The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission - 03/08/1982 AGENDA Eden Prairie Planning Commission , Monday, March 8, 1982 7:30 PM, City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula, Virginia Gartner, Grant Sutliff, Robert Hallett STAFF MEMBERS: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary I. SWEARING IN OF REAPPOINTED MEMBERS BEARMAN AND TORJESEN II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. Chairperson B. Vice-Chairperson C. Secretary III. APPROVAL -OF AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 22, 1982 MINUTES V. APPROVAL OF JOINT MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 16, 1982 VI. MEMBERS REPORTS VII. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CITY WEST PHASES 1-3, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request for approval of rezoning from Rural to Office District and preliminary plat of part of the City West Planned Unit Development. Included in the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat will be the consideration of the granting of variances, pursuant to Sec. 11, (relating to Planned Unit Developments) , Ord. 135 from the provision of said ordinance applicable to the Office District. Located east of New Shady Oak Road (Co. Rd. 61) and south of Crosstown 62 and west of US 169/212. A continued public hearing. B. SHERATON INN (Eden Glen PUD) , by P & L Investment Company. Request to rezone from Rural to Regional Service Commercial District and preliminary plat the property for a Sheraton Inn which property is part of the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development. 5 acres located south and east of Eden Road and west of Glen Road. A public hearing. C. BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS, by G & D Enterprises. Request for approval of rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 and prelim- inary plat the property which is part of The Preserve Planned Unit Development. Included in the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat will be the consideration • of the granting of variances, pursuatitt to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the pvosions of said Ordinance applicable to the RM 2.5 District. Located south of The Preserve tennis courts and pool , and north of Neill Lake. A public hearing. Agenda-3/8/82 page 2 .V II OLD BUSINESS VI II. A. Petition relating to Woodlawn Heights IX. NEW BUSINESS X. . PLANNER'S REPORT XI. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION approved Monday, March 8, -1982 7:30 PM, City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Bearman, Liz Retterath, Hakon Torjesen, Dennis Marhula, Virginia Gartner, Robert Hallett, Grant Sutliff MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Sue Schulz, Planning Secretary Pledge of Allegiance - Roll Call I. SWEARING IN OF REAPPOINTED MEMBERS BEARMAN AND TORJESEN The Planner administered the oath of office to both members. II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Gartner nominated William Bearman for Chairman, Liz Retterath as Vice-Chairperson, and Hakon Torjesen as Secretary. No other nominations were placed. Gartner moved to close the nominations. Hallett seconded, motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Torjesen moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Retterath seconded. Discussion Gartner asked that Meeting Organization be placed under Old Business. Torjesen and Retterath agreed. Motion carried 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 22, 1982 MINUTES Torjesen moved to approve the February 22, 1982 minutes with the following corrections; Retterath seconded. P. 1 item IV.A. 1st para. , 1st line should read: 'Torjesen asked if it is in anyone's interest to keep continuing the item. The Planner re-' Motion: 2nd line, after 'Commission' add would not continue the item further unless there was good reason for the continuance. ' P. 2 2nd para. , 6th line, $40,000 should be $50,000 P. 4 4th para. , 4th line lotlot should be totlot P. 5 Motion 2's Discussion should be eliminated. 6th para. , 2nd line, delete 'conflicts with Zachman Homes' and insert ' reasons' P. 7 9th para. , 2nd line should read 'needs more information from ADI for staff's review of the project' P. 10 add to 1st para: 'toward the restoration of the house' 2nd para. , delete 'believe in energy restoration' insert 'feel that $5,000 should go toward the energy restoration. ' Motion carried 6-0-1. Bearman abstained. ' approved Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 8, 1982 V. APPROVAL OF JOINT MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 16, 1982 SPECIAL MEETING Sutliff moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Marhula seconded, motion carried 7-0. VI. MEMBERS REPORTS None VII. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. CITY WEST PHASES 1-3, by Richard W. Anderson, Inc. Request for approval of rezoning from Rural to Office District and preliminary plat of part of the City West Planned Unit Dev- elopment. Included in the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat will be the:consideration of the granting ; of variances, pursuant to Sec. 11,(re ating to Planned Unit Developments) , Ord. 135 from the provision of said ordinance applicable to the Office District. Located east of New Shady Oak Road (Co. Rd. 61) and south of Crosstown 62 and west of US 169/212. A continued public hearing. The Planner stated that since the last meeting, (February 22, 1982) he has met with the proponents and stated that the plans requested have been submitted in more detail . He stated Dave Sellegren, Larkin-Hoffman was present to give the presentation. Sellegren introduced: Dick Anderson, Warren Isrealson, Russ Solan and Ken Johnson, of Johnson & Solan Architects, Brian Field, and Scott Anderson from ADI. Sellegren stated that this is consistent with the approved PUD and the Guide Plan Amendment however there is some difference; 64% green area with 80% building area; FAR is .34, ordinance requires .40; parking'for all buildings will be two ramps, underground, or under the plaza; two 6 story buildings and one 3 story building; and the bermming will consist of small plantings and`trees. Twel-ve existing trees around the pond will be lost but all" others will remain. All trees that are lost will be replaced caliper inch per caliper inch. The Planner reviewed the amended staff report dated 3/5/82 and stated that enough information has now been submitted for action to be taken on the requested variances. Long term maintenance should be taken care of by the Owner's Association. Landscaping plan should depict the plant sizes, and also a phasing plan. Marhula asked if the plat includes the entire loop road. Sellegren replied yes. Marhula asked if there were any concerns about the access points as in relation to Crosstown. The Planner stated that the County is concerned about the northern route off this property on the Honeywell property. There is an existing service road that goes in there presently. The County feels that that road will be a right-in right-out access only. The City Staff has problems with that and have dis- cussed that with the proponents previously. The distance between the off ramp of Crosstown 62 and the frontage road is an identical distance to the distance