Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-12 HRA Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY/CITY COUNCIL HELD AT EDINA CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 A joint meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City Council was convened to consider concurrently in public hearing the Overall Development Plan, Final Rezoning to MDD-6 Mixed Development District, Final Plat, Final Site Plan and the Amended Redevelopment Agreement for the Hedberg Development. Action was taken by the HRA and the Council individually as required. Answering rollcall were Commissioners/Members Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner and Courtney. MINUTES of the Joint HRA/Council Meeting of March 7, 1988 and HRA Minutes of August 1, 1988 were approved as submitted by motion of Commissioner/Member Turner, seconded by Commissioner/Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING ON HEDBERG DEVELOPMENT CONDUCTED; OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED: FINAL REZONING TO MDD-6 MIXED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT GRANTED: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL GRANTED: FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVED: AND AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. The staff report on the Hedberg project as presented to the Community Development and Planning Commission noted the following since the Council granted preliminary rezoning and preliminary plat approval on October 12, 1987. First, the Council has approved the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the development. Second, the HRA and the East Edina Housing Foundation have approved and executed a redevelopment contract with the developers. Third, the Zoning Ordinance has been amended to allow retail as a permitted principle use in the MDD-6 District. For a project of this magnitude, state law requires the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to issue an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) to insure the development does not violate air and noise pollution standards. Changes made in the development plan are loss of the proposed health club, minor changes to the park (i.e. relocation of the park building) , reduction in square footage in retail and office space and in the number of housing units. Phase I of the project includes 276 housing units, 201,000 square feet of retail space, 106,900 square feet of office and 39,050 square feet of theatre (8 screens and 2,644 seats) . Manager Rosland introduced Boyd Stofer, President of United Properties, and developer of the project. Mr. Stofer said he was pleased chat after all the time and effort that has been put into the project that there is now something to show for it. The master plan has evolved, with modifications, improved and somewhat changed from the original concept. The two constants that have remained are the major housing component, which was one of the public goals, and the public park amenity comprising about 25 acres of the site or one-fourth of the land area. He complimented the City staff, who have been involved with the project, for their efforts in helping forge an important and successful public/private partnership on the project. Mr. Stoffer commented that the co-developers would speak on the retail and theatre, medical/office, and housing components of the project. He noted that it was important to get some tax increment going to pay back the bonds on the Phase I development which totals over $90 Million dollars. United Properties has engaged the firm of Smallwood Reynolds of Atlanta, GA to work on the design of the south end of the site which anchors the project and drives the financial aspect of the project. Although the precise time of the office component is unknown, several key tenants are being pursued. Market research has been done regarding naming the project, with input from the City and co-developers. The name selected is "Centennial Lakes" . The name reflects the importance of the City's involvement and the fact that this is the 100th anniversary of the City of Edina. The lakes feature is to emphasize the three major lakes aspect of the public park and it is felt that the name will work well throughout the project. Peter Jarvis, BRW, highlighted the refinements to the H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 2 master plan. The basic structure remains the same from the housing on the east half, the north/south park development linking to the non-residential development on the west side parallel to France Avenue. The refinements that have occurred within the last six months include the final definition of Phase I medical office building at 106,900 square feet with a parking ramp which will appear at grade from France Avenue; the eight screen theatre complex; the retail and park headquarters element (between 76th Street and Parklawn) in the range of 200,000 square feet with structured parking again appearing as surface parking from France Avenue and with a direct visual connection through to the central headquarters park facility. The retail cluster of four buildings have one modification with the elimination of the athletic space which was proposed earlier. The south refinement, partly market and partly architecture, has to do with the office element. Earlier there were three buildings and a high-rise residential and more of a density statement like Parcel C on Parcel E. Mr. Jarvis pointed out that one of the suggestions made by the Council was the desire for a greater housing mix. On Parcel E a higher density housing statement has been incorporated, to be determined in the future whether it is ownership or rental. On Parcel E the range is proposed at 400-410 dwelling units with overall density of about 62 units/acre. The overall number of housing units has come down by approximately 150. One of the reasons is the concern