Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/17/1978 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY , OCTOBER 17, 1978 I 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Wolfgang Penzel , Billy Bye, Joan Meyers, Dave Osterholt and Sidney Pauly COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Roger Ulstad; City Attorney Roger Pauly; Planner Chris Enger; Engineering ' Technician hearty Hanson, Finance Director John Frane, and Joyce Provo, Recording Secretary INVOCATION: Councilwoman Joan Meyers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Meyers, Osterholt, Penzel and Pauly present; Bye absent. I. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 23 - OCTOBER 28, 1978 AS LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS WEEK Mayor Penzel read Resolution No. 78-201 and proclaimed the week of October 23 - October 28, 1978 as Leaque of Women Voters Week in Eden Prairie. Ms. Mundt was present representing the League of Women Voters. II . PRESENTATION BY THE RILEY-PURGATORY CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HOWARD PETERSON Howard Peterson presented a check in the amount of $16,800 on behalf of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District for one of the cooperative projects they are involved in with the City to be used for Lake Riley Park improvements . Mayor Penzel accepted the check from the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District and thanked Mr. Peterson on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of Eden Prairie. III . APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS The following item was requested to be added to the agenda under the "New 3usiness" category: A. Brief discussion on Cable TV. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers , to approve the agenda as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. IV. MINUTES A. Minutes of the Council Meeting held Tuesday, September 12, 1978 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue the September 12, 1978 Council meeting minutes to November 8, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 2 - Tues. ,October 17, 1978 B. Minutes of the Council Meeting held Tuesday September 19, 1978 Pg. 2, 2nd para. , 2nd line, strike "condemnation" and insert "continuation" . Pg. 4, 3rd para. , 6th line, strike 'Ibonified" and insert "bona fide" . Pg. 7, 8th para. , last line, strike the 2nd "may" in the line. Pg. 9, last para. , last line, strike "morale" and insert "moral " . Pg. 10, 8th para. , 3rd line, strike "liquor" and insert in lieu thereof "community commercial " ; and in the 9th para . , strike the remainder of the paragraph after "numbers" in the first line and insert "from other cities in the retail liquor business ." Pg. 11 , 5th para. , insert "Roll Call Vote" in the fourth line after "concurrence." MOTION: Osterhoit moved, seconded by Meyers , to approve the minutes as amended and published. Motion carried unanimously. V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Osterholt, to approve item A on the Consent } Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. 'UBLIC HEARINGS 1. Bluff's West 2nd Addition by Hustad Development Corporation by Hustad, Dr. & Mrs. Brandt, and B.F. I . Request for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and approval of revised preliminary plat of approximately 194 units on 97 acres. (Ordinance No. 78-41 and Resolution No. 78-154) City Manager Ulstad explained this is a continued Public Hearing from 9/5/78 and the proponents are present to answer questions raised by Council members at that time. Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, spoke to changes that deal with three areas the Council had concerns about. Putnam noted the Council asked f that the proponents consider locating two tot lots in the project which has now been done, and further that in discussion with City staff there were some criteria they felt to be fairly important for the location of those tot lots, i .e. , good street access to the tot lots and not being in a position where they might be located adjacent to a pond. A ponding area is being worked out with Browning-Ferris Industries and it will be about 2 112 to 3 acres. Regarding the use of the lower area property, after discussing this among themselves , their marketing people and City staff, the proponents believe that what they can do is take about 12.2 acres, excluding 4 acres for the Brandt homestead, and use that property in any way the City would like, i .e. , committing the property to the Lower Minnesota Trail System for the State or to the Wildlife Refuge. The proponents would like to be able to use the 12.2 acres plus the tot lot acreage as a density transfer which they feel would be a fair way to approach it rather than platting same into lots. The plat of 108 acres would have about 212 units, or slightly less than 2 units per acre. Of those 212 units, approximately 26% would be less than 13.5, and of those less than 13. 5, no lots would be less than 10,000 square feet. About half of the lots of the 56 Council Minutes - 3 - Tues . ,October 17, 1978 A. Bluff' s West 2nd Addition (Continued) p Ap would be above 12,000 square feet. Putnam referred to letter from Vernon. IL Helman who is doing the archaeological survey. (Attached as part of minutes) City Planner Enger explained that Director of Community Services Lambert has been in contact with Mr. Kager of Browning-Ferris Industries over the past few weeks, and as of today the City has received a letter (attached as part of minutes) . Enger stated the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission met on 10/16/78 and recommended the site described in attached letter to the City Council as a proposed park site, and that the City try and acquire this site a for no more than $4,000 per acre. Staff also feels this is an acceptable site. Staff feeds if a density trade-off is employed in the area to be left as open space, the most expedient thing to do would be to dedicate the area to the City and the City could then dispose of it if the City wishes . This would provide the City with the assurance that it would be in public ownership at that time. Staff further recommends that this site be dedicated as a preservation area and that the recommendations of the Soil Conservation District be accomplished prior to that dedication. The tot lots as proposed were not discussed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission; however, Staff recommends . it would be more condusive to combine the 1 .3 and 1 .4 acre site into one larger approximately 3 acre area in the center of the plat. Enger also referred to the request by the proponents that they need variances on some of the 26% or 56 lots, i .e. , 5 feet on garage side, 10 feet on house side, and 15 feet for a 1 1/2 story house. Staff recommends, in light of the density transfer and the merging of the tot lot area, side yard setbacks over the whole project rather than the 56 individual lots. Also Staff feels the tot lot area should be graded and put into shape where the City could maintain them and possibly berming could occur on the outside periphery of the tot lot area and the tot lot installed. Meyers stated during the guide plan workshop sessions, there has been discussion about estate lots . Although there has not