from Shady Oak Road off ramps from 169 to the internal loop road system through the site. Staff has spoken to the County regarding the issue and the County will have to address that concern when the Honeywell proposal comes in. -approved Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 8, 1982 Torjesen asked if ADI has committed to full cost of the Shady Oak Road improvements and asked if it is in writing. The Planner stated yes, and it will be addressed in the developer's agreement. Hallett asked the height of a three story building. The Planner replied 34-35' . Bearman asked about the lighting concept. Sellegren replied it will be similar to Hartford's. Scott Anderson replied it would be similar to Cooperative Power's. __ The Planner stated that it should be .no greater than 25' with cut-off luminars. Bearman expressed concerns regarding the parking ramps and the lighting. Anderson stated that they have been working with the City Engineer regarding that. Bearman asked'if each owner will own a percentage of the parking ramps. Sellegren stated that the Owner's Association will jointly own it. Bearman asked if a private road woul-d be good for this project. The Planner stated that private roads are usually talked about in residential areas. He stated that the Owner's Association will provide maintenance, and stated that would be able to get in and out of the project easily. The Planner asked if the landscaping plan being shown is different from the plan that is included in the packets. Johnson - stated it is different. Bearman asked if there were any questions or comments from residents. None were raised. MOTION 1 Torjesen moved to close the public hearing on City West Phases 1-3 preliminary plat. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. MOTION 2 Torjesen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to Office as per the staff reports dated Feb. 18, and Mar. 5, 1982 and the plans dated March 1, 1982 with the following additions: 1. Landscaping plan dated March 8, 1982. 2. That the oak trees which will be lost during construction be replaced, caliper inch per caliper inch, as determined by the City Staff with no less than four inch caliper trees-half of which should be oak trees and the balance being a variety as' approved by City Staff. 3. That additions be made for the maintenance association document that will contain a maintenance agreement which would include maintenance of the parkway trees and the parkway island and the lighting within the City right-of-way. 4. That within the owner's association document public access be provided for the paths and roads. 5. Prior to City Council review, a phasing plan for the landscaping plan and also that sizes for the plant material to be planted along the Shady Oak Road berm be shown. ' :approved Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 8, 1982 6. That lighting for the building and roadway be reviewed by staff irhti h will be down lighting with cut-off luminars and be stationed in such a way to prevent the glare off of the site. Sutliff seconded. ' DISCUSSION Retterath asked that the berm along Shady Oak Road be constructed with Phase 1 construction and the possibility of planting trees on adjacent residents' land be investigated. Torjesen agreed. Sutliff asked if there wi 1_1_be a _si dewal k al ong the berm on Shady__Oak _Road._ Th_e __ _ Planner replied that will be lookedat_in more detail prior to City Council review. Torjesen asked that the study of Shady Oak Road include a study of pedestrian circulation along Shady Oak Road. Torjesen asked where the trees that will be replaced will be placed. The Planner stated that they are an addition to the landscaping plan dated 3/8/82 and will be put in towards the woods. Marhula asked that prior to City Council review, the developer return to the Plan- ning Commission for review of the final development plans, i.e. , site plan and construction plans prior to final plat approval. Torjesen and Retterath agreed. Bearman asked that the Hennepin County and MnDOT letters dated 2/24/82, the Owner's Association letter, and the ADI letter dated 3/8/82 be added tol'the recommendations. Torjesen and Retterath agreed. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION 3 Torjesen moved to recommend' to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated March 1, 1982 as per the staff reports dated Feb. 18, and Mar. 5, 1982 with all the additions as listed in motion 2. Retterath seconded, motion carried 7-0. B. SHERATON INN :(Edop Glen PUD), by P & L Investment Company. Request to rezone from Rural to Regional Service Commercial District and preliminary plat the property for a Sheraton Inn which property is part of the Eden Glen Planned Unit Development. 5 acres located south and east of Eden Road and west of Glen Road. A public hearing. The Planner stated that Mr. Ron Krank of Korunsky, Krank & Assoc. , and Mr. John Shardlow of Howard Dahlgren & Assoc. were present to give a presentation. Krank stated they are proposing a 152 room hotel and introduced Mr. Shardlow. Shardlow briefly reviewed the approved Eden Glen PUD. The property has been graded, Hardee' s is located on lot 1, Del*aria's Kentucky fried Chicken has been approved on lot 2, and Glen Road is to be constructed. Drainage flows to Lake Idlewild. All the fill that was required has been placed. He stated that the Sheraton Inn proposal complies with the approved Design Framework Manual . approved Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 8, 1982 • Krank stated that the hotel will consist '� of meeting rooms, 152 rooms, a 3000 sq. ft. restaurant, 3000 sq. ft. cocktail lounge, and 4000 sq. ft. ballroom. First view of the hotel would be at the intersection of Eden Road and US 169. When entering into the hotel , the lobby area will be a three story glass atrium. Shardlow reviewed the landscaping plan, which is in conformance with the approved landscaping plan. He stated that the plan provides 345 parking spaces and stated he felt the site has a good access. The Planner reviewed the staff report dated 3/4/82 and reviewed the variances being requested. Bearman asked if only the FAR variance was going to the Board of Appeals. The Planner replied that all variances should go, but he would check the publication. He was concerned with the congestion to be developed with the hotel and fast food rest- aurants. Proof of parking should be obtained and cash park fee is applicable. Hallett expressed concerns regarding the amount of parking. Krank stated that the parking criteria was 1 space/person which, in the past, has met Sheraton's needs. Bearman _asked if there is room on the site for a parking ramp. Krank replied no. Torjesen stated he felt that more parking is nee ed— . - . Bearman stated that the ordinance requirements for parking is based on the size of 1973 or 1974 cars. The Planner stated that the trend of car size has :come down approximately 20% and . s_tated_ the ordinance size has not come down. He stated that he felt that this project is a special use. --__ Hallett stated that he felt the community needs a hotel but also felt that more parking is needed. Sutliff asked if the land next to it is developed, if the parking can be shared. The Planner replied yes. Mrs. Robert, 7936 Eden Road stated she was concerned where the snow will go when the parking lot is plowed in the Winter. t: MOTION 1 Gartner moved to close the public hearing on Sheraton Inn plat. Sutliff seconded, motion carried 7-0. MOTION 2 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning from Rural to C-Reg-Ser for a Sheraton Inn as per the plans dated 1/14/82 and the March 4, 1982 staff report adding that cash park fee of $1400/acre is applicable and the approved landscaping plan in the Eden Glen proposal , and that the parking study submitted by Shardlow be made part of the minutes. Torjesen seconded. DISCUSSION Torjesen asked that staff and the proponent get together to discuss the access problem. Gartner agreed. p hut rsrtoftfbb.