that the office buildings, in the earlier version of the master plan subsequent to further market analysis, was too large. The conclusion was to build four buildings instead of three in four incremental office phases with slightly smaller floor plates still totaling the same number of square feet and to attempt to cluster them in a closer configuration interconnected with a large parking facility. Service for the office buildings is completely below grade as is service for all retail, including recycling and trash removal areas. Parcel G in Bloomington remains the same and is contemplated as a hotel. Phase I includes all of the retail and parking, the theatre, the medical office building and the housing on Parcel C. Grading will not only include those sites but will include the creation of a pond, with rough grading of the park area on the north end. Essentially no grading will be done south of 76th Street except to clean up the face area from the sand and gravel operation and the debris that has been scattered around the site. On the environmental side, Mr. Jarvis explained that the final EIS has been completed and the draft ISP has been submitted to the PCA and it appears that the target date of September 18 will be met. Remaining is the watershed district approval, the final grading plan and several semi-esoteric permits at the state level that must be acquired. The developers are awaiting a grading start in mid-October; subject to the developers' agreement being signed, the bond issue occurring, with the physical development of medical office building and retail complex taking place as soon as the pad area is brought to rough grade. Building construction will begin when all the site grading is done, probably shortly after January 1. The major street and utility construction work that is all part of Phase I will take place starting in the spring of 1989. The central park construction, with roughly $3.8 million allocated to park in Phase I, will include completion of the west side and the pond, and will be completed on the east side to match logical construction staging. Warren Beck, Gabbert and Beck and co-developer stated that the retail component is essentially the same as at preliminary approval. Upscale stores are proposed providing consumer hard and soft goods with a high level of efficiency. Concentration is on acquiring 4 to 5 stores with needs of approximately 25,000 square feet on the ground level with a possible second tier which would have 12,000 square foot sizes available. Negotiations with retailers are in various stages and the reception continues to be very good. Also being investigated are opportunities for 15-20 small stores. Target for occupancy is the fall of 1989. Larry Laukka, L. A. Laukka Development Company and co-developer, spoke to the housing component. He explained that the process was begun by inviting four firms to compete on the project. They were given ideas and parameters and following the competition, the same architect was selected that did the Edinborough project, Architectural Forum Inc. The site plan is essentially the same with six buildings of 40-46 units each. Flexibility was H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 3 one of the criteria that the architects were asked to deal with which will allow the marketing of modest priced housing in this area that is less than $100,000. There is also the flexibility of offering moderate priced housing which would be something in excess of $100,000 - $140,000. This will depend on how the market perceives involvement and acceptability. If the units are moderate price range instead of modest priced, a few things must be done differently. One would be to offer an elevator opportunity in the building. Another criteria was the ability to move the walls and to exchange units, i.e. to expand - put two units where three would normally go. Mr. Laukka said that this was in response to the suggestions and concerns of the Council as to the type of housing they felt should be developed in this area. He explained that they know enough about the marketplace to conclude final plans now for a 46 unit building, with sizes that range from 784 to 1233 square feet, predominantly two bedroom homes, but some will be one bedroom. The anticipated sale price would be $65,000 up to $105,000. For a focus point, he said that Edinborough ended from $63,000 to $91,000. Effort has been made to work with the site which provides different opportunities and problems. The opportunities are obvious - to build - to develop - to provide housing against the major amenities of the site and the commercial sector of this mixed use development. Mr. Laukka exhibited graphics showing elevations and exterior materials which will include more brick. Architecturally, he said these buildings will fit very well and will appear rich and established. The landscape budget has been boosted to make the plan work together. Primary market will be the modest budget, single households, couples and retirees and is targeted for the first-time home buyer, younger market and empty-nesters. Mr. Laukka said that the second mortgage program will also be modified and that they are working with City staff on the criteria. Parking, underground and above grade, is about the same. Mr. Jarvis commented on the medical office building element of the development. The firm of BRW is the architect on the medical office building and the retail component. Drawings presented were 75% through construction drawings and current pricing is being done by the general contractor, Kraus Anderson. Construction material is a combination of a granite-like product. The building would be a six-story building and on the water side, a five story building. The theatre is a standard General Cinema building and is considered to be their highest grade prototype. Architects for General Cinema are on the West coast but BRW will be