been a consensus reached as a working Council , it has been planned that this idea qo through the commissions and then to the public at hearings. At this time, since this proposal is coming before the guide plan update, she would be hesitant to grant any side yard setback variances on those lots along Riverview Road on a blanket basis as this is one way the Council has currently to protect the character of the bluffs and to prevent a wall of housing appearing on the edge of the bluffs along the road. Osterholt requested the Council to consider, prior to final approval , a reviewal of the master plan for this area to see that all concerns are addressed properly. Meyers expressed concern about buying land for parks which is undevelopable. Osterholt commented it would be wise to send Mr. Lambert back with an offer to purchase only the developable land and not any water or swamp that is located there. Penzel concurred and thought it would be wiser to bring the park site south to abut the proposed road. Penzel further stated he would like to include the request that the number of 26% lots size variances be reduced dramatically. Pauly asked staff to research if there is enough room that single family would work south of the park. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, to continue the Bluff's West 2nd Addition Public Nearing to the 11/21/78 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 4 - Tues . ,October 17, 1978 1 B. Prairie East 7th,_ re nest by Hustad Develo ent_ Corporation, to rezone from Rural to RM 6.5 and _reliminar tat approval . (Resolution No . 78-106 and 0 rdinance Ne. 78-40j Continued from October 3, 1978 Mayor Penzel referred to petition received 10/16/78, and telephone message received from Ellen Pollock, 9959 Friar Drive, and requested same be entered into the record as part of the minutes . Penzel noted at the last City Council meeting the Council requested that a planting program be developed for Council and neighborhood review, and the proponents were asked to provide the Council with evidence of agreement on the part of the residents on Garrison Way particularly. Penzel asked if the proponents were prepre.d to proceed with presenting responses to those requests made by the Council . Dick Putnam, Hustad Development Corporation, explained after the last City Council meeting the proponents had a meeting on Thursday, 10/12/78 to a which the owners of the 15 lots aajacent to the 7th Addition in Garrison Way were invited. About 1/3 or 1/2 of the owners were present, and a number of residents in Sherwood Tst Addition and Sherwood Estates. At that time there were two petitions dealing with the park, one recor,.mendi ng to the City Council that the residents would prefer the park be public and the other petition recommending the park to be private. Residents at this meeting had a chance to sign either petition. 'The petition was also left at the model center of Windsor so other people in the area that may not have been able to get to the meeting could sign either petition if they so desired. Putnam expressed his surprise at the petition that was recieved by the Council . John Woodland, Windsor Development Corporation, commented he thought they were in accord with the homeowners last week on the setback situation and the specific landscaping plan as there was no voice of discontent. He also referred to the question asked by the City Council if the proponents would consider the park to be in public ownership with private access and after reviewing this with his lenders, Mr. Woodland was given a negative response. Mr. Woodland requested the Council to continue the Prairie East 7th Public Hearing until they have a chance to respond to the petition. Maureen Green, 9935 Friar Drive, explained three weeks ago Hustad promised the Swale would be seeded, which has not been done. Mrs. Green is now requesting ! the proponent to sod the swale as it is too late to seed. Council directed City Manager Ulstad to keep in contact with the contractor and Mr. Ostenson to make sure the swale is sodded properly. Steve Hardy, 9885 Garrison Way, told the Council of the late notification by Hustad of the meeting which was held on Thursdayjas he did not receive notice until late Wednesday that the meeting was to be held on Thursday. e Delton Johnson, 9865 Garrison Way, stated he was in City Hall on Monday morning when delivering the petition and talked to someone in the Planning Department. Upon reviewing plans of Sherwood Forest, which is now single family, he discovered this area was originally mt4ltiple so he could not see why the - proposal under discussion could not be changed to single family also. Mr. Johnson ', also asked the Planning Department if they could tell him of any other townhouse projects where the backyards of a single family dwelling were within 60 feet. He was shown one that was in the concept stage where plans had been submitted, and there was approximately 1 house within 120 feet of the townhouse and the rest were all 150 to 200 feet. Council Minutes - 5 - Tues. ,October 17, 1978 B. Prairie fast 7th (continued) Frank Thomas, 9785 Garrison Way, commented on the late notification to the residents of just 24 hours in advance of the meeting last Thursday evening, _. and feels that was why there was a Small turn out. He does not believe there are any residents that can possibly live with a 50 to 60 foot setback on a r structure of that size. Mr. Thomas further stated he feels his property values will also go down if he has a townhouse adjacent to his property line. John' 'Wol Cott, 9508 Garrison Way, stated he would like to see the Council _ vote "yes" or "no" on the project at this time. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, that the application request by Hustad Development Corporation for Prairie East 7th for rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 be denied on the basis that this is not the highest and best use of this property, the development would tend to have an impact of a negative financial effect on the single family homes surrounding it, and that the proponents have consistently failed to perform as committed to at the previous meetings at which this proposal was hear] regarding the concerns of the residents which were brought forth. Osterholt and Penzel voted "aye" , Meyers and Pauly voted "nay" . Motion failed. Putnam requested time for the proponents to look at the petition from the residents in order to respond to see what can be done by the November 8th Council meeting. He further stated the proponents will be prepared to let the Council know if the proponents can make the changes which will be in writing by the Friday before the Council meeting. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to give the petition to the Bevel opep and continue the Public Hearing for Prairie East 7th to the November 8, 1978 Council meeting. Osterholt, Pauly and Meyers voted "aye" , Penzel voted "nay" . . Motion carried. C. Eden Prairie Grocery, request by Haakon Nyhammer to rezone the existing rocer store site of approximately 1 acre from R1-22 to Community Commercial Ordinance No. 78-200 Haakon Nyhammer, Eden Prairie Grocery, spoke to his proposal , stating he had distributed a petition to his neighbors which outlined what he is planning to do. The neighbors signed the petition in favor of the project without any one of the neighbors voicing any opposition. City Planner Enger explained the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council concept approval for the proposed land use for a new building, with no rezoning until specific plans are submitted under the guidelines of the Staff Report dated 9/8/78. Mr. Nyhammer explained he would like to have the rezoning rather than concept approval , as he would not Like to spend money on plans, etc. , and then not be allowed to go ahead with his proposal . MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to close the Public Hearing and give a 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 78-200, rezoning the existing grocery store site of approximately 1 acre from R1-22 to Community Commercial for the Eden Prairie Grocery Store, withholding the 2nd Reading until the City has received a specific site plan. Motion carried unanimously. Guui�cl i I•linutes - 6 - Tues. ,Gctober 17, 1978 C. Eden Prairie Grocery (continued) MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to direct Staff to draft a developers agreement including recommendations in the Staff Report dated 9/8/78, eliminating recommendation 1 , 'combining recommendations 5 and 10, and striking "new" in recommendation 12. Motion carried unanimously. VII . REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS No reports. III . PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from Don Pou ard, 6251 Beach Road, to appear before the Council City Manager Ulstad explained that he has met with Mr. Poupard and Mr. Poupard has requested that this item be continued to the November 8, 1978 Council meeting. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue the request from Don Poupard to the November 8, 1978 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request to waive building permit for cabin construction at Camp Indian Chief for MARC Minneapolis Association for Retarded Citizens MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers , to grant the request of the Minneapolis Association for Retarded Citizens to waive the building permit fee for cabin construction at Camp Indian Chief. Motion carried + unanimously. Request from Robert McCollum, representing Ridgewood Condominiums City Manager Ulstad explained Mr. McCollum, legal counsel representing t the Ridgewood Condominum residents and also a resident of Ridgewood Condomi nums , has requested to appear before the Council . Mr. McCollum stated that two to three weeks ago there was a request to the Board of Appeals & Adjustments by Ban Con for a variance off of a lot line at Ridgewood Condomi nums. At that point in time Mr. Lynch informed the residents of Ridgewood Condominums that at the time the Planning Commission had originally approved the Ban Con development back in Spring of this year, they were not aware of the existence of this property line and the problems the Ban Con development would create for the Ridgewood residents. According j to Mr. McCollum, Mr. Lynch indicated if the Planning Commission was aware of the existence of this problem, they probably would not have approved the develop- ment as submitted to them. Following the Planning Commission meeting Mr. McCollum contacted the Planning Department and was informed that the City would not be issuing any further building permits on this property until the disputes I between Ban Con and the Ridgewood people were resolved, and this position was reaffirmed to him a week later, and that a Planning Commission hearing would i be set. Mr. McCollum explained he received a call from Mr. Ulstad last Wednesday indicating that the City had decided to issue a building permit, which is a contradiction as to what the City previously told Mr. McCollum. Therefore, Mr. McCollum stated he contacted Mr. Osterholt who felt perhaps a review by the City Council would be appropriate. Mr. McCollum spoke to and submitted a memorandum dated 10/17/78 (attached as part of minutes). I ` Council Minutes - 7 - Tues. ,October 17, 1978 4 C. Request. from Robert McCollum (continued) Robert Barth, legal counsel for Ban Con Development, outlined the history of the PUD from -1971 to 1978 as was originally proposed and developed. Mr. �. Barth commented it is Ban Con's contention the easement does exist and ultimately it should be a matter for the court to decide. The Registered Land Survey and the proposed development along with the easements were filed and recorded at the time the sales went through , and each and every deed that was given out to the owners of these properties carries upon its face a f reference to that easement. Barth explained Ban Con is not here to insist on a zero setback, but to request a 22 foot setback from the property line. Barth again reiterated the sole issue is that of an easement. City Attorney Pauly explained his approach to the problem and the view from the City is somewhat different from both parties. This matter came to the City's attention upon the application for a building permit by Ban Con. The materials which were before the Council in 1974 included the Registered Land Survey and a site plan essentially the same as the 1972 site plan, but with the division superimposed on it. The Council simply took the action in November of 1974 of approving the division. There has been some reference made to the representation made by Preferred Developers in 1974 with respect to the granting of cross easement and that is documented in a letter. Mr. Pauly stated he has found nothing in the action taken by the Council in 1974 that the action was contingent or conditioned upon the fulfillment of any granting of cross easements or any easements at all . The actions taken by the Council in 1972 and 1974 were not the subject of a developers agreement, and so the bare record at .he present time simply supports the position that the PUD was granted in 1970, amended in 1972 with rezoning for condominum units, and amended by virtue of the division which was granted in 1974. The division which was granted in 1974 had superimposed upon it the lot lines which indicate a .22 foot setback at that time, reflecting a variance granted by way of the PUD in 1974. It is on the basis of that record in his judgement that the City does not have the position on which it can rely to deny the granting of the building permits , and that is certainly not to prejudge in any way the respective rights with respect to the easements for ingress and egress , utilities, etc. , but Mr. Pauly does not believe the City is in a position to make those determinations, and those particular issues would be properly disposed of by a court. The question of the validity of the easements is not a basis on which the City can deny a building permit. Once that building permit is granted, however, that is not to say that a court can' t preclude the building on that property by virtue of deciding there is no access, and then as a practical matter no one would build. Osterholt commented there is a reference in the documents of a letter from the developers to the City saying they would grant cross easements and asked since Ban Con has purchased the property, would Ban Con be willing to grant the cross easements? Hans Hagen, Ban Con Development, replied in the affirmative as the grade