besides that Member Kelly did not see any spirit of compromise and the
result as was appropriately pointed out is that the process was wrong. Member Kelly stated it
was his fault because he did not protest strongly enough. He is sorry that we come to where we
are today with a decision that does not represent any sort of involvement of the neighborhood
association. In his mind that is a signhcant problem and failure of the system and he knows
people in the neighborhood are disappointed because he has been taking their phone calls.
Member Kelly stated he truly wished a compromise could have been found, truly wished the
Church would have said do we really need to be the largest chur& in Edina by 25,000 square feet
or can we shave here and there to accommodate the neighborhood. If a split-Council situation
ever occurs again, Member Kelly wiU do his best to strongly and publicly oppose any
involvement by any member of the Council in any sort of negotiations. The point of the matter is
that City staff should be the mediators who bring the solutions to the Council so the Council can
make the decisions.
Member Kelly continued stating that since he is aware of the potential outcome of this evening's
vote he would talk about specific concerns :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mr. Brown's point toGght needs to be given serious consideration to allow review of the
impact of the expanded sanctuary on the neighborhood before 69th Street is built Add the
additional parking places before adding the second phase.
Conditions to include in the Conditional Use Permik
Affirmative representation that no further development will take place on the site,
included but not limited to parking expansion, decking, adding stories, or anything
additional.
Noted Mr. Hall and the previous elders' promises were not upheld;
Landscaping, escrow to make sure landscaping is maintained. He would like to think
about that idea. There are ways the landscaping can be tied into the conditional use
permit.
The new lots need to be sold before any ground is broken.
No construction staging allowed on public roads or rights of ways. The last thing we need to
do is impede the traffic in the neighborhood.
The Church shall bear any and all costs to the neighbors associated with moving any utilities,
including new service stubs.
Berm on 70th Street allowing a look at find plans to ensure that it is adequate.
Drainage, should go under Highway 100, but after talking to Fran Hoffman and finding that
the fall back plan is to accumulate water on the parking lot. E this is done then the parking
spaces will not be available to hold cars making an already tight parking situation even
tighter. Approval should be contingent upon drainage being directed under Highway 100 to
the retaining pond on the west side of the road.
Member Maetzold stated he found the previous plan highly satisfactory. He liked the
development, but had reservations about the access on West 70th Street. The current plan ares
concerns regarding West 70th Street. He commended the Mayor for his role, adding it was proper
for Mayor Smith to act as he did in this situation. Christ Presbyterian Church's proposal meets
Page 20
MinutesEdha City Council/Tune 1,1998
Edina regulations with only a minor height variance. While Member Maetzold appreciates
Member Kelly’s concern, he did not share them. In his opinion, the proposed expansion is a plus
for the neighborhood and for the Church.
Member Faust stated this is a very difficult decision. She also stated that Mayor Smith always
does what he believes is genuinely good for the City. As you saw earlier we do not always agree
but she believes he always does what is genuinely best for Edina. Member Faust’s main concern,
and it has been her concern all along, is that the character of the neighborhood will change. She
thinks it is fine that the Church expands. She.has never been opposed to their expansion; her
concern has been that the expansion is too large for the site. When Member Faust refers to the
character of the neighborhood, she is looking at what is proposed on the plan, moving the street,
subdividing new lots. She noted that three of the four proposed new lots will require variances.
When platting new lots, the new lots should not require variances. Variances should only be
allowed for extreme hardships. Member Faust said she believes it is important to review the
proposed new lots as part of the whole plan. However, the proposed new lots will require very
substantial variances, that in her opinion, should not be allowed. The only hardship here is that
the Church wants to squeeze too much on too little land. A hardship cannot be perpetuated by
the proponent. In this case the Church has tried to put two lots, where there is really only room
for one, or one and one half. She could support the first phase of the expansion, then reevaluate
later and see if perhaps ramp parking was feasible in the future. She concluded she was sorry the
issue came to this and noted her intention to vote no because Member Faust believes the
expansion should be smaller, but she was not as Mr. Jarvis said unwilling to compromise.