handling all landscaping, all final site planning and site engineering. Following the presentation by the developers, Manager Rosland advised that the Community Development and Planning Commission reviewed the project at its meeting of August 24, 1988 and recommended final approval. The developers are now requesting approval of the overall development plan, final plat and final site plan for Phase I. He referred to his memorandum of September 12, 1988 to the Council regarding the other documents that the HRA/Council will be asked to authorize relative to the project. The major points covered in the memorandum were: 1) Phase I Land Ownership, 2) Phase I Development, 3) Phase I - Public Costs, 4) HRA and City Contribution From Developer, 5) Park Development Priority, 6) Housing Program, 7) Tax Increment Analysis, 8) Analysis of Risks, 9) Post Phase I, and 10) HRA and Council Actions. In conclusion, he said that staff believes that the project is one the City can be proud of; that they have put together a strong and positive public/private partner relationship; and that they have covered all of the real shortfalls and have protected the City in every degree possible. The hearing was then opened to questions from the HRA/Council. Member Turner - 1) Asked if there are any conditions attached to the ISP that were out of the ordinary. Mr. Jarvis said that nothing that had not been forecast has surfaced. There are a couple of restrictions. For example, calling for a traffic study prior to the last 175,000 square feet of office space being constructed that conceptually can be modeled with the same relative impact of the Bloomington agreement. There is not a requirement that by ordinance the City must adopt some kind of Traffic Demand Management (TDM) that affects this project or every other project. It was concluded that that would be one of several options for H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 4 mitigation to the extent that was necessary. 2) Asked if there has been further discussion of the transit way. Manager Rosland said that the transit way has been discussed with Gabbert and Beck and with the management team of Southdale regarding the transit way moving up through and around their facilities and staff is working towards accomplishing that. Everyone along the transit way is in favor of it. The City attorneys have been asked to look at how that might be accomplished by creation of an economic development district. 3) Regarding the housing element, Member Turner asked if in the development agreement we have the same kind of income parameters that we had at Edinborough. Mr. Laukka said that the primary range is still modest housing and that in the past two to three years that modest income level has been at $38,000. They look to sell 80% at that level. It has now gone to $40,100. The proposed housing units are still positioned to sell within that price range. The primary effort initially will be to work within that modest income range and attempt to find housing for that market. He said there is the flexibility to go up, which means larger units, no second mortgages, elevators, etc. It is sensed that there is an interest in this community for that. 4) Inquired where or not there could only be 20-30% of the units in this development receiving a second mortgage or be targeted at below the $40,000 income limit. Mr. Laukka said no, unless in a subsequent phase there would be a change in the rules. He added that another market has surfaced, the over 60-year-olds that have moved into that part of Edina. Some of them are coming from modest housing within the City or from close by and are interested in remaining in this general location. They have the equity because of selling their homes. They are vacating that home which makes it available to another modest buyer. If there is a demand from that category, he said they want to entertain them but would come to market now with what has been suggested. Member Richards - Asked for a review of the parking, particularly on the west side and whether or not there would be any restrictions. Mr. Jarvis responded that all of the sites as they are developed will have blanket parking agreements in perpetuity to allow public parking. He said that parking will be first come, first served, public parking. Member Smith - 1) Asked if the developers are working on final plans for recycling in both the commercial and residential areas. Mr. Jarvis commented that is correct. Mr. Laukka stated that for the residential areas it is no particular problem except trying to figure out exactly how to separate it and what to do with it. 2) Member Smith said his understanding regarding the park amenity is that the Park Department will be developing plans for it and that there will be a trust fund for maintenance so that this will not become a burden for the taxpayers. Manager Rosland responded that there are two areas for maintaining the park, one is the trust fund and the second is the retail, office and residential who will all pay a maintenance fee each year. 3) Regarding parking problems, Member Smith asked that the developers do everything possible to alleviate the need for more than an inordinate amount of police patrolling, i.e, pathway lighting, parking ramp and parking lot lighting. Member Kelly - Written comments concerning the proposed Hedberg project were read by Member Kelly, summarized as follows: She has lived with conservative financial guidelines and uses the same philosophy when approaching the Edina City Budget and future forecasting and felt she represented a large majority of Edina citizens. Edina, in its mission statement professes to be a locally funded community and yet in recent years the management has become involved in three tax increment projects using outside funds and tools. Now, we are in the final state of proposing a fourth district. Tax increment was established