-,, nrit2i3floniq --rffiins^i brijov,, J ri .QUA( 0�S Z S-rl �1� 0"1 Z Z z e r"i 0 1 0 'if} z;0 r s ri- j d,,,- 2 f I t 0 3 6 92u r.Gtbsrfa: z at floriur 9fli- prihit ed brunx! 23-off"'Irloo �iet Srifi-i or' bqlrat2 6FIjr',-fj5ii off'fa srldt o:Mo 2eoaj5l�rlo C-,91fli" E)TS bSJ-.6---2 O'N .'f ur,l approved Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 8, 1982 Marhula stated that he felt the peak time for conflicts would be during the lunch hour. He stated that there are three entrances onto the site and felt that the majority of the trips will be from people who work in Eden Prairie and felt it should be studied further by Mr. Krank and the Engineering Department. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION 3 Gartner moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat dated 1/14/82 as per the staff report dated March 4, 1982 with the same additions as in motion 2. Marhula seconded, motion carried 7-0. C. BAYPOINT MANOR APARTMENTS, by G & D Enterprises. Request for approval of rezoning from Rural to RM 2.5 and prelim- inary plat the property which is part of The Preserve Planned Unit Development. Included in the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat will be the consideration of the granting of variances, pursuant to Sec. 11, Ord. 135 from the provisions of said ordinance applicable to the RM 2.5 District. Located south of The Preserve tennis courts and pool , and north of Neill Lake. A public hearing. The Planner stated that a staff report has not been done because of many concerns. This meeting is an informational meeting. He• introduced Larry Peterson of The Preserve. Peterson reviewed the location of the project and stated he felt the project would fit well into The Preserve. He introduced Mr. Steve Ludwig of Miller Construction. Ludwig stated a neighborhood meeting was held in which the project was presented. He gave a brief slide presentation. The garages will be under the buildings with parking area in front of the building. The buildings will be tucked into the hill which slopes down to the lake. There will be a pathway around Neill Lake which will be completed as the site is constructed. There will also be a pathway built around the buildings for fire trucks. Bearman asked if the 1968 Guide Plan showed this site as single family residential . The Planner replied that the 1969 Guide Plan showed The Preserve as residential and the 1976-1977 Guide Plan showed medium density residential. Torjesen asked the density. Ludwig replied 12.9 units/acre. Bearman asked if the site meets all Shoreland Management requirements. Ludwig replied yes. He also stated that he had• received a letter from Cragg & Bailly, Ltd. which is to be made part of the minutes. Retterath asked the needed income level for the apartments. Ludwig introduced Mr. Bob Kobar of G &-D Enterprises. Kobar replied $27,200. Retterath asked the rent per month. Kobar replied $450-600/month with the majority of the apartments • ranging from $490-550/month. He stated that there are 16 different rental units. Sutliff asked the size of the building if it were to be straightened out and asked what the exterior would be. Ludwig replied 650' with the smaller to be 212' and the exterior would be made up of brick, mansard shingles, stucco, and prefinished metal siding. approved Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 8, 1982 Retterath asked the location for the prefinished metal siding. Ludwig replied at the end of the bricks, wingwalls, and on the soffet. Karen Morris, 8948 Neill Lake Road was concerned with the closeness of the building to her building, the amount of traffic to be generated, safety for children playing, bicyclists, etc. , the garage dumpster location, the location of the utility fans, if parking spaces will be provided for handicapped_. people, and felt the proximity of the building is not good. Alex Banks, 8843 Basswood Road, asked if the rent will be subsidized, if the mortgage will be provided by Federal funds or private, and stated that he felt that a better use could be put to the land. Kobar replied the rent will not be sub- sidized, financing will be through net capitol and owner equity. Bruce Carlson, 8948 Neill Lake Road was concerned about the following: access to the small building, felt his sight lines will be obstructed, the overall access, the amount of traffic to be generated, and presented a petition of approximately 250 homeowner's signatures which he asked to be made part of the minutes. Gary Lewis, 8952 Neill Lake Road stated that when he moved into the area, he was led to believe that this property would be owner occupied rather than rental . He was concerned with the amount of Large oak trees to be taken out and asked the number of units to be in the smaller building. Ludwig replied 36 units. Wayne Miller, 8928B Neill Lake Road asked why this type of project is proposed for this area, stated he was told that this type of housing would not be placed on this site when he moved in, and asked if any studies have been done on the traffic. Peterson stated that this site was originally proposed as higher density then now, stated he felt this type of housing has advantages, and stated a study was completed at'the time of the recreation facilities construction. Jim Sager, 8988A Neill Lake Road, stated he is the president of the Neill Lake Homeowner's Association and stated he had discussed this project with Ridgewood owners and stated they agree on the concern regarding the amount of traffic to be generated on Anderson Lakes Parkway. Lynn Roloff, 8948 Neill Lake Road invited the Planning Commission Members and Staff to come and look at the site from the inside and outside of their homes. Jim Vanhorn, 8940 Neill Lake Road felt that no amenities are being provided on the site and stated he felt that the proponents are over-building the site. Jerry Mader, 8940 Neill Lake Road was concerned where the vents for the underground parking will go. Sutliff asked if the existing surrounding homeowners can remodel their units. Peterson replied that a design review committee decides that. Bearman felt the following should be looked at: interior circulation, detail site analysis, trees to be detailed, the effect the parking has on the site, pool and • tennis court, soils, detail landscaping plan, venting of the garage, shifting the small building, the dumpster location and the question of handicap necessities. 