Member Hovland explained that the City’s land use plan specifically contemplates the existence
of church and schools in an R-1 Zone. In other words churches are a specific legally permitted
use in the R-1 zone. When they want to expand they have to have a conditional use permit. The
City of Edina has established standards when a conditional use permit will be issued and if an
applicant fully complies with those standards, denial of that permit would be arbitrary as a
matter of law. The law is clear that a municipality must base denial of a conditional use permit
on something more concrete than neighborhood opposition. That may not be something you
want to hear, but it is something that is in the law. A denial or an approval must be based upon
facts, not emotion or we will run afoul of the law in Minnesota. While a conditional use permit
may be denied for reasons relating to public health, safety and welfare, when a city designates a
certain use as being permissible in a certain area, such as churches in an R-1 zone, there is a
presumption that such permitted use is consistent with the public health, sdety and welfare.
When Member Hovland first heard about this proposed expansion, and he mentioned this at the
last meeting, his main worries were whether there were facts that showed either of two things.
Number one was a potential diminution of land values for people in the Woodhill neighborhood.
Member Hovland asked the City Assessor to look at that issue with respect to other
neighborhoods near other churches that had expanded. The City Assessor could find no evidence
of diminution of property values caused by the expansion of a church in an R-1 zone. The next
thing Member Hovland was concerned about the potential increased traffic volumes of such a
degree in the Woodhill neighborhood caused by the Church that public health, safety and
welfare would be affected. Many neighbors have expressed concerns over both these issues, and
we are required by law to base our decisions on facts and not concerns regardless of our personal
feelings. On the traffic issue, we only have the facts supplied by the Benshoof study. Those folks
are traffic analysts, experts in their field, and have often been used by the City of Edina in
evaluating traffic concerns. When we look at the traffic study submitted by Benshoof, it is clear
that there is no adverse traffic impact that will experienced in the neighborhood streets and the
Page 21
MinutesEdina City CouncWune 1,1998
neighborhood will gain and benefit from the existing conditions through the prohibition of on
street parking on the neighborhood streets by church users. Under the plan Member Hovland felt
there will be better traffic control, there will be no on street parking on 70th as proposed, the
traffic will be primarily confined to the site, although for the first time tonight we have heard
something about parking on 69th to accommodate the new lots. He does not believe moving the
road will affect public safety. Traffic will have the old road to use while tilie new road is being
constructed and it should not affect the safety of the neighborhood. There is an issue that
concerned Member Hovland with respect to the Tuesday Bible Study and he encouraged the
Church to try some resolution to disperse that traffic other than into the Woodhill neighborhood.
In an age of increasing car ownership per family and a greater number of trips per day, he stated
he thought the answer that we have seen with respect to safety is sidewalks. The streets belong to
all of us and we are free to travel as we please. We can try to offer some protection to different
neighborhoods, but the fact is that we live in a very urban environment where traffic is
increasing everywhere. Despite projected church growth of traffic volumes on most streets in the
Woodhill area, volumes will remain below averages as compared to other areas of the City. Just
two weeks ago we heard information from our Traffic Department with regarding traffic
volumes on West Shore Drive. We have had people here tonight from West Shore Drive
expressing concerns over traffic volumes. What the study from the City showed was that the
traffic on West Shore Drive was created primarily by neighbors-- not by cut-through traffic, but
by neighbors. So if you see increase in the traffic in your neighborhood some of it may be
attributable to the Church, but most of it is attributable to the neighborhood itself owning more
cars and making more trips.
Member Hovland stated another issue he was concerned about was whether the general welfare
would be enhanced by the Church expansion. Churches in generd are vital to the growth and
vibrancy of a community. They serve the community in countless way; they help make this a
better place to live. We are charged with not only the responsibility of addressing concerns in
your neighborhood and looking at them from a factual standpoint, but also addressing the
concerns of the City of Edina and having a vibrant church like CPC actively conducting its affairs
at the corner of 70th and Highway 100, which is a perfect place for a church like this. Based on the
law, Member.Hovland felt he could reach no other conclusion than to be in favor of the plan.