historically to help depressed areas redevelop for economic and human needs. It was meant to be used where there was no other way that the property would develop privately and it is not without a price and without risk. Cities have abused this technique and the legislature has been attacking the principal. Except for the pre- '79 districts, none will be exempted from fiscal disparities and will share the revenue on commercial and industrial growth on a 40-60 basis. School referendum money and county roads are to be paid before the bond money is paid and there is movement to do away with the homestead credit. Where there is no other way to encourage development, these exceptions don't seem so bad, but on H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 5 100 acres of the most valuable vacant land in the state she did not feel it is necessary. Under private development we could be assured of a far greater tax base to support our aging infra-structure in future years. The housing component is directed to the first time home buyers in the 25-35 age group which is decreasing rapidly. The fear is that there will be a smaller market for this type of housing with a much smaller potential for resale. As to the market for empty nesters, how many are willing to buy a 1300 square foot unit for $111,000 in a project that does not have the unique concept of a beautiful enclosed park as does Edinborough? If assumptions are wrong, the site for the housing for this project is in the existing tax increment district for Edinborough and could well accommodate additional buildings. Concern was expressed for the potential for far greater automobile use. Regarding the park, concern was stated as to who would really use it considering the demographics of Edina and who would pay to maintain it. The price the City is being asked to pay is far too great for the needs afforded to be met. It will burden future generations and cause present residents' taxes to go for services to the district when they should be used to improve and maintain the quality of life that they have been used to in Edina. Member Kelly concluded her statement by saying that she could not support this proposal and that if it were put to a community vote it would fail overwhelmingly. While the project is very attractive, and the development team is an excellent team, she encouraged the developers to pursue their plan using private funding. Member Turner then asked Mr. Jarvis to reiterate some of the TDM measures that are a part of the mixed use development. Mr. Jarvis explained that as a result of the mixed use development, there will be an overall trip reduction of 15% simply because of the mix of retail, office, recreation and residential all on the same 100 acres. It is projects with this type of density and Edinborough, not to mention Southdale itself and or the medical area to the north, that allow the kind of transit concept that Edina started planning for in southeast Edina when the Yorktown project was approved in 1971-72. When Yorktown was approved there was a right of way reserved for a linear park and future implementation if the City so chose for the transit way that was very specifically identified. Mr. Jarvis said that what has happened in this project, as well as what has already been designed and built at Edinborough, was the east-west park linkage that allows for a transit way over to Edinborough Park. Essentially, it is an off-road transit system that can tie all the projects, both residential and non-residential from Southdale south to Edinborough Park. In terms of TDM on the site itself, special areas will be designed in all of the parking lots for high occupancy vehicles. The developers are still determining with MTC, and in part with Hennepin County and the City, the most appropriate way to handle normal MTC buses so that bus stops and shelters can be accommodated in the most appropriate fashion for the whole site, which will be separate from the off-road transit system. Beyond that, he stated that a series of incremental management things will be done in the office and retail area to encourage car pooling and high occupancy vehicles, van pooling and transit that has to do with preferential parking areas, with marketing programs and coordination on-site and hopefully it is not going to be an isolated park in relation to the whole I-494 corridor. Mr. Jarvis clarified that at Edinborough, given a job-based interview as people bought units, that over 8% were immediately in the southwest sector. The significance of that in the larger planning context is that they don't hit the freeway system or I35W or I-494 because they are working within one to one and a half miles of the site. Mayor Courtney then called for public comment. Walter Sandison, 4612 W. 58th Street, stated he was not in support of using tax increment financing for the project. Rolf Engstrom, 7615 Edinborough Way, stated these concerns: 1) that the master plan now shows 10-13 story buildings on Parcel E; 2) that the original plan of a 3-story building was more appropriate and acted as more of a buffer between the Edinborough project and the offices on the west side of the project; and 3) that the present traffic especially during the rush hours is already congested and will be more congested by the proposed development. Regarding the high-rise building H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 6 proposed for Parcel E, Member Turner asked if the action to be taken would approve anything specific for Parcel E. Manager Rosland said no, both Parcels A and E are conceptual housing; there is no specific proposal and both are in future phases of the project. Mr. Jarvis commented that the original master plan was at about .99 FAR; as a ratio Edinborough was at 1.0 FAR, meaning one square foot of development for one square foot of real estate across the entire site. The proposed project is now at