coming out of Ridgewood is not good, and he feels it would be wise to have a cross easement in the event of an accident and you can' t get a car up the hill, there would be another access . Rick Carter, 8940 :eill Lake Road, President of the Ridgewood Condominum Association, stated the basic issue for him is that he purchased a condominium C along with 34 of his neighbors. It is true the easement is registered and it is also true that the area of the easement is confusing. It does clearly state the easement is for ingress and egress and parking for designated stalls, but no where does that easement say he is going to lose his property rights. Accord- Cc)w, ll 1,linutes - 8 - Tues . ,October 11 , 1918 C. Request from Robert McCollum (continued) ing to the plan drawn by Ban Con they will be obliterating virtually all the parking by putting in curb cuts, which means the Ridgewood residents no longer have their property rights . Thus there will be only 4 to 8 remaining parking spots for the Ridgewood residents , of which there are 35 existing parking spots now. The original plan that was approved by this City was that those parking spots would remain. Meyers questioned how many garages are we talking about. City Planner Enger responded that the existing building in Ridgewoods have in excess of 70 garages. There were only contemplated to have one garage per unit, now they have in excess'; of two garages per uni t, Ban Con will come in and put in the required number of garage spaces under our City ordinances , which will be 1 space per unit. If Ban Con is not requesting the zero lot line concept any more, they can preserve parking specifically behind those garages for their own guests and the additional 22 feet will allow Ridgewood residents to preserve guest parking r for their own guests behind their double garages . This is quite similar to what I has been proposed in apartment projects in the City before. This entire project { has substantially more parking spaces, both enclosed and uncovered, than any other multiple project we have in town. Osterholt questioned why the Ridgewood condominium owners are saying they are losing parking spaces. Enger responded they are losing some flexibility. Right now they have 35 garages in a row and then a lane and then they have 35 uncovered spaces. Under the Ban Con proposal the 35 uncovered spaces would become a lane. A lane behind the garages would become parking for the existing residents guests, and the 22 foot setback would become parking for the guests ' of the Ban Con residents. They have to park behind their own garages and the parking scheme would have to be worked out. { Bob Carlson, 9601 Neill Lake Road, expressed concern at statement made about r moving the access down the street and questioned why he was not notified of this item along with other residents in his area. Penzel replied this is not a hearing to change the layout. This item was brought before the Council by Mr. McCollum because he has concerns regarding the cross easement which is in question, and the conflict that the new construction by Ban Con would cause with the existing Ridgewood condominiums. Penzel further stated if any consideration were going to be made to alter this project, there would be an appropriate hearing held and abutting property owners would be notified. 1 Jack Higgins , 8940 Neill Lake Road, commented there is no question this plan is being altered and there has been no public notice and no public hearing. When the developer is through he is going to be gone and the City is going to have a problem of two different condominium associations trying to park in front of each others garages. City Attorney Pauly stated there are no changes in the present proceedings. The only change in plans that occurred was in 1974 when the property was divided, . which created a lot line which then raised the question of appropriate setbacks, and the reduction in the number of units which was before the Planning Commission earlier this year. Further with the reduction in the number of units, Mr. - Pauly commented it is very difficult to see how this is an adverse change in the plan. µ' ` Couwicil Minutes - 9 - Tues . ,October 17, 1918 C, Request from Robert McCollum (continued) Shelly Carter, 8940 Neill Lake Road,, stated if this casement is in fact legal and valid for ingress and egress , " and Ban Con is talking about Ridgewood residents being able to park in front of their garages, and Ban Con does build and if they do have 22 foot setbacks or zero setbacks and their people park in front of their garages, what would happen if there were a fire or a disaster. There would be no way for the Ridgewood residents to get out, or for any help to get in. Enger responded a typical parking lot would have a parking space off of both sides of a lane. A typical dimension would be 60 feet for both parking spaces and a lane down the center. With a 22 foot setback Ban Con and Ridgewood would have a dimension of 64 feet, so they would have in excess of a 24 foot lane down the center which would be more than adequate. Osterholt questioned if the City chooses not to be involved in this situation, what remedy do the people in Ridgewood have to rectify the situation? City attorney Pauly responded the adjacent property owners , ''f they so desire, do have the remedy of attempting to enforce their views concerning the easements. If those easements are indeed invalid, then a court, if requested, would grant an i njunctlon prohibiting the use of their land for ingress and egress for the Ban Con project. If there are other aspects of the buildings which do not conform with the ordinances, Mr. Pauly believes the adjoining residents do have some basis for some private remedies in that respect. Osterholt further questioned if the court decided there was some merit to the Ridgewood residents arguments, could they issue an injunction to the City prohibiting the issuing of building permits? City Attorney Pauly responded if the result of the findings were that there was no easement and if there were a finding of improper setback or some other violation of the ordinances by the City in the granting of the permits, a private landowner can enforce and obtain injunctions based on those violations . So, in effect, while the injunction may or may not be with respect to the City, it would certainly be as to the project and the owner may al so i ncl ude the Ci ty. Mr. McCollum stated it is his opinion that what we have is an alteration in the original PUD, as the original PUD was contemplated as one development, now we have two. Based upon this, he submitted this as an issue to the City Council . Mr. McCollum feels the Council has within its jurisdiction the right to approve and disapprove amendments and all the Ridgewood residents are asking for is the right to have some input before the City Council as to whether or not this project should be developed. McCollum further stated they did not have any input at the Planning Commission level . Mr. Higgins questioned how much. a change does there have to be to constitute a change? Meyers responded it is her understanding that the plan we are looking at from 1974 and the plan before the Council tonight is not the same; and that the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal by Ban Con and changed it sometime this summer. Ulstad commented that the change is the number of units, which has been reduced. Meyers noted the parking is still as required by City ordinance under the RM 2. 