Member Hovland thought the changes as proposed by the compromise sessions are all positive.
He was proud of the Mayor for taking a role in trying to satisfy himself of some of the concerns
that he had. Member Hovland did not view him as a facilitator or mediator contrary to what the
one gentIeman said. Member Hovland thought Mayor Smith expressed that he had some
concerns and would have probably voted in favor of the plan as it came before us a month ago.
And having those few concerns he basically wanted to polish it up to a better degree. So based
upon everything that Member Hovland has heard and based upon the facts, he continues in his
support of this Church expansion project.
Mayor Smith said in response to Member Kelly that the ten feet was not just thrown out. The ten
feet was the result of looking at the Kovack property and saying with the neighbor gone, the
Kovack's no longer have a sideyard setback that the Mayor enjoys at his house. Putting this on
the table, ten feet was used, but it was not the Mayor's conscious effort to go beat the Church up
and say you have to go reduce things by ten feet. His attempt to seek a reduction was the result
of a conversation between Member Kelly and the Mayor. The Mayor attempted to pursue
Member Kelly's idea to see if the Church could move that second floor of the sanctuary in and
expand into the existing sanctuary. That was a massing type of issue tillat would not cut the
seating size of the sanctuary. The Mayor said the idea had merit but the Church was not willing
Page 22
MinutesEdina City CouncWune 1,1998
to alter the sanctuary expansion plans. Mayor Smith noted his appreciation of the audience and
his fellow Council members relative to his involvement in the meetings since the last Council
meeting and stated he would probably follow the same strategy again if needed. Mayor Smith
also stated he was not going to sit in public and become a designer of buildings. Designs have to
be left to the private sector, whether it is the Church, or your house, or whatever a proponent is
attempting to do.
Mayor Smith stated he wanted it to be remembered that the Planning Commission reviewed this
matter. The Planning Commission makes recommendations to this Council and in this case the
Planning Commission recommended the plan that was seen in the first part of May. Again, the
Mayor stated he felt CPC missed some things ahd he saw potential improvements after listening
to the presentations and testimony at the May Council meeting. If other compromises would
have fallen in place as a result of those efforts, he certainly would have been in favor of that.
Mayor Smith added he felt the necessary checks and balances have been addressed. We have
ordinances in place and we have conditions in place that our Planning staff has put out relative
to landscaping. Mayor Smith asked staff to confirm that there was a one year bond required on
landscaping. Planner Larsen stated that on an irrigated site the landscaping bond is for one full
growing season. Continuing, Mayor Smith stated the developer, in this case the Church, is
required to put up a bond which will be monitored over the next year.
Mayor Smith stated that Member Kelly raised the point of the Church selling the new lots before
the ground breaking. The Mayor asked Mr. Jarvis to comment on this point. Mr. Jarvis stated that
this issue had been previously discussed and CPC would request that the Council not make
selling the lots before ground breaking a condition of approval. The phasing of this project, if it is
approved, starts at the north end with the new street. Once the street is completed, the site work
proceeds from south to north as the sanctuary is being built on the south end. In the fall, which is
the earliest CPC can plant the large plant materials (the 12-14 foot trees) all of the landscaping
will start, probably the end of September or beginning of October, because the perimeter site
work will have done by then. Mr. Jarvis does not want to sell the lots north of 69th until the site
work is done because at least then a buyer knows exactly what they are going to receive. Mr.
Jarvis stated he did not understand attempting to sell a lot in the middle of an open field with no
street or landscaping in place for the sake of delaying the construction for six months unless the
majority of the City Council makes it a condition of the approval.