about .77 FAR. The overall residential component has been reduced from approximately 1500 to 1100-1120 units. In the office component, it has dropped from 1,500,000 sq. ft. to 1,250,000 sq. ft. , including the medical office building. All of the environmental studies and the ISP are predicated on the original master plan, very purposefully, because that is 20% higher. Member Turner stated that one of Mr. Engstrom's concerns was the traffic congestion now and that it can only get worse. She asked when the proposed France Avenue widening will be done. Engineer Fran Hoffman said in 1990. Further, he said when an area is developed you have urbanization and that the congestion on France Avenue is mainly because of back-up from traffic lights. Hennepin County and MNDOT are saying with the improvements to France Avenue it will handle up to 30,000 plus Y g P cars per day; we are now at the low 20,000's. He pointed out that now West 76th Street is the only east-west street going through. The prop osed project will enable traffic to use Minnesota Drive and Parklawn in addition to connect from France Avenue to York Avenue. Dean Foley, resident of Edinborough, said he was concerned about Minnesota Drive bringing commercial traffic through the residential area to the East. Engineer Hoffman responded that West 76th Street is the one that goes into Richfield and that Richfield is looking towards upgrading this street. The functions of West 76th will continue; no dramatic change is expected. He added that in looking at the I-494 Corridor Plan, if the freeway is broken down in total, vehicles would probably use the parallel arterials in the cities of Edina, Bloomington and Richfield. That is why the City is working very hard to get the freeway upgraded so that we don't have extraneous traffic using City arterial streets anymore than necessary. Member Kelly asked what percentage of occupancy of the Edinborough homes are Edina residents. Mr. Laukka said that approximately 50% have an Edina domicile basis. There being no further comment, Commissioner/Member Richards moved that the public hearing be closed. Motion was seconded by Member Turner. All voted aye. Member Richards commented that many of the questions concerning the project have been answered somewhat. He said he was more excited about Centennial Lakes than he was with Edinborough. At the start we did not know much about Edinborough but we now know a lot from Edinborough that will carry over to this project. First, Edinborough was designed to serve Edina residents - that has worked and will continue to work in Centennial Lakes. He said he did not share Member Kelly's view about taking outside funds, that we are doing just the opposite by using our own resources locally, keeping them locally and truly creating a public/private partnership in which we all benefit. For example, when we talk about the contribution that the developers are making, the City is getting a $5 Million contribution, albeit the last $2 Million is not guaranteed, to contribute to our parks system that we would never end up with if this property was developed in the traditional manner. For that all of the citizens benefit and not just in the local area. In looking at Edinborough Park, we can see the tremendous usage of that park by not just the daytime residents and the permanent residents of that environment that use Edinborough. What we get is the best of all worlds - a facility that is used by all the citizens but yet substantially paid for by the developers and maintained by a perpetual maintenance fund that should not cost the taxpayers of Edina one dime. As to the question on traffic, as has been pointed out, you get less traffic with a mixed use development. Member Richards stated that when we have an opportunity to take 100 prime acres in the City of Edina and have them developed in an integrated plan we get a better regulation on traffic we benefit far more by seeing this type of mixed unit development than simply by H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 7 taking a piecemeal approach. He said he did not feel we are doing anything out of the ordinary and are taking a very conservative view as all the runs and studies on revenues and expenses have indicated. No one can give any assurances that this is all going to pan out the way we think. Typically, in the City of Edina we are doing something first class, we are doing it so we are not spending the last dollar, we are not creating a burden on the citizens as far as paying for this facility and the public improvements. For those reasons, Member Richards said he would support the proposed development. Member Richards moved Second Reading and adoption of the following ordinance, and adoption of the following resolutions: ORDINANCE NO. 825-A20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825) BY ADDING TO THE MIXED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (MDD-6) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 6 or Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding the following thereto: "The extent of the Mixed Development District (Sub-District MDD-6) is enlarged by the addition of the following property: Tract A: Parcel I: The South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28 North, Range 24, except the West 50 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel II: The Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28, North, Range 24, except that part platted as Eden Place Addition; and except the West 50 feet thereof; and except that part described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; thence North along the West line thereof a distance of 43.0 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 50 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence South parallel with the West line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 10.0 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 