5 zoning, and the issue is the easement to it. Osterholt questioned if Mrs . Meyers thought that change should have been brought before the Council . i ViIIfuLeb lu - jues . ,uCZODer 11 , 19/8 C. Request _from Robert McCol 1 um (continued) i Meyers responded that these kinds of changes have been handled at the Planning Commission before when it is a site plan change with the zoning accomplished. S A Enger commented in 1972 the Council motion was predicated upon the Planning i Commission' s recommendation which included the Staff Report recommendations, which said that any changes in the proposal should be brought before the Planning Commission for review. This is why this item was brought before the Planning Commission in March of this year, and the Planning Commission ruled there was not a substantial change. f Gary Lewis, 8952 Neill Lake Road, expressed concern about people parking in front of his garages if the Ban Con development goes through as proposed. Osterholt stated in the future when developers come in if there are any further t splits of property or any changes whatsoever, the Council is going to demand Staff bring it before the Council and go through the process of a Public Hearing. McCollum requested a Public Hearing be held to give input to the City as to whether this is a good development before any more building permits are granted. 3 Osterholt questioned if the developer is in a position to allow time to with- hold building permits so a Public Hearing could be held. Mr. Hagen, Ban Con, responded in the negative because of the fact they have been delayed quite a bit so far and that their problem is simply one of winter construction. They bought the property subject to getting City approval and in good faith. They had no idea Ridgewood residents would object to it. Mr. Hagen stated it is half the density than was originally planned, there is substantially more parking than originally planned, and almost anybody would say this is a vast improvement. Would like to be able to resolve in the best fashion they can the parking problem between the two associations . Mr. Hagen commented he has talked to both Mr. McCollum and Mr. Carter indicating Ban Con's willingness to work out on a pro rata basis the cost of snow plowing and seal coating. Nothing has been taken away, the buildings will be moving down, there will be a fire lane, there will be more parking than originally proposed. Osterholt requested Mayor Penzel meet with the developer and Ridgewood residents in an effort to try and resolve this matter, and that building permits should not be issued until that meeting has taken place. i Mr. Barth stated Ban Con would be more than happy to meet with the Ridgewood residents but requested that the building permits not be withheld. f Penzel asked if the meetingswere held prior to November 8th, would Ban Con be willing to wait for permits until those meetings have been held. Mr. Hagen responded if the meetings could be held sometime this week or next, that would be fine. Further if something can be resolved or not resolved, he would assume he would be able to continue to construct. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, that the Mayor meet with the 2 parties involved (Ridgewood and Ban Con) and try to mediate the matter before the November 8, 1978 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 11 - ! ues . ,Uctuoer I i , 1 y/6 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to continue the Council meeting past the 11 :30 PM scheduled adjournment time. Motion carried unanimously. IX. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-44, Opus II, American Family Insurance Site. Request by Rauenhorst Corporation for rezoning from Rural to Office for .49 acre for additional parking to serve the insurance building, and developers agreement. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 78-44, Opus II , American Family Insurance Site. Motion carried unanimously. Meyers requested that item 3 of the developers agreement be reworded in the 2nd sentence entailing that any future alteration of the parking area will have to receive further approval . Council members agreed with this change. MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to approve the Developers Agreement for Opus II, American Family Insurance, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. B. Resolution No. 78-202, supporting statement of purpose of South Hennepin. Human Services Council Task Force or. Family Violence MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers , to adopt Resolution No. 78-202, supporting statement of purpose of South Hennepin Human Services Council Task Force on Family Violence. Motion carried unanimously. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members Councilwoman Pauly reported she has met with the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission which has held two meetings , and referred to letter dated 9/18/78 to Mayor Penzel from Ray Glumack, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Airports Commi- ssion, talking about initiating the action for the Environmental Impact State- ment for the extension of the southern runway at Flying Cloud. Pauly noted Claude Schmidt stated at the Commission' s meeting they had not received a reply to the letter and she suggested we reply to same. Pauly explained the Commission is interested in the EIS and has volunteered to do whatever needs to be done to help. Penzel encouraged the Commission members to participate in the process and review, and indicated he had turned the letter over to Mr. Ulstad for a response. To be included in this letter MAC should be advised that the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission will be working in its capacity to help them formulate the EIS by reviewing same and making recommendations . B. Report of City Manager 1 . Discussion on Parking Ordinance General discussion took place regarding the draft of the Parking Ordinance. It was felt by Council members some of items in the draft ordinance may be included in other ordinances, and City Manager Ulstad was requested to look into this further before the Council takes any action on a parking ordinance. Other changes and modifications were also suggested. �-O'uflcil Minutes - 12 - Tues . ,October 17, 1978 t( C. Report of City Attorney No report. D. Report of City Engineer 1. Consider bids for street im rovements on Lotus View Drive, I . C. 51-321 Resolution No. 78-203 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Pauly, to adopt Resolution No. 78-203, rejecting bids for I .C. 51-321. Motion carried unanimously. E. Report of Finance Director. 1. Payment of Claims Nos. 1783 - 1932 MOTION: Osterholt moved, seconded by Meyers, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 1783 - 1932. Roll Call Vote: Osterholt, Meyers and Penzel voted "aye" , Pauly "abstained" . Motion carried. 4 X1 . NEW BUSINESS A. Brief---discussion on Cable TV City Manager Ulstad explained he will invite members of Northern Cable TV to appear before the November 8th Council agenda. 3, ' I . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pauly moved, seconded by Meyers, to adjourn the Council meeting at 12:29 AM. Motion carried unanimously. �I, Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. A Subsidiary of 8row�ing-�aMa� a,inc. wc' WASTE SYSTEMS DIVISION October 17, 1978 To: The Mayor and City Council This letter will confirm the intent of Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. to sell to the City of Eden Prairie the below described land: That land lying along Homeward Hill Road commencing at the north property line and traveling south 1 ,035 feet, then traveling east 895 feet, then north 1 ,035 feet, then west 895 feet. This area encompasses approximately 21 .27 acres. It is our understaviding that the city will assume all assessments against the above described land and the purchase price will be four thousand dollars ($4,000.00) per acre. Specifics of the contract have at this time not been finalized, but I am confident that the arrangements will not present any problems. Thank you, 1 Rodney B. Kager General Manager RBKIp3b f 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, Minn. 55343 / 941-5174 F,xX - t OR 'x ?, October 12, 19h OCT I '. 1978 Members of the Eden Prairie City Council: `�•„ The undersigned residents of Garrison Forest wish to formally notify' you of their strong opposition to the Hustad Town House Project that has been proposed for the Prairie -East Addition. (7th Additon) It is very obvious that during the planning of this development, Hustad only concerned themselves with the economics of the project and failed to take into consideration the well—being of the surrounding residents. Even though they have made some minor adjustments to the original plans, they have failed to allow a sufficient set—back for these units and construction of this project would have a major Impact on the residents of Garrison Forest. Because the units are set so close to our property lines, the valued : privacy of our backyards would be jeopardized . This massive town house project would all but destroy the esthetic value of the natural surroundings that we now enjoy and totally appreciate. Hustad •has laid out this project in such a manner that it could destroy the intrinsic -value of our single family homes. 4 While we obviously would prefer to have this area left natural , we could resolve ourselves to some form of development if done properly. Because single family homes surround this area, we feel construction of single family units is the most viable alternative. A town house project would only be feasible if the number of units was cut back so that the project would not infringe on the rights of the surrounding residents. F We appreciate the concern the Council has shown in the past and hope our ideas will be given due consideration before a final decision is made. q ` - IR AOe l 'XL V_ 5y 9 7Cp s 9 7 g w '� G,4 ez50-)i �a vv�s G K �iC 1970 W ell, AA GL� 13 c c> aZs o &-aAAJ:4 e�-�- l� - �3�0 q 73 0r L.a7� w ARCHAEOLOGICAL & VEGETATIONAL SURVEYS & IMPACT STUDIES 25330 LYNN TERRACE VERNON R.HELMEN MINNETONKA,MN 55343 ROTHEA VOSS HELMEN (812) 935-1357 o . October 13* 1978 Dear Mr. Putnam: In compliance with your request for a status report of the archaeological survey of Bluffs 2nd Addition, my work to datQ indicates that a prehistoric occupation (probably pre-ceramic) exists on the bluff tops but is limited to the top 22-24 cme of soil. This is all in the plow zone and thus, completely churned. up and disturbed so that control excavation would not yield any stratagraphic data. Furthermore* the features which could have ' been mounds, are now seen to be the result of old grading of *?Riverview Road" and this can be demonstrated in the shovel test r profiles. ' In my opinion, at this stage of the survey, no significant archaeological features will be destroyed by the construction Of buildings* roads, and sewers on this site. This opinion is _ subject to completion of the survey. Yours truly, .a v r TELEPHONE MESSAGE RECEIVED FROM ELLEN POLLOCK, 9959 FRIAR DRIVE WHICH SHE REQUESTED BE GIVEN TO EACH COUNCIL MEMBER. . In July Roger & Ellen Pollack, 9950 Friar Drive, appeared before the Council and they were promised by Hustad Development that a swale would be put in- (Prairie East 2nd). As of this date nothing has been done. Mr. Ostenson has told them it has been too wet, yet they have been doing continual grading, etc. They are not opposed to Prairie East 7th, but do feel Hustad should take care of the problems which were promised to them before Prairie East 7th is started. l 1`7'u'I"r Cj��'4. •"h""a- ,--- M u•;- +1. f-rr - A Y PU 0>t,.. We , the undersigned, citizens of Eden Prairie , respectfully request the City Council approve the public ownership of the prups-ised park area south of Prairie East 7th A i.tion . 1 Name Address ) Legal / 74-- �� `.� 1 �l.+tl �rr CJC ���.. vL.�i 6b(r,.��) ����( ..{�� /� tf1�2-./ t� / rl7� .:f.,'='- .rij. �-`•J P 'or G�%��- � �� y16 oy •-.�sr �e )t& �lel )P-00' SSqulAR :. 4AI6;- CY LA 63 -e 'K ' eVA LJA r J b y ��� �� C) leg fy) FOR EDEN PI-AI RIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBI---R 1 -7, 1979 I. In 1972 the planned Ullit (1e.VE-10PTT101It Was approved. Zoning was established as R. M. 2 . 5 with, a density of 13. 26 units per acre. There were to be 39 buildings with 195 units. Also planned was a parkway system, four tot lots- , and recreational vehicle storage. This was approved as Ordinance No. 166 . (See Exhibits A and 13) It was contemplated that completion of this development would be in approximately two years . However , by 1974 , only two buildings had been completed containing a total of 35 units . By 1974 , Preferred Developers Corporation was in serious financial difficulty. On November 26 , 1974 , the City Council was requested to approve a division of the subject property and into Tracts A and B. The division was set forth in a rerTistered land survey that was submitted to the Council together with asite plan evidencing the property C. line as drawn through the Ridgewoo-d project. (see Exhibit c At the time -,)f the submission of the proposal to the City Council by Preferred Devolopers , a letter was sent to the City Council by Mr. John -Schnobrich indicating that reci procating cross easements would be granted over each of the tracts by the rosi.dents in the already developed Tract A and also by the residents of the try-be-developed Tract B. ( .,:;c,e Exhibi.t.-, 1r) and F) The proposal submitted to the City Council in 1974 still evidencod, the original dove lopment plan. The site plan submitted at the time of the division of the property me-rely showed the property line drawn through the project . Whon Mr. -Fohn Schno.)--,rich , Vice President of Preferred Df--�.,-olopors was asked by Mrs . Meyers , whether the developer pl ,-iiinod to tho split-off portion , Mr. Schnobrich answered by indicating that " tlIev I-lad no plans to do so ,it this ttme. " (see, ExhiL)it P ) Therefore , it would appear that the City Council approved tAie land division based upon the reasonable assumption that the two -, i-eces of property would continue to work together on.�-,. 41,..