1 1 1 approved Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 8, 1982 Retterath asked the number of multiple units south of Anderson Lakes Parkway and across the road. The Planner stated he would check. Torjesen stated he felt that the history of the site would help to show how this type of site was arrived at from the staff's point of view,tand the developer's point of view. Gartner stated she would like to see the original Preserve concept that was approved. Hallett stated he was concerned with the lighting to be used on the site and the number of trees to be removed. Marhula stated he would like to see an overview of the type of eecieation 'facilities were provided with Ridgewood, etc. , such as trails, etc. , what is proposed on The Preserve Condominiums phase 3, and the appropriate parking for the recreation area. Sutliff asked if all the apartments will depend on the community recreational fac- ilities or if there will be a totlot provided. The Planner replied that a totlot construction would be required. Retterath stated that she felt that she would like to see a sample of prefini§hed ' metal siding. Gartner stated that she has received numerous phone calls and post cards from residents that were unable to attend. MOTION Retterath moved to continue the public hearing on Baypoint Manor Apartments to March 22, 1982 for a staff report. Gartner seconded, motion carried 7-0. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Petition relating to Woodlawn Heights The Planner stated that the petition was included for the Commission's information. Bearman stated that the petition should be forwarded to the City Council . B. Organization Gartner moved to set the Planning Commission meetings on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of every month with the possibility of another meeting on the 5th Mondays if it is needed. Marhula seconded, motion carried 7-0. Bearman also stated that the agenda items will be limited to three items each including continued items. VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PLANNER'S REPORT The Planner reviewed upcoming items. ' X. ADJOURNMENT - Marhula moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:48 PM. Torjesen seconded, motion carried 7-0. ADI HARD W. ANDERSON, INC. DEVELOPER March 8, 1982 Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Chairman and Council Members Before you for your review this 8th day of March, 1982, is a proposal for the initial phase of City West. Our intent is to create the most desirable working environment for our future tenants throughout all phases of this significant development. With this ideal in mind, we propose to you a complete inch value replacement of all existing significant trees on the Plaza I site. This totals a replacement of a little over 100" of tree trunk or approximately 12 trees. ' ADI proposes to replace the 100" in the following manner: Over 25 4" or larger Ash or Linden trees located in approximately the same general area. This is in excess of our proposed landscape plan before you tonight. Another feature of City West is our tree lined parkway. Where over 175 trees will be planted. Again, this is in excess of our proposed Phase-'I-Landscape Plan. Sincerely, RICHARD W. ANDERSON, INC. (ADI) B le,mod Scott R. Anderson Vice President Marketing /tm • 10125 Crosstown Circle Phone (612) 944-6803 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PARKING AREA RELATIONSHIP Phase I Constructed in Phase I A. Ramp #1 with 456 parks B. Street with 20 parks C. Building with 56 underground parks Total Parks 532 At this stage 100% allocation to Phase I , Plaza I Phase II Constructed in Phase II A. Ramp #2 with 440 parks • B. Plaza with 126/63 underground parks C. Building with 56 Total Parks 622 As the figures indicate there is an excess of parking to code requirements. A 100% allocation of ramp #2 will occur at this stage to Plaza II . A 50% allocation of under Plaza parking to "Plaza II" , and a 50% allocation of under Plaza parking to "Plaza III -will occur. Total Allocations Plaza I 595 parks* Plaza II 559 parks* * Code requirements 500 parks per building. Total Excess Plaza I 95 parks Plaza II 59 parks • CONSTRUCTED IN PHASE III A. Building with 56 underground parks Refer to Phase II total allocations for excess ramp stalls. A. Ramp #1 9.5 B. Ramp #2 59 Total allocation to Plaza III . New construction plus ramp 1 and 2 210 Final Allocation (completion of construction) Plaza I Ramp (#1) 371 Under Building (#1) 56 Under Plaza (#2) 63 Street (#1) 10 Total 500 Plaza II Ramp (#2) 371 Under Building (#2) 56 Under Plaza (#2) 63 Street (#1) 10 Total 500 Plaza III Ramp (#1 and #2) 154 Under Building (#3) 56 Total 210 1 A PEAK PERIOD PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Sheraton Inn, Eden Prairie I MONDAY - THURSDAY, DAYTIME PEAK, 11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. HOTEL USE PERCENTAGE UTILIZED PARKING REQUIRED 152 Guest Rooms 10% 15 spaces 177 Restaurant Seats 100% 59 spaces 136 Lounge Seats 100% 46 spaces Ballroom 100% 133 spaces Meeting Rooms 100% 22 spaces Employees 100% 40 spaces TOTAL 315 spaces II MONDAY - THURSDAY, NIGHTTIME PEAK, 7:30 p.m. - 9:00 ]2.m. 152 Guest Rooms 80% - 25% 80 spaces (see explanation) Restaurant 100% - 50% 29 spaces (50% hotel guests) Lounge 20% 15 spaces (Peak period 5:00 - 7:00 pm) Ballroom 100% 133 spaces Meeting Rooms 0% 0 spaces Employees 100% 40 sjaces TOTAL 297 spaces • '1 h PEAK PERIOD PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Page 2 III FRIDAY EVENING, DINNER, 7:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. HOTEL USE PERCENTAGE UTILIZED PARKING REQUIRED 152 Guest Rooms 50% 76 spaces Restaurant 100% 59 spaces Lounge 100% 46 spaces Ballroom 100% 91 spaces (275 people maximum for food function) Meeting Rooms 0% 0 spaces Employees 100% 40 spaces TOTAL 312 spaces IV SATURDAY EVENING, DINNER, 7:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. 152 Guest Rooms 50% 76 spaces Restaurant 100% 59 spaces Lounge 30% 41 spaces Ballroom 100% 91 spaces (275 people) Meeting Rooms 0% 0 spaces Employees 100% 40 sj2aces TOTAL 307 spaces i CRAGG 8, BAILLY , LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 PARK NA'f10NAL BANK BUILDING , 53:53 WAYZATA BOULEVARD J.W. CRAGG MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 5 5416-1367 TELEPHONE DAVID A. BAILLY (6I2) 544-6I16 ROBERT S. CRAGG GARY J. GORDON March 4 , 1982 ROBERT L.MCCOLLUM DAN K.PROCNNOW William Bearman , 9955 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Elizabeth Retterath Dennis Marhula 8235 Tamarack Trail 15021 Summerhill Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Virginia Gartner Grant Sutliff 15701 Cedar Ridge Road 7070 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Hakon Torjesen Robert Hallett 6604 Rowland Road 17501 Valley Road • Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Bay Point Manor Apartments in the Preserve Dear Members of the Planning Commission: , Please be advised that I 'have been retained by the Ridgewoods Condominium Association relative to' the development of Bay Point Manor in the Preserve. It is our understanding that the Bay Point Manor Apartment development will be first presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on March 8, 1982. It is the intent of this letter to express both a factual and legal basis for concerns and objections of Ridgewoods Condominium Association to the subject project. The objections of my client can be bifurcated into two separate