10.0 feet; thence Northwesterly on a straight line to the actual point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel IV: The West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28 North, Range 24, except the West 50 feet thereof; and except that part described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; thence South along the West line thereof a distance of 43 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 50.0 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence North parallel with the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 10.0 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 a distance of 10.0 feet; thence Southwesterly on a straight line to the actual point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Tract B: Parcel II: That part of the North One-half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 27, Range 24, described as beginning at a point on the North line thereof 1304.875 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 8 the Northwest Quarter of said Section 5; thence West along said North line 354.75 feet; thence South, parallel to the East line of said Northwest Quarter, 475.5 feet; thence Northeasterly to a point which is 327.7 feet South along a line drawn parallel to the East line of said Northwest Quarter from the point of beginning; thence North along said last described parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. And That part of the South One-half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, described as beginning at a point on the South line thereof 1304.875 feet West along said South line from the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32; thence West along said South line 354.75 feet; thence North, parallel to the East line of said Southwest Quarter, to the North line of the South One-half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32; thence East along said North line 354.75 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a line drawn North, parallel to the East line of said Southwest Quarter, from the point of beginning; thence South along said last described parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 388764." Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR SOUTH EDINA DEVELOPMENT ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "SOUTH EDINA DEVELOPMENT ADDITION", platted by Kenneth M. Anderson, Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred W. Hedberg, deceased and unmarried, John W. Hedberg and Jean Hedberg, husband and wife, Michael T. DeCourcy, also known as Michael DeCourcy, and Merry L. DeCourcy, husband and wife, Michael T. DeCourcy as attorney in fact for Donald DeCourcy and Catherine L. DeCourcy, also known as Catherine DeCourcy, husband and wife, Elizabeth T. DeCourcy, an unremarried widow, Cecilia Talbot, a single person, and Bertram Talbot, a single person, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of September 12, 1988, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL SITE PLAN - PHASE I FOR SOUTH EDINA DEVELOPMENT ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the Final Site Plan - Phase I for South Edina Development Addition presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of September 12, 1988, be and is hereby approved. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; RATIFYING AND AFFIRMING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota (the "HRA") and the Edina City Council have previously approved a redevelopment plan, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 469.002, subdivision 16, designated as the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan"). Acting pursuant to the Plan the HRA proposed to acquire certain land in the area included in the Plan and to sell and transfer a portion of such land to the East Edina Housing Foundation (the "Foundation"), pursuant to a Land Sale Agreement by and between the HRA and the Foundation dated on or as of March 14, 1988 (the "Agreement") . Pursuant to a resolution dated March 14, 1988, the City approved the form of a consent (the "Consent") by the City attached to the Agreement. Pursuant to such authorization the Mayor and City Manager executed and delivered such Consent. It is now H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 9 proposed that the Agreement be amended and restated and an Amended and Restated Land Sale Agreement and Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Amended Agreement") be entered into between the HRA and the Foundation. The Amended Agreement provides for the execution of a consent by the City (the "Amended Consent"). A form of the Amended Consent is attached as an exhibit to the Amended Agreement. A draft of the Amended Agreement has been prepared and submitted to the City and is hereby directed to be filed with the City Clerk. 2. The execution and delivery by the Mayor and City Manager of the Consent to the Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed. 3. The form of the Amended Consent is hereby approved subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the city attorney and the City Manager, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution of the Amended Consent by the Mayor and City Manager. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute the Amended Consent upon execution of the Amended Agreement by the HRA and the Foundation. The Mayor and City Manager are also authorized and directed to execute such other instruments as may be required to give effect to the transaction herein contemplated. Motion for adoption of the ordinance and the resolutions was seconded by Member Turner. Commissioner Richards moved adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE SOUTHEAST EDINA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; RATIFYING AND AFFIRMING THE EXECUTION OF VARIOUS AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota (the "HRA"), as follows: 1. Recitals. The HRA and the Edina City Council have previously approved a redevelopment plan, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.002, subdivision 16, designated as the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") . Acting pursuant to the Plan the HRA proposed to acquire certain land in the area included in the Plan and to sell and transfer a portion of such land to the East Edina Housing Foundation (the "Foundation"), pursuant to a Land Sale Agreement by and between the HRA and the Foundation (the "Agreement") . By a resolution adopted March 14, 1988, the HRA approved the form of the Agreement and authorized any two officers of the HRA to execute and deliver the Agreement on behalf of the HRA with such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the attorney for the HRA and the Executive Director of the HRA. Pursuant to such authorization the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the HRA have executed and delivered the Agreement to the Foundation, which Agreement is dated on or as of March 14, 1988. It is now proposed that the Agreement be amended and restated and an Amended and Restated Land Sale Agreement and Contract for Private Redevelopment between the HRA and the Foundation (the "Amended Agreement") has been presented to and reviewed by the HRA. 2. Approval of Sale of Land. A public hearing on the sale of the Land to the Foundation was held by the HRA on September 12, 1988. The sale of the Land to the Foundation pursuant to the Amended Agreement is hereby approved. 3. Ratification of Execution and Delivery of Agreement. The execution and delivery of the Agreement dated on or as of March 14, 1988 by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the HRA is hereby ratified and affirmed. 4. Authorization for Execution and Delivery of Further Documents. The form of the Amended Agreement is hereby approved subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the attorney for the HRA and the Executive Director of the HRA, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution of the Amended Agreement by any two officers of the HRA. Any two officers of the HRA are directed to execute the Amended Agreement. Any two officers of the HRA are also authorized and directed to execute such other instruments as may be required to accomplish the transaction herein contemplated including but not limited to any amendments or supplements to the Amended Agreement and other agreements as may be necessary to accomplish the transactions H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 10 contemplated by the Amended Agreement. The execution of any such amendments, supplements or agreements by any two officers of the HRA shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents by the HRA in accordance with this Resolution. 4 ATTES hairman Ex cutive DirJct1pr Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Turner. Following discussion on the motions, Mayor Courtney called for rollcall vote. Ayes: Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Nays: Kelly Ordinance and resolutions adopted. Member Richards moved adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION CALLING PIIBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is found and determined that the following described easement for street purposes should be considered for vacation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 412.851 and 160.29: That part of West 76th Street lying east of France Avenue and west of the westerly intersection of Edinborough Way and West 76th Street. 2. This Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of notice included in paragraph 3 hereof for the purpose of holding a public hearing on whether such vacation shall be made in the interest of the public. 3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose of said hearing to be published once a week for two weeks, in the Edina Sun-Current, being the official newspaper of the City, the first publication at least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing and to post such notice, at least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing, in at least three (3) public and conspicuous places within the City, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. Such notice shall be -in substantially the following form: (Official Publication) CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 NOTICE OF PIIBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street on October 3, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. , for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the proposed vacation of the following street right of way: That part of West 76th Street lying east of France Avenue and west of the westerly intersection of Edinborough Way and West 76th Street. All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or not the above proposed street right of way vacation is in the public interest and should be made shall be heard at said time and place. The Council shall consider the extent to which such proposed street right of way vacation affects existing easements within the area of the proposed 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 H.R.A. Minutes September 12, 1988 Page 11 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, for the purpose of specifying, in any such vacation resolution, the extent to which any or all of any such easements, and such authority to maintain, and to enter upon the area of the proposed vacation, shall continue. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL Marcella M. Daehn, City Clerk Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Nays: Kelly Resolution adopted. Commissioner/Member Richards moved adjournment of the joint HRA/Council Meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner/Member Turner. Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. Executiv Director