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