categories: (1) Those objections relating specifically to: (a) The access leading to both apartment buildings contemplated by the project, and (b) The proximity of the small apartment building (of the two proposed) to the Ridgewoods Condominium lower building; and • Mr. Bearman, at al March 4 , 1982 Page 2 (2) Those objections generally of the Preserve, of which my client is a part. The project as contemplated by the developer and the Preserve is attached as Exhibit A for your reference. I would call your attention to two aspects of the proposal which the residents of Ridgewoods Condominium Association find particularly detrimental and objectional. The first of these is the access road which is proposed to run between the pool and the lower Ridgewoods Condominium Association building. This road will serve not only the smaller of the two buildings of the apartment complex, but the larger of the two as well - a total of 150 apartment units to be served. As planned, this road would be located approximately 25 feet from the most northwesterly corner of the owner occupied condominium units. There is presently a road running through this area which serves the Preserve office and sometimes also provides . parking for Preserve residents using the pool. Suffice it to say that the road is not presently heavily utilized and .is rarely used during other than normal business hours. The new road, however, as proposed is a drastic and substantial change, not only in traffic volume, but in terms of hours of usage. Exhibit A indicates that there are contemplated 314 total parking stalls as part of this project. At the most, at present, it would seem that there are approximately 5 to 10 cars which presently use the Preserve office parking lot. The fact that this roadway may be used at hours other than normal working hours is self- evident. Consequently, the residents of Ridgewoods Condominium Association are of the opinion that such access route would surely serve to ruin the degree of privacy and solitude which Ridgewoods residents now have, particularly since the road would effectively border on their back yards. I doubt that anyone would desire to have a road which would have such heavy usage at all hours of the day and night so closely situated to their rear doors. The second aspect of this particular objection would be the reduction of safety to the minor children, not only residing within the Ridgewoods Condominium -Association building, but the Neill Lake Apartments, Neill Lake Townhouses, and other members of the Preserve. Specifically, with regard to Ridgewoods Condq- . miniums,- the original condominium design- contemplated the utiliza- tion of multiple recreational areas for small children. Because the Ridgewoods development was truncated prior to its completion, these recreational areas were never completed. As such, the Ridgewoods Association, of itself, has no recreational areas of its own. The only true recreational area which can be found, Mr. Bearman, et al March 4 , 1982 Page 3 - would be in the area behind the Ridgewoods building facing the pool. This is precisely in the area where the access road is now proposed. I certainly think that the Planning Commission should take this particular safety concern into account. It not only applies to Ridgewoods residents, but also to other residents of the Preserve who will now have to-cross this road to gain access to the pool and the other _ recreational facilities. The second major objection of Ridgewoods to the development is the location of the smaller of the two apart- ment buildings . The location is objectionable for quite a number of reasons. First, the building is scheduled to be built roughly 18 yards from the most southwesterly corner of the Ridgewoods Condominium Association building. While it may be true that the physical structures are somewhat similar in that they are designed for multiple residential housing, they are greatly dissimilar in terms of interests of the individuals residing therein. Ridgewoods are owner occupied condominiums. The residents have an ownership interest in their property and • are concerned about maintaining their property values. The same cannot be said with respect to renters of property. This has received judicial recognition, both in this State and elsewhere: "That the construction of apartment buildings, however, attractively •planned, is likely to effect adversely surrounding residential dwellings is not only supported in the record, but to some extent is a matter of judicial notice. " Filister v. City of Minneapolis, 270 Minn. 53 , 133 NW2d 500 , 504 (1964) Cert. denied 382 US 14 , 86 S.Ct. 47, 15 L.Ed. 2d 10. As such, it must be recognized that the proximity of this particular building to the Ridgewoods Condominiums, coupled with the access road behind such building, will certainly prove to be detrimental to the interests of the residents of Ridgewoods. There is no practical way to somehow create a barrier or buffer which would serve to insulate Ridgewoods. from the impact of this development. Mr. Bearman, et al March 4 , 1982 Page 4 Additionally, construction of the smaller of the two apartment buildings will effectively eliminate the views which the residents of the7Ridgewoods Condominium building have of Neill. Lake. This is of particular importance to residents of Ridgewoods. It was one of the inducements for purchasing their properties, which is consistent with the understanding of the developers of the Ridgewoods Condominiums that such views would be preserved. I attach as Exhibit B a copy of a newspaper article which I was able to locate in the City' s files pertaining to the Preserve development, which specifically indicates that it was the intent of the developer of Ridgewoods Condominiums that the residents thereof have a view of Neill Lake. The original PUD filed by the Preserve at page 12 con- tains the following statement relative to the intent of the developers of the Preserve: "The substantial natural amenities should be expolited by capitalizing on potential views, vistas, overlooks, etc. " . The construction of the smaller apartment building will effectively destroy that objective and would, therefore, be violative of the PUD as originally planned and upon which the owners of the Ridgewoods Condominiums relied. ' Moreover, the construction of the smaller building and of the access road necessarily contemplates the elimination of numerous trees which have stood on that property for many years. Again this is violative of the objectives of the Preserve PUD. In a booklet submitted to the City at the time of the original PUD approval, entitled "Framework for Physical Develop- ment" , the following objective is stated with regard to the Preserve design review committee: "it is not the intent of the design review committee to inhibit excellence of design, nor to limit the owner to any preconceived type of building, but to protect the owners who have purchased land in the Preserve because of its natural beauty, from any construction which might unnecessarily destroy the natural surroundings. " A newspaper article contained in the City of Eden Prairie PUD file indicates: , -Ah.Mr. Bearman, et- al March 4 , 1982 ! Wage 5 "According cc rding to the developers, the site i will be carefully developed to take ; advantage of the area' s rolling hills, magnificent trees, and abundant wildlife. " j Again, these specific objectives of the Preserve PUD would be violated by the construction of this apartment J complex, and particularly by the construction of the smaller of the two apartment buildings and by the access road running between the Preserve pool and Ridgewoods Condominiums. The project, as contemplated, would serve to reduce the safety of children playing in the area, would be detrimental to the welfare of the existing neighborhood, would have an adverse 1_ impact upon property values, and it would be violative of the J intent of the original PUD because it will destroy existing 1 views of Neill Lake and require the elimination of numerous large trees which are presently located upon the development site. It is for these specific reasons that Ridgewoods Condo- . ;t minium Association objects to the development as it is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. • As part of the Preserve, Ridgewoods Condominium Association shares a mutuality of interest with its other neighbors. In this regard, that mutuality of interest relates specifically to the provision for recreational areas in the Preserve, and specifically with regard to the recreational facilities which are set forth in Exhibit A. In this context, we can only share certain concerns which we feel would be applicable to other residents residing in the Preserve as well as to the residents residing in Ridgewoods Condominium Association. I have already expressed a concern relative to the safety of children who would attempt to use the subject recrea- tional facilities when such facilities are so proximately located to the proposed apartment complex. Certainly, such does not tend to serve the health, safety, or welfare of the residents ` of the Preserve. Additionally, there is concern relative to this development, since it runs contrary to the specific representations made by the Preserve as to how the subject property would be utilized. I would ask that J 1 Mr. Bearman, et al March 4 , 1982 Page 6 you consider the documents that I have attached as Exhibits C, D, and E. Each of these documents were published by the Preserve with the obvious intent of inducing individuals to purchase property for the purpose of residing in the Preserve PUD. Of course, the Preserve development corporation itself benefited from these representations, which they now seek to contravene. Other documents which tend to indicate that this area would be utilized for recreational facilities include the Development Concept, 1974 revision, which shows "Field Games" , open space, and the Preserve center in the area where the apartments are now being proposed. Additionally, the original documents filed by the Preserve show many more recreational facilities than presently exist in the Preserve. As the Preserve has progressed, for whatever reason, many ' of the recreational facilities were not constructed. This is particularly true with regard to the Neill Lake Townhouses , where the original Ridgewoods Condominium development contemplated 1 numerous play areas for children. Also, the Framework for Physical Development, referred to above, shows a major recreational center which was never developed in the area of the now existing _ Preserve center. Finally, at page 84 of the original PUD filed with the City, the Preserve developers have represented that • the: "retention [of Neill Lake] as ponding area and as a potential park/open space/recreation area is a definite objective. " At the present time there is very little. practical usage which is being made of Neill Lake and the surrounding shoreline. The Preserve developers have simply never developed that area into a recreational facility sufficient for public usage. There is a walking path around the lake, but that is about the extent of it. Again, that is contrary to the original PUD objectives and is definitely contrary to the representations made in the literature, copies of which are attached hereto. At this point, I would like to call the Planning Commission' s attention to the case of Westling v. City of St. Louis Park, 284 Minn. 351, 170 NW2d 218 (1969) , in which, the Court elucidated upon the undesirable impact of juxtaposing rental apartments with single family homes within the confines of the City of St. Louis Park. The case is somewhat distinguishable from the instant situation, since the •developer in that case was Mr. Bearman, et al March 4, 1982 Page 7 asking for a special -use permit to develop an apartment ! building on property adjacent to single family homes. Since a special permit was considered to be equivalent to the variance, the Court held that the City' s -denial of the special permit was appropriate. However, the case is similar in many respects to the situation presented here. As indicated, the apartment development as proposed is contrary to many of the objectives of the' Preserve PUD, which is of itself, as I understand it, an ordinance adopted by the City. In the Westling case and in the present case the developers are asserting that the proposed development is within the confines of the density which would be appropriate for the tract of property to be utilized. Of particular note, in the Westling case, and in the existing case at hand, the developer had recognized benefits from sales of adjoining property to the property where the apartment buildings were proposed. In each instance, representations were made by the developers relative to the usage of that property, which representations would appear to be contrary • to the construction of apartment- buildings. I would ask you specifically to refer your attention to the Appendix found at the conclusion of the Westling case, which sets forth the factors which the City considered in rejecting the usage as contemplated by the developer. Many of these factors also apply with respect to the proposed development of Bay Point Manor. Under the circumstances, the City has the right to reasonably hold the developer to the representations made to the residents of the Preserve relative to the usage of the subject property. The expectations of the public .in the purchase of their homes in the Preserve must be recognized. It is clear that the Bay Point Manor development is simply not a feasible development as it is presently situated and is particularly offensive and detrimental to the Ridgewoods Condominium Association members. The project should be rejected as violative of the intent and purposes of the Preserve PUD, and is violative of the health, safety, and welfare of people who are residing in the Preserve. For these reasons, we ask that you reject the proposed development. Very truly yours, CRAGG AIL Y LTD. , Robert L cco lu RLM:sjs cc: Lynne C. Roloff; President, Ridgewoods Condominium Association; P.O. Box 35304 ; Edina, Minnesota 55435 I •` - ANO.I•a0N LAK•. OA nK WAY ` ' - / \ \ Ra ' f ` `GDMM .ITV40 •`- /// Ito ■a -`\ ` � �r OT fIN.►lw.■l^7.ai►Ol• r.\ ` MA`T KO � ✓Y 1 � ..4 1LAwA qa rIN_rtw.auv,.ay•' �.•�' 1\ ', ;' '©.• i' / bFtr .i � .\\:��_ --..Y, . . \`�V � � ■■ as od r, j / \ . R,a� �—( / `.t.• ,•�i":.:r•i �! \.•\•'Y?t'-'S, \-•\�'" '��1• �, .•� •~•• �s""t•, ��J i / 6 me— It 74 tv l` ,rR-: ►MAC •�t•.../•' \ � ouMDw Te ��;�'�• '�..