Mayor Smith asked Mr. Jarvis to speak to the proposal delaying the approval of the educational
wing for five to six years. Mr. Jarvis answered, that CPC's desire from the beginning has been to
put together a master plan for the ultimate development of the property instead of coming before
the City every five or six years. Mr. Jarvis stated he would never say forever, anymore than a city
would say forever about a city hall or fire station. CPC has purposely divided the proposed
expansion into two phases so they could disclose to the City, the neighborhood, and the public
what the Church has contemplated for the future. The Church did a master plan depicting this
vision. Very clearly the Church would like the ability to put to rest all of the future questions
regarding what CPC intends to do with its property. Mr. Jarvis does not believe splitting the
approvals is a good strategy for the Church, City or the neighborhood unless a majority of the
Council makes the split a condition of approval.
Steve Brown asked to respond to Mr. Jarvis's statement. Mr. Brown stated he thought from the
standpoint of the compromise plan he proposed, that everything MY. Jarvis wants can still be
accomplished. The plan may be taken and cut into two pieces and placed on a shelf and the
Page 23
Minutes/Edina City CouncWune 1,1998
interested parties can take some real leadership in assessing the risk issues raised by the
neighborhood. Mr. Brown said he was not standing before the Council requesting that the plan
be changed; what he is saying is that there is mi ability to have both and he does not think any
one of the people voting on this plan tonight can (answer the question of the risk of safety that this
project and its surrounding area is going to generate. Mr. Brown said he realized that there is
only one plan from h!lr. Benshoof; however, it is not a complete plan and the neighborhood does
not have the money to do their own study. Mr. Brown appealed to the Council to consider the
fact the expansion may be done in phases. He told the CounciI they would be making a huge
mistake to think they can predict future traffic impacts based on the limited study done so far.
Mr. Brown said the review has been incomplete and to reach a decision at this time is poor
decision making and poor policy-making. He urged the Council to follow his proposed split
approvals, demonstrating responsible leadership for both the Church and the community.
Mayor Smith asked for assistance from the planner aslcing what conditions were recommended
to the Council from the Planning Commission. Planner Larsen noted the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission:
the vacation of 69fl' Street;
dedication of the new 69th Street right-of-way, wlucli would be accomplished with the new
plat;
developers agreement church to cover the cost of construction of the new street;
permits from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed and the DNR;
modification to the 70th Street curb cut;
subdivision and replatting of the lots on 69fl' Street;
agreement signed between the City and Church ensuring that the lots would be sold with
deed restrictions restricting their use from Church or other tax exempt use, and this would be
accomplished either by the Church or the City's HRA.
Planner Larsen noted some of the conditions have been met since the Planning Commission
meeting with the submittaI of revised site plan #6.
Mayor Smith asked why would you wait five to seven years to require the sale of the lots.
Planner Larsen replied that initially that was the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
but he believed that the time frame could be shortened. Attorney Gilligan stated this had been
previously discussed and agreed to by the Church. The lots with the deed restrictions would be
sold within two years or the commencement of the phase two construction. If after two year the
lots had not been sold, then they would be forfeited to the City HRA who would then sell them
with the deed restrictions in place.
Member Maetzold asked about the height variance and whether it should be stated as a
condition. Planner Larsen explained that by ordinance the height variance is incorporated into
the conditional use permit request so if the Council acts on the plan in a positive manner that
variance would be part of the approval.