�volopment , one condominium association , with c�-, (--iprocatin j nights and privileqc—�, . fi x. The plan pr(-)F),--)sc,,d by thc Ban Con Developaient , is a contradiction t-- the basis upon which the 1974 division of the property was approved. Novi , there are two developments . Now, there are or will I)c , two associ"Itir-)ns . There are ria reciprocating rights and privileges to the respective common areas for the residents (:)-.17 the respective tracts . To illustrate that we have an entirely different situation here , than was contemT-A.,ated, in 1974 , one need only look to the parking facilities contemplated by the development in 1974 . If one reviews the development plan submitted to the Council in 1974 by Proferred Developers , it becomes quite obvious that the only 9ara(je parking facility which might have been used for the resiR nts of the units alonq the south line of the existinc, Ridgewoods parking lot would be the garages which are now located on the property. Certainly , the City Council 'would not allow these buildi.ngs ' to be built without access to the garages . The City ord±nanc(--s require a minimum of one garage per. unit. Thus , the Council must have contemplated that ti e residents of Tract D , at least in the area along the property line division , would continue to have access to the garztcfes located on Tract A. However , in 197160 , the First National Bank of Minneapolis owned both of the tracts . Not,-vithstandiny, Tract A was sold to the oxisinc; residents of Rid(,4ewoods on a basis of two qaracjes per unit. Thus , all. of the garages on Tract A were sold., to the residt-nits in the existing 35 units . As such , no garages on Tract t't were reserved for residents of Tract B . Furthcrmore , even at the time the property was split , there,, was no rcrervation of rights for the residents of Tract B to use any garage facilities on Tract A. Because of this the Ban Con Development plan contemplates a use of the Ridgewoods parkincT iat in a manner not originally a c ��m ontplated byPreferrec-1 and c 0-rtainly not con lated b%, the reside-lits of Ridoowoods at the time of I - purchaso of their units. AnoLho-r- point of tiif� First National bank , at the time the. 15 units were sold , was the large parking area whi(,A! tho !-,-�:iidents c)f A would enjoy. Thus it is safe t ct s-"1.y that it was not contiE�-mplated that ultimiately Lhe j)17-rk-:.nc4 ,::.;[--)aces in the exi --=',tinq Ridgewuods parkin('�; lot woul 11--)c lc-st L�) the c,',xte:) ': <) F Lipproximately '30 parking space.s as would bf,-? the practica'A result of the Ban (2on Dove21opmonts a-.7. proposc.-(') . There exists a subcstanti,11 lecal question as to whether Bien Con has any access rights T,t all across Tract A to Tract B . Rid(Tewoods contests the right of access and the extent thereof claimed by Ban Con . If the project had been complete J as Indicated in 1974 with all of the reciprocatinri ricThts and easements and so forth , then perhaps this problem would n,- ,.rc!r have arisen . However , because the development is altered from what was proposed, these problems now confront us . The question is , how can the City sanction a development which may not have sufficient access for. its residents , access which was evidently con- templated in the Council. Such a modification of the P. U. D. requires City Council approval . rk-)w, it is not contended that the Council can or even should decide issues such as whether there is access , the extent of access , and Esc forth. These are iss-,les which properly lilave their jurisdiction in a court of law. But what is contended here is that the basis for originally approving this development in 1972 and for splitting the pro- perty has been dramat-Icall.- y altered. Under the circumstances Council appr(�-)Val is rC-(JL1i.re:)d. Aside from th,� le-gal problern which confronts us there are ;-.iany practical li,)roblems which tho Pan Con Development would present to Ridcle woods . It should bc j--lointed out that the ban Con development plan contemplates usage of a substantial portion of the Ridge-woods parking lot . Yet , no acirconvent exists as to who will prc)�,ride maintenance services . At present , Rildgewoods mainLains the �.�,arking lot for its residents . Ban Con at no Lime has come forward with any proposal as to how the parking lot could be maintaino"' by both parties. t The B,'Iri Cnn Dc-velopment will zilsc; create a tremendous park inq problem for Ridgewood residents . At the present time , Rid,jewoods residents usce the existing parking area which would be lost if Ban Con is allowed to build the structures contemplated. This is so due to the fact that such dovolopment contemplate�; the opening of garages directly onto the Ridqwood parking lot the entire length of the south property line . While the easement that exists J,s riot zan exclusive use easement , it is contemplated that residents of Ridge-woods would not 1.)ark directly in front Of the of their neigi-ibors . (Although Lhey would have every right to do so . ) � requiredThus , the parking area woul-cl be sevorely limited. Moreover, guest parking for these units is , -As a practical matter, nonexistant clue to the tren)(--�ndous dist,:in(:-::e guests would be park thc, ' _ - _d_- - they -___-___ to visit . Safety Director, Jack, Flackinq, spoke to the Board of ~~. i^^q ^^rre~l-~ and ~~ ^`^`=" out that `�`cre aue 9oiu9 to be numerous prciblerls with Parking if Ban as nrccc-sed. --_- ' -- - - - _ - - -, -- -��- _ - .�_ _`- 'e ^~/~.-^^^ ; ^~.^ ~^^i^^^ the Safety Director had made . Such forned a art of the basis , for ---y--= -^-^ ' ~,^ ~ - ~r^....-~ request. Ban Con also appears t-o claim a right to tie into the- Iz The resislenLs of PidtIOWOCK1.13 had: no idea this development was being proposed by Ban Con. 11,idaewoods first became aware that the development might. affect the rights of its residents when it was discovered that the utility companies had painted stripes across the Ridgewoods parking lot . At that time , IRick Carter, President of the Ridgewoods Association , contacted Ban Con . Absolutely nn c-nntact had been made with Ridgewoods to ascertain what concerns it residents might- have with respect to the de,7elopment. Ban Con at no - i me aan-e forward to explain that it intended to use the j---)arkincj lot , and as a practical matter , destroy approximately _-_- -, p-_-_'.g Spaces . Ridgewoods Inas since, found out that two Planninqhearings wc!ri-:- held last Spring relative to tile Ban Con Development. ' the rosidentsof Ridgewoods never required.received natice of the same. Perhaps , this was due to the fact th-at the Commission was operating under the assumption that since this was all. one development, notice to Ridgewoods residonts was not ^ ' __ i - . it is based upon the statement c)f Richard Lynch at the hearinq _ _ __ - _ the Boltrd of __-__ ^ '`== ___- that the - __--'-_= Com- mission was ^'e '~^ ~rpr-~`-- by ^'~~^ `-`~^ of the ^-~i--, ^~^^~~ of T'heso- are some of the 1--)racLical concerns of the residents of Rid�lew-'.)Ods . .7,,,s a lecial matter, I would submit that there has bct2n such a substantial change in this deve-lop-mont , City Council approval , or disapproval , as t-he- may I,c- , is re-quired . An ordinance was passed in the proporty line which wa,� established in 1974 . - '- �� 1972 permitting one development in the subject area, With joint ownership of connon areas and facilities. The division of property in 1974 did not change this in any respect. There has never beer► an amendment to this ordinance allowing two separate and distinct developments on this tract of land. Such airtendment would require Council approval. Ridgewoods requests the opportunity to have input into such decision-making process . 