�•",t {•;t;;^,i•. - °� -`�� .. 1a - f1 \ \. J•- J�fiw t� 1�, ,ti\ YR •' �u —TO w �JJno 'NEILL LAKE \ LAK. aL.VATION•1a.00 - A•RMaN'T a'rraw• .1 • Ay1��•pY SITE PLAN---. 10D 000 '00 UN'" LECSENO _ 1.0 \NCL0.W0 PAR.+HD •TAILf ._ ____-_ J- 1•a oV.N rA wKINO TALL• ._. Iw OPawTY LINna .TALL\ TT.af TO as ■MOVaO a1♦TOTAL •-)•-\ Tpaaw TO PYMAIN Now TN 1 maw UNIT ►w OrD+IaD Ow AOia �-� =KA T1ND OwPDne Y�/C AL • • .PMALT rATMW AY T I I / 1 _ r _•� :2 1 EXHIBIT A . SUN NEWSPAPER Sep LUMUL1 / lk �;• *'.y+,� ;�y.,L ', J•Jl.,f+ 7t}E ,1t1:.iv�<<. SY •�tM ,r- .}:.: 7 r ,ia i {; - .- �rit,4.a+ �'��2.i a.. ..atz-�4';;�.`:`f 1;Ys •;�.:(S..•.:CP'� '1•, ``� •� • Y}..�;c•��s�3�,�.:FA.r�.ti�.� ,s�'c G,��,Yry'�'vv� ;L";?��'�},, '�`7,'.Y�. TMa k;• .7;�4'�Ir+ti;'�'s: z••r''�f}'t �.tbi.,4�''it- . • • f� ,'� ' ;ss r?^� a, '1K�P.^;-Ax''ft•y�:,:7�t ��`r, ��r_ �.-�;`'zt :�`'-7� ? C +:•'; �r't'SF i�i>~ y_v.,:i Ls r-. rj+t•��, r'V03-�,•+'.f�•�'•�:� 'y: ti f7Yti. �. '•�•-,`y� -P-•. i"Si%J�..y •�f��,••,�,.f' r. •ct SySy' i �'.a+'•-�z i�4r:` t:•�` �r �i.l"'..��x",t'x-��r./'�;!•.�•?� ��i�G+�'•i•^„^T.{•}1. '�„�C��S!1 .€•s�r"tw'•r.'. Y • k ra++�\.c.R-r:-" 'h: {l+"f;y.•'!.'.� 'w`�t j•t. ._;a'-. tr-^. :,F,�'i:•', ,s 1 ',., tom[ l •l: ,r"�•�f'.,J" '••- � 1�`:�^...� t{ t� l�J-t'.�� lam!•,. ti.+.'..It ��- •• �:�•'.ti;�'X•!�"-1. .� ' ` ' �' � �L�� ;E_:✓;ti•' 'r`'�`�t`S`.'''._ .i�^:i..f? ,a"jz`�•.i+}f""', _`�.-,,::�;-t�iL-t`� =��'t�:'.''•+�'��'� ' rt. '•L''a•w ,7.{:+'t y� 'i ;n�r�`t�•.•.r�i,'�•.',�y`-•• L: .., fT ?i '• at�1 ( _ �•f: •^} ,.r,,/.�p.,-tt;�''�x� !i C•'"" - _1 i.'::..'+..j.r�t�(-v"y¢•v.-, �r� -c.•:.'�• .+'l•':�•i�-"C S�i.• : .�K,y.s t rt ;si �t t.,t- .;�y.. Y �^ �•r+..�•'i�` - • .- .: .. .-.u( ��r'^ `S'• '1f L ."{`'s1 , ` .G`'1•t..l�f.1,•,. - o-•�•,s '44�.'i•'� ,t•' '-tL~47Jyfyj`i. 7jr-CM'� V V'Y• 1 ,..I�•1.t�,DDD t +Y Y Y"'V�.7..Yt'✓r L`� x 4, ,• - .j • :'{..",,`, :- sue,. �,•__ ::; ,1.i> �•, �z c��-/�,•�i�;;'�'` �_"-. ^`s '� '- •,';1 • `�r, 7.""�.i•�•a., .^^`4•y.'w N '� ��. � - r �� r.•„lrc.-� Y r;.-:�a.^, �,t rY_Y�s'r. f • bw��• �•at./ ��'� .�'� - �.+ � - r 'err-'•t�4t, zt �L{.•'� _2 .•. ref /j/ _ � ' t j1I�r•,� �,Y �pf :i��r"��•:.a y/irra� "•�,,,r"+•�'�y N /�`' i 1 .^s• +.'•2 r..t�1.1' .i. � ice... `r�;'^'•f �?" - f LJ�a� •� Y ol•-•r`•."�7 J;,•, `t i_ ,�J '�YN•- •M•:. ` /plj i •<✓mot ya.f Y^• „,. ''��:�Y�:y� : '•c r� dr.Y: '4_ [" ',} ! � r F• ' •t•)S'�`,i.•a ri: :Y"}�-a�`y"*,i,. ' GROUND BREAKING was this week for the new $6 million condominium apart- ment project at The Preserve. Present were, from left, Joseph J. Strangis, execu- tive vice president of Preferred Developers Corp.; Kenneth W. Person, vice presi-- 'dent for Business Development for Minnegasco; Claude Thacker, president of Pre- ferred; and John H.Gertz, vice president of Carter& Gertz, Inc. Construction Begins On EP Condominium Apartments The first construction in The Pre- to preserve mature trees. The project has serve, the new planned community in been designed so that all living units will- Eden Prairie, will be 195 condominium have a view of- Neill-Laker James M. apartments, The Preserve and Preferred Cooperman.Plymouth,is the architect. Developers Corp., St. Louis Park, an- Buildings will be in groupings of two, pounced this week. three, four and five along two hillside lev- Preterred is owner and builder of the els. Individual living units will range in $6 million project, under construction this size from 709 square feet to 1,627 square = week on a 14-acre hillside site overlooking feet and each will have its own heating Neill Lake. and air conditioning system.Garages will be both single level and stacked,with easy Joseph J. Strangis, executive vice access at two levels. president of Preferred.said 39 multi-level THE PROJECT will also have recrea- buildings, each with five living units, will tional vehicle storage, play facilities and be built in two stages. The first phase in- pedestrian pathways integrated into The . eludes 18 buildings, or 90 units, and is Preserve's overall greenways system. scheduled for completion in early spring Preferred Developers is a land devel- , 1973. oper and general contractor, specializing EACH BUILDING will have one, two in multi-unit housing and commercial fa- and three bedroom apartments. A single cilities in Minnesota^and Florida. common corridor with no Inure than half The Preserve, 1.200 acres adjacent to ' a flight of stairs will provide easy access the Anderson Lakes, is at the intersection 1 to•every living unit. of Interstate 494 and U.S. 169. It is being VXHIBIT B 'Strangis said the design was selected co-developed by Carter dr Gertz. Inc.,and to t^ki- advantage of the topography and Minneapolis Gas Company. G _93MMOM ale ,_..• U—JU MAN zlIdpvW - SIM uapswy 0 1I9IHXH .. .. tooZ-tt•s 1Zt91 EvESS elosauulVY aule,d uaP3 l Peon otue,3 OZ68 sOsrnoyuMol •IIQJl *lL �� .+•1 �� ail (-Aouedn33o a;eipawtp! jol 0 flene i;�� LL• , f g 1 sut• f is,, swnluiwopuo3 q `SaWOyUMO J tsawoy Jay)f� Kn.,l Ano ~� .spy ot'•(� lat• y •- ` suoi�.EaoI Iapow s Lob O °•T tfW �Y{Vdq6!H S .. °b+b. •soy %to► ` otOb sluatulurdy 06°� �o�°� tco*q la lu posodo,d 0. 0 S 'Y , � � � r� �Q��p�• OK�1 IIION 9' ��y0i ...\ tittrlwttiuopuo� wv...i..lr 0•fOl P-aP111 ' i /o1a ♦ • uot.,opuv sasnoyuMo ss •�, .�_ r•. sluatul,edy 1 pasodo,d t 1 m • t .nw w, ISO � >ise3 I - + r w ♦ � 00 IsGd 1 `�• r °°Op1Mf• SOLUGH /to,ydtunH 0 swnlulwoplLoO • ,alsnlo 7 18ljn1N. sllseu,l�ed e c►Lt r• y . spooNlsaeg /�``+ stuawNecJb V � r ►�`• •i°rc, °�o pasodad/;o sp OCLI � SvG d ld : ed�PulM ' Y I 7 oils P�` c• = _: �g1�.iw^�C�V®ram yo� y , n � a J • + asodo,d ►pL• of ol(f ILL. n 1 s V j VY�• '�r`r• ;L• r�•�; i c p I XL Oils KJV i -10043S + °, •�� scn , •� I seKte� .r .�tro t � � �' r; • � r SL9f r r % 4 4L� • °s Lam` 4••1 i •��. r� O AI �j a uoa,apuy' � � c •. c o � l�tr'iIS ��9 `��,�'L� r s `Ly♦a� �+5� i . O°Val ■ur° rorarl" 00►i1 -eJ� qnn 3M�O'�Lf,,y _ ,y V p- y_ •- 1.�. -yp• �, +Y f� � d' �'y I~ • � • �� a� �� 1 � � y ley o _ o O O E O O � O jj 4 F�II sl.ol Y SLIM 1 sup 1 a►Lol �1�' p/ ��.1r��j�.✓{,rn _ ""rl� aoo..wr�M srctt O � 1 LL t• Fl w� 9 \\"/Y41 o Q o Oactl y � p J L dd i. _ Orn. �. Y otLtl °tµ y Oct It dtol yd' \�� (� �} y y,► OCLIt OLLII V V wt]IJ0N • � �.f 4 � � �1� �ii/ G dtll, far ■■■ !', $ 9 y aa (uoog undo) ,aluoo 41109H • ,� DI,le,d u@P3 .Y • (undo MON) i laluaU 6ulddoLIS T al,le,d uaP3 i are a�. off. luum IaAau 11 noA japow ono le 3nool "aunjeu �ip 3lool l sailluawle all, Ip a r_. •-- -- - ----- — -------•— Q SIfiIHX3 • fouedn000 olelpawwt Jol e19e1lene swnlulwopuo3 pue's8woyuwwl's2w04 Joylp tOot-tr61Z19t EPM e1osauu, •aweJd uaP3 T 7 pcoy oiueTJi j oZ68 asJnoo 1109 II!" oidwAlo rewo}NJnoZ slleJ ayl, • �\ CM Co 4 \ 3 Co iody6iH 0 0�sy }� � 4ILL Pu 4loL 6�y`AepunS uo s.r1+r1 � YJ iid r Bop l«I R o3 aaJj a Joy ul dolS It iQSOJd w nt sa uo„ a,jnlQj ��. s@04UMO.L "7, ,Z6� 8 o luau)Jedy < '• \� .'t � /� C. J.�;, ells �S n MSS2$ r s •' +` >�L �4 �. 4oJnyo �. al,s 31ed I00403as 9,q.