Mayor Smith asked the City Engineer to clarify the drainage issue Member Kelly questioned
earlier. Engineer Hoffman said Member Kelly wants all of the CPC water piped off the site to the
pond on the west side of Highway 100. Ebgineer Hoffman stated the Church's current plan is to
pipe the "water quality" portion of the site drainage to the pond and proposing to use the bottom
25-20 spaces in their parking lot as a temporary holding area from high rainfall events. Engineer
Hoffman suggested that Member Kelly's intention is that all CPCs water be moved off the
parking lot to someplace on the site or across the highway. Engineer Hoffman said it is up to the
Page 24
MinutesBdina City CouncWune 1,1998
proponent to suggest locations other than the parking lot and the Engineering Department will
react to the proposals. Mayor Smith asked what kind of event would be necessary to use the 15
spaces in the lot. Engineer Hoffman said water quality is accomplished to hpdle up to a 2 ?h inch
rainfall theoretically going to the pond. Reality depends upon the rate of the rainfall. E 3 95 inches
rain falls in an hour then CPC will have water standing in its parking lot. Mr. Jarvis asked to be
allowed to clardy the use of the parking lot for drainage. He said the lot is intended for rate
control, not storage. The design standard required by the Watershed District and the City is for
an one hundred year event. In such an event, the parking lot would be used for rate control of
discharge into the pond. The design criteria is 5.9 inches of rain in a twenty-four hour period of
time. Based upon hydrological extrapolation if that event would occur, during the eleventh hour
of the twenty-four hour storm there will be water that will begin to accumulate, covering within
another two to three hours approximately 14 parking spaces from a zero depth to 18 inches
depth. The rain will subside in the fifteenth to sixteenth hour and will be gone in an hour and
fifteen minutes. During a short cloud burst of 3-4 inches of rain in a couple of hours, the water
will be approximately sixth inches deep at its deepest point at the catch basin.
I
Member Kelly commented he has already seen in the last couple of years a couple of one
hundred year rain events. In the last couple of weeks we have had a couple of storms. The point
of the matter is that the water should be off-site or some place on-site that does not compromise
the parking. Mr. Jarvis said that siting a rate control location elsewhere on CPC’s property will
entail removal of frees, something the Church does not wish to do. Member Kelly informed Mr.
Jarvis that CPC should reduce the size of the expansion to which Mr. Jarvis voiced disagreement.
Mayor Smith asked Mr. Jarvis if the Church intended to pipe the water under 70th Street with an
additional pipe. Mr. Jarvis said the Church had not intended to replace the existing pipe or install
any additional pipe. Engineer Hoffman said that Member Kelly is asking that the rate control
portion of the drainage be handled on a grassy area off the parking lot.
I
Mayor Smith reviewed the necessary motion incorporating the previously stated conditions
except for the modification to the curb cuts and the replatting of the lots, plus 1) no further
development on the property beyond this approval; 2) no construction staging on the public
roads or rights-of-way; and 3) CPC bearing the cost of stubbing in all utilities to all new lots from
the point of stub in to their building site. Mr. Jarvis agreed that all the service connections will be
put in by the developer from the property line to the foundation of each lot.
Mayor Smith asked Mr. Jarvis if CPC would agree to no further development on the site. Mr.
Jarvis answered he could not and would not make that representation. Mayor Smith said he
understood Mr. Jarvis’ position, but noted it may be a condition of the approval.
Mayor Smith said the berm on 70th Street has been discussed, the drainage plan has been
discussed and the time limits for the sale of the lots relative to the phase two construction has
been discussed. Member Kelly stated he would not support anything but the sale of the lots
before allowing construction to begin. Mayor Smith asked if Member Kelly was satisfied with the
landscaping bond as required by Edina’s Code. Member Kelly replied he did not think one year
is a long enough time and that for this particular case a longer time period should be employed.
Mayor Smith polled the Council if they were willing to ask for no further development on the
site. Member Maetzold was not willing to ask for no future development, Member Kelly was
willing to ask for no further development; Member Hovland did not think the condition could be
Page 25
I
MinutesEdha City CouncWune 1,1998
imposed because it would not be legally enforceable. In effect, the City would be denying a
potential land use request without due process and this could not be done. Attorney Gilligan
agreed that attempting to restrict future use would be deemed spot zoning and not be
enforceable. Member Faust stated it was moot because she intends to vote no.
Mayor Smith polled the Council relative to the landscaping escrow or additional bond
requirement over the existing ordinance. Member Maetzold indicated he would not favor any
condition more restrictive than current ordinance requires. Member Hovland noted his concern
over maintenance on the property, but he indicated he did not think he could support conditions
above those required under current ordinance.