72V�TILDW�03_%' 4 • 3 7 •`,y.f �{�(I� ���� �� 'X�C1'l ����� \\ � \. ., t,...+:r.r ra`..�,,:s+.._t,ca+�.re = - •• •�}�\ Tit �` �i +_M..- .... • .-r• ....... .. _. ... l'••� �taa'• J `w,, ••• - � 1 '♦ � ( ,.,,,,. .wr_-...► lip. sr+•ort .^r e+..:.-vim c �. �'\ .�3� •\\�� \\:., � �,•,y,•, � /1• \ s�+►..w�.wnar.� era«s�+a a.auem.. w�ae•s !.�a.,e isrrin+r yr-►�. ' r .. y. ✓"�, -„� `..\`� .t +�•': ^" ; + •as..e�-.r.•.. -+r.<.r r�,.w.r= Aotr. sca, 6-W eer•.._=s•+.- «re+• \ + G � `\,\ '.•w'.'4 +4��f•N•-+..si.�F wrf^ t—O oe.. tie..� `•:r., `\ R VAP VFW, ZO ,�w• •\ "' ,'\ .� i•wi 1 1 ^•.,� �vo'.� 1 ��� �w �.._ � u�.mar t...+.^.'s ILL LAKECNI .41 ( �' 't'!.�-,-:-•a.' ' __, �.. ---�,r+•L%•.."._._.... Q 'Rai? 1''i C�Q \ i t i I Council Minutes March 14, 10-72 Page �-ve — G. f-erre4Devel o ers Cor orat io RM 2.5 Zoni nq. *arccl s 6 & 7. The Preserve. Second ReadiM of Ordinance No. 166. A motion was made by Mrs. Meyers to adopt the second reading of Ordinance No. i 66. Hr • f C`v s%;coisded. ns : V"` zd }~.•. f cd. �. H. License A22l i cati ons. Application List Dated March I 1972. I I Mr. !Nesbitt made a motion to approve the license: applications as follows: r Garbage h Refuse Collector ► G & H Sanitation, Inc. - Ed Gregory Ralph Bright Ralph Bright Mrs. Meyers seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. a i I. Ri l Bey-Purgatory Watershed District. 1971 Annual Report. + The Manager presented the 1971 annual report for Council review. // J. George M. Hansen Co. 1971 Anj)ual P.udi t. i The Manager presented the 1971 annual audit report for Council conser--d ati on. It %4i l l be scheduled for the next Council work session. K. Nine Mil a One Interceptor Sewer. Contract Change Orders No. _�F� 4. The Manager reviewed Nine Mile One Trunk Sanitary Sewer change orders No. 3 and 4. The change orders cover a revision in sewer alignment and fill for a future extension of !lest 66th Street. A motion was made by Mr. Nesbitt to approve Change g Order No. 3 in the amount of $11 ,896.O5 and Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $5,856.00. Mr. Redpath seconded. On roil call , all voted aye. Motion carried. I III. PECOMMENDATrONS AND REPORTS 1 A. Resolution No. jL97. Indicating Intent to Enter Into a Joint Powers .`agreement to Form a Municipal Information System. The hanager reviewed and recommended that the Village enter into a Joint Powers Agretunent to form a cooprrative municipal data processing system with other MUnicipaiities. Mr. Redpath made a motion to approve the mcnagcr' s rccc..=cndztion. Mr. !Nesbitt seconded. Mr. Redpath, Lich, Nesbitt and Mrs. Meyers voted aye. Mr. McCulloch voted no. Motion carried. I J i i 1 ff if - �-�� � .l J � Jam•--f "-� 1 r s3 ^ _ l . cc cc i t ij r o 11 •w f 1 t'r i �I { DE`✓ EL4. ERS CORPORATION ItA'r 1.2, 1974 GENERAL CONTRACTCRS LANE) DEVELOPMENT Citv 251 TYROS WEST CLty of Fjoi-I -raixie F c'F,2n F'rair i.r. GAt^.�F3L.F CENTER - M I N N E A ;=1G t_ I S _ IviINNESC`TA 55416 6 1 2 - 5 4 4 - 8 4 ? ? WC, h0C forrZ-1l 1.;' you xj_ [prt ve tl;t- propos d � 1�Iu sLr.� tI , land Y �oiva.ng the� � � !/Q�� /`�•,, ,/"ram -� •►/' +� h ' `1ho [,,irj,tit UI t.I'1 _ `:it ev ? t o c j.'.',* at.0 t�1(� land lYltO tv+U �/ `� �•� t:T.-.tC•+.. _ . I c:t �'� ,:c�t,toj;i�. '_i,+ I ;u3 Lit�X�ri �rtiiI;iZ tl� - ex- ,E l t_tI"nt3 and arr., I,-x c t(0J. The der:.' lty a-!-jd >T�)�.L C)47 cu-e Wltliin the 13111.Y_tS C iVh-:iGI-I Of flA.` IX—Id alll prior tc. c.las.ar.j rat. ..,-y salon cn szaicz writs, wo wi.11 grant to t:.i;cz t-roc.t: ,llcwixig for [A-Irking th ., dc-velojx:d tract. F'. rta:C'i, an C:."?s(:vr_,rit 4:-.11 't)+.'' givcn by l-)o' LTIK'evelUr".� tract t O t h,,; It.!V' j.0L".K_Xj tr Zli:--t i 1 F t)t^:::T:.� [:-C r:i02"IS to rr.)VC` untr-,' tho trace f-)r- u; ! cif t-Kr C.`C7ICf n aro a s. for ex— aripl, the voldcle ::,`or,aaRe arcs:. Very truly yoLw s, rI �- Cl:;MME rt;lAL E-�LJii DERS APAPTNIEW BUILOM EINAN I !. t PIP,I CE 4 f Aif?i 1E�� t TO: M.=:iyc)r. Ost.erhrlt and !,tcnnt,erE: of the City Council s THROUGH: Robert P. Heinrich, City Winagex FROM: Curl O. 3`ullie, City Engineer DATE: November 21, 1974 S U W FC'T: Registered band aurvc>y Approval for r Preferred Developers Corporation a Ridgewood Project Preferred Devel.oper.-s Corporation is askirirf approval of a land division in the faun of a Registered Land Survi-:�y for the first phase of their conclominiurn project urithin the Preserve called Ridgewood. The Total units and acreage breakdown for the project is as follows: Tract. A 35 units 3.05 ac. 11. `_i unit/acre Tract B 55 units 4.01 ac. 1.3_7 unit/acre Overall Project 195 unit:; 1.3.86 ac- 14 .0 unit/acre TrY tt�f it litter of Plovernber 12, 11�)74, pl-)c assures the City that, prior to c.lasitiq of any sales on said units, cross casements will be granted for a,_ros,s and com.non use of Barking and open space. td�: x crcc, unPn:i approval of the Rogi stcrnd Land :purvey as submitted for Lots. 2 and 3 , Block 1 , Highpoint 1 Id-4tivn. CJJ/kmh r COLrnc iz I-"irlutc:s -7- IJovombcr 26, 1974 1 i V1 . IMF i'UrZTS Gi' OFFICI R S , BO;,i,DS ,.. i;0I Cont I d. ) C . Rc Dort of City ( Cont } 2. Regi^tcrod L^nd 'Survcy of RidCcwood project by Prof`rrcd Dcvtlope: r:: C(-)r,, . in Thy: Pre:,ervo . 3 Mr. Jullic pres�-Yitud to Council. Mrs. 11eyors askLd 1Ir. John Schnobrich if the developer s p1r nr.cd to sQll tho ::pl_it off portion . Mr-. Schnobrich s^id thc;y hnd no pinns to do so at this time . A'koycrs movt d to :pprovo thc,. Registered L-and Survey of Lots 2 .and 3 , Block 1, Hi.ghpoint .addition. McCulloch s condcd. Motion c.arric-d unnn-imou:ly. 3 . Final pl,:t of Crcc.,k rood �;statosq 2nd liddition, arl 15 lot sirlI;lc -f.milt' ro:aideritinl plat lac^tcd cast of. Creel: Knoll Road ^nd north of Co. Ro^d 1, Resolution No . 910 . McCulloch movcd to npprov., Rusolution No . 919 -,<ubject to following, con(Ait. iow7, : I .-rid Inlorij, Crcelc be cl4clicatc:d pc l' dl-A,.ing end i.tc ms 2 ., 3 & 4 of tri- I'ngin- c.-r' s ( 11/22/74 ) report „ P^.uly seconded . Notion c7irriod un riir:1oLzsly . Orcl.-:r No . 1 for Sc,_nic. HiAghtss :Irc^ utility 1rc1.-)c,ct-' undor I . C . 51-262. I,'c!solut on NTo . 91.8 . ticCul.lcwh i;,ovod to pprov,: 11c.:solution No . 918, , Moyers scDcondcd. Council mcrrb4rs McCulloch , Moyc rs , Pauly, rid Ost. rho It voted in f:i vor of the motion . I-lot ion c-amiod un--mimounly. 5. R,.solut.ion for n,-.w clunici pril Stcitc Aid Strcct dusignn- ti.on on futur,. Valley View Rond from Co. Road 4 to H-S p^rkxv;:v in }ii.dd.on Ponds . Ro:solution No. 915 . McCulloch movod to npprovc Rosolution No. 915 ^nd dii— ,ct ,,t;,^.if to School Di:;trict of this notion. P.,uly scconded. Motion cz rricd unnnimously. 6. Its ;olut, ion ^uthoriz in^ p.- i,tilcipition in tho Suburbnn Itiz�i tc Authority, directing the execution ^.nd delivery of Z Joint Faso rs agrccriont and do signnting a reprc- sontative of th:: City ri s its member on the Board of the Suhurb,in R' tc lut.hori.xy. Tl,, yk. ry mov;A to apnrovo R;. olution no . 916 and do sigrinto Jul L'. ,o I.den Pr:iiric rcprescntn tivc . McCulloch seconded. Motion carried unanimously.