I
Consensus of Council was positive to no construction staoging on public roads or rights-of-way.
Mayor Smith also polled the Council regarding the drainage concern stated by Member Kelly.
Members Maetzold and Hovland did not want to require any different drainage that what is
proposed. Member Faust stated it was moot because she intends to vote no. Mayor Smith stated
he supports no construction on streets or rights-of-way, and that CPC‘s plan is to stand the utility
costs.
Member Kelly asked that the Mayor poll die Cocuicil regarding Mr. Brown’s proposal. Mayor
Smith polled the Council. Member Kelly stated lie thinks it sounds like a terrific proposal. The
City might as well see what traffic and safety impact the expansion is going to have rather than
guess. Member Maetzold would not support Mr. Brown’s proposal. Member Hovland stated he
did not think the traffic impact is a guess; the City relies on the traffic analysts all the time. He
would not be in favor of Mr. Brown’s proposal. It is die Church’s proposal that is a land use
specifically permitted and contemplated in an R-1 zone. They have an opportunity to come
forward with the kind of proposal that they want to make; they have gone through six different
iterations of the plan. Member Hovland added that some of the other churches are single-story
facilities that have a spreading effect on their properties. While this church may have a lot of
square footage, Member Hovland believes there is as much below ground as at grade plus
additional footage on the second story. He hoped this helped Member Kelly. Member Faust
would vote yes on Mr. Brown’s plan. Mayor Smith indicated he would not support Mr. Brown’s
plan.
Member Hovland stated he did not see on die previously listed conditions the timing of the
execution of the Developers Agreement which may also provide some comfort to the neighbors
and also may move a little towards Member Kelly‘s idea of selling the new lots before beginning
construction. He was assuming that the Developers Agreement would be executed soon.
Attorney Gilligan said it is the intent to execute the Developers Agreement right away before any
construction on the site begins. Member Hovland asked if requiring the execution of the
Developers Agreement before allowing any construction could be made a condition of the
approval. Attorney GiUigan said it could be a condition.
Member Maekold introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH I WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Code Section 850 (the Zoning Ordinance)
have been met; and
Page 26
MinutesBdina City CouncWune 1,1998
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Findings as required by Code Section No.
850.04 Subd. 4 have been satisfied
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Conditional
Use Permit Request of Christ Presbyterian Church allowing the expansion as proposed by
Site Plan #6 presented at the regular meeting of the City Council June 1, 1998 is hereby
approved with the following conditions:
I
1. Vacation of a portion of West 6gth Street right-of-way and rededication of new right-
of-way for West 6gth Street as illustrated on revised site plan #6;
2. Developer’s Agreement to cover cost and provide security for construction of the
new street and sidewalk and the parking, curb and gutter as presented in site plan
#6;
3. All necessary permits from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Minnesota
Department of Transportation,
4. Curb cuts as shown on site plan #6 north and south sides of property;
5. Subdivision and replatting of lots will be handled at a subsequent Council meeting,
6. New lots must be sold within two years; or before the beginning of Phase 2
construction, whichever is earlier;
7. There will no construction staging on public roads or right-of-ways;
8. The expense for installation of utility hook ups will be born by Christ Presbyterian
Church;
9. Berm shall be constructed as depicted on the revised site plan #6; and
10. No on-street parking allowed for the first two lots east of the Church curb cut on
West 70* Street;
Member Hovland seconded the motion.
Rollcall was taken.
Ayes: Hovland, Maetzold, Smith
Nay: Faust and Kelly
Motion carried
Mayor Smith explained that if neighbors in the area do not want parking on their streets, they
must come forward and petition the City for “No Parking” sign in their areas.
Planner Larsen briefly reviewed the proposed request for a vacation of a portion of West 6gth
Street and rededication of new right of way.
After a brief discussion Member Hovland introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION. VACATING
A PORTION OF WEST 69TH STREET BETWEEN
NORMANDALE AND BRITTANY ROADS
WHEREAS, a motion of the City Council, on the 17th day of February 1998, fixed a date
for a public hearing on a proposed street vacation; and
WHEREAS, two weeks published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the
hearing was held on the 1st day of June, 1998, at which time all persons desiring to be heard
were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the public
that said street vacation be made; and
I
Page 27
Minutes/Edina City CounciVTune 1,1998
WHEREAS, the Council considered the extent the vacation affects existing easements
within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any
person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric, telephone or cable
television poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains, and hydrants on or
under the area of the proposed vacation to continue maintaining the same, or to enter upon
such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove or
otherwise attend thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following portion of West 69& Street public right-of-
way is hereby vacated effective as of June 1 1998
That portion of 69& Street West lying east of the east right-of-way line of
Normandale Road and west of the southerly extension of the west right-of-
way line of Brittany Road.
I
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said vacation does not affect, and there are
continued, reserved, and retained, by the said resolution ordering the vacation, the following
existing easements and authority in, on and under the above vacated area:
The authority of Northern States Power Company, US West Communications,
Paragon Cable Minnesota, or Minnegasco to enter upon the above vacated
area for the maintenance, replacement, repair and removal of and for
otherwise attending to, underground conduit, manholes, cables, wires and
poles required for utility service now in, on or under the above vacated area.
BE IT FURmR RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a
notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the
County Auditor, and filed with the County Recorder, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 412.851.
Member Maetzold seconded the motion.
Rollcall was taken.
I
Ayes: Hovland, Maetzold, Smith
Nay: Faust and Kelly
Motion carried
“BID AWARDED FOR KITCHEN EQUIPMENT - EDINA ART CENTER Motion made by
member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for kitchen equipment for
the Edina Art Center, to recommenked low bidder, Palm Brothers, at $18,072.95.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
“BID AWARDED FOR ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT CARGO VAN Motion made by
Member Maekold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for one cargo van to
recommended low bidder, Superioi Ford through Hennepin County Contract #&04A7, at
$19,046.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
“BID AWARDED FOR WEST 66m STREET IRRIGATION SYSTEM Motion made by
Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for 66th Street irrigation to
recommended low bidder, Miclunk Brothers, at $18,250.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
Page 28
MinutesEdina Citv Councd/lune 1,1998
“BID AWARDED FOR EDINA ART CENTER MEDIA LAB EQYIPMENT Motion made by
Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust for award of bid for Edina Art Center
media lab equipment to recommended low bidder, EPA Audio Visual at $17,574.36.
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes,
*REQUEST FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND, TASKS
UNLIMITED Motion made by Member Maetzold and seconded by Member Faust
acknowledging receipt of a request for $33,250 for C.D.B.G. funds by Tasks Unlimited to help
them acquire and improve a double bungalow on France Avenue and for presentation of the
formal request at the June 15,1998, regular Council meeting.
P
Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes.
CLAIMS PAID Member Maetzold made a motion to approve payment of the followinig
claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated May 27,1998, and consisting of 34
pages: General Fund $440,602.87; Communications $7,630.20; Working Capital $6,958.96; Art
Center $12,916.93; Golf Dome Fund $206.86; Swimming Pool Fund $8,701.98; Golf Course Fund
$78,915.78; Ice Arena Fund $3,874.03; Edinborough/ Centennial Lakes $11,415.09; Utility Fund
$369,901.58; Storm Sewer Utility Fund $1,646.37; Recycling Program $20.00; Liquor Dispensary
Fund $214,386.62; Construction Fund $505.44; Park Bond Fund $99,786.50; 1-494 Commission
$2,345.00; TOTAL $1,259,814.21. Member Faust seconded the motion.
Rollcalk
Ayes: Faust, Hovland, Kelly, Maetzold, Smith
Motion carried.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Smith declared the meeting I adjourned at 12:04 A.M.
Page 29
Minutes/Edina Citv CouncWune 1,1998
- THIS PAGE LEET BLANK INTENTIONALLY -
Page 30