�'lil� 4 f eel IeloJawwo pasod —,-Puy i . oa • 0 i Jelua3 6uldd04S alJleJd uaP3 Samos 3® a 212d SL 1 af,1asa� Petition to Eden Prairie Planning commission is City Council Subject: Proposed Zoning Change, Outlot D Edenvale 3rd. Add. W are residents of the Edenvale area which is adjacent to the above property which is being considered for a zoning change to include row type condominium/townhouse structures and manor homes. We are opposed to this change for the following reasons: 1. Since there are already numerous multi—family dwellings in the general area, any additional multifamily units would place an undue burden on the existing roads, such as Edenvek Elvd. and the railroad bridge on Valley Vier Road. 2: The ihcreesed traffic would also he a hazard to children and bicyclists in the area, but mainly on Edenvale Elvd. 3. The addition of over 100 units in a 16.9 acre area would tend to destroy the semi.,rural character of the neighborhood. 4. This high density, 7.1 units/acre, units would undoubtedly cause adverse social problems similar to those seen in other high density areas of Eden Prairie. This could cause a depreciation of home values in the neighborhood. 5. The past development of the immediate area has been geared to preserving the natural qualities of the land. This has been accomplished at considerable expense to the present property owners. A massive project like that proposed for outlot D, would undoubtedly necessitate complete land re—contouring and destroy the aesthetic qualities the people have tried to preserve. 6. 'He understand that other land in the immediate area is already zoned multi—family. It is our fear that if this trend continues, the area will become too urbanized. 7. We Question the ability of the schools to handle this extra load. Irv.-oivi�tGat1•�c iS/yv fir," , 7d 937 d'770 flL�� a 9�7:�77a _____ r � j - 1 � `�•'�..�yn.1 �:t''..,.,�`'t ...�y�l"-,i. Ya r .�. .lam � :1 - Fl.® rIi' �i ki j �, -,p r "� t a��.trT,J r\ !'�'., : ,.�•, �• "`SS �., 51 L:•i(17•!�• 'f:i Eden Prairie Center Regional Shopping b ((( Anderson Lakes a` ova, n Schooner i j A Methodist � Health Center Opening Sept.1976 .1 I 't- ��1t , School/Park orest i •:�" Proposed �;r� r�L",� \ :y. Church Eiasswoud Apartments r Proposed =_ 1 Site Proposed t i unel ` Yluxdsbpe Apartments I / %� Baser.oud Condorwrnums i umphrey � � ��_ � i esiden� " r Anderson � r F nLakes ,Ba,stvoo Townhouses Anckurso • .J � /;�� Proposed I '..'_c.,.«.�j '.,o,\, `\ �is�`�_•�` C int Stop in f .r a ee Coke& hot dog oni S nday,Aug. 15th and 22n t, Neill Lake - Proposed J Apartments Anderson Lakes r i • � Wildlife Park j r � V.Y.Mx i� TheTrails j Townhouses i i l ! ! tnsden aoa Exit f co.rc r & 49 j r h/. Olympic Hills Golf Course Other homes,townhomes,and condominiums available for immediate occupancy. tdoThe Prelslerve �:_- =;�, ;}�:!;� ►ins 8n:K)Franio Rona �.�..�.. .......j Ec:--Pw-tw Ma.n,+xa c•,343 ' 16t�,941•?J01 Q �" - EXHIBIT E 218. Minn. 170 NORTII WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES WESTL j a close relationship with one hlelvin l:ose•crl helow, and there is no evidence of arbitr.iry I. Zoning a403 prior to the separation of the parties, which action in the custody award. �' Provision of ordinance si evidence indicated that defendant may have f ltecause the evidence before its on this 3partrncnts could not be built lived with l:usccn for some period after the appeal indicates that it is in the best in. pl;., (amily ttSe district except It s .. ,-•- 1 y separation. The later stipulation showed 11 : - , r11 effect of variance terests and welfare of the two children h d leg 1. that defendwit became pregnant as n result ;; rncit provision, of sexual relations with someone other than that their etistody he awarded to their s;:: special use PC I father, the trial court's decision should be _ for which special permit to bu' Plaintiff alter separation of the parties and affirmed in all respects. in affirming, ii•e ,• lxiusc ivas sought had alway- this information did not Conte to li};ht al the do so without prejudice to the right of :. , for one-family detached dwei; time of trial. See, LoUash v. Loliash, 2S3 defendant to seek further consideration of k'' for apartnicnts. Minn. —, 167 N.W.2d 43. the custody question should future chang, [5] Under our decisions, this conduct of circumstances warrant. 2. Zoning (=378 on the part of defendant in her relationship ' ` Supreme .Court's lanfrua, A f f i rmccd• %6th another man, standing alone, may , that there is no legality to a not furnish sufficient grounds for an award ;�. properties adjacent to proper- of custody of the children to the father. {,, permit to use for proposed pur However, her conduct as a whole, togethir ,. [night be devalued if permit : ° sr:T`" ?` plies only where permit is son with her lack of concern for and true in- T terest in the welfare of her children as ;# property for purpose cxpressl^ shown by her lack of proper care for thenc, ,: zoning ordinance, or not for provides sufficient grounds for the trial N., ordinance, and there has bt court to make the divided custody aw. s. _ pliance with conditions impos "j iug permit. Upon the record before its, we think it Richard J. WESTLiNG, et al., Appellants, ,; clear that plaintiff has shown f:u• greater V. a 3. Zoning e-G45 C011CCfi1 for the welfare of the children CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK,et al., ` Owner seeking permit ft than has defendant and has shown himself Respondents, = not permitted by existing z to he a hetter custodian than has defend:utt. Morris orrls M11. Sherman, of al., Intervenors, :j [ions has burden of province Defendant cites as controlling Reiland v. Respondents. convincing evidence that rely Reiland, 280 Minn. 444, 160 NANT.2d ;10; No. 40973. ' not result in substantial Eisel Y. Eisel, 261 Minn. 1, 110 N.W 2d neighboring property intproi 881; and French v. French, 236 Flinn. dig, Supreme Court of Minnesota, ' •: on such restrictions. 53 NAV 2d 2151 •A careful examination of Aug. lei, 1969. •r the foregoing cases reveals situations quite d• Zoning e-606 different front the case at bar. The Where there was no s mother's love and affection have Iu•rn Proceeding on appeal from judgment court found that values o shown to be lacking and unavailable to her (if the District Court, Hennepin County, residence surrounding land children. This has been made evident by Douglas K. Amdahl, J., upholding city divelling use district for wl' her conduct during the period between the ciptineil'c denial of special permit to con, construction of apartment separation and tune of trial. struct'apartment building. 1'hc Supreme sought would be depreciated Court, Otis, J., held that %%'here there was permit, it was proper for cc [6J No {[%ether discussion of tics evi- no settled cast and court (Wont( that values that city council was justi. Bence is necessary. The record indicates of single-family residence surrounding s permit. that the trial court was thoroughly familiar trout in cult•-fancily duelling use district for with the rules set down ill the court deci- which permit for construction of apartment Syllabus by the sions referred to. The court had the best building was sought would he depreciated A special-rise permit h opportunity to see the parties as well as by gr:uttin}, Permit, it ivas proper for ccnirt feet of a variance where it their witnesses, hear their testimony' ob to conclude that tit council was justified serve their actions, and weigh the evidence y 1 land not permitted by cxi: in denying permit. strictions. Under such ci. in the light of those factors. We Sec• Ito :el►ttse of discretion on the part of the court Affirmed. 1. westtiu} V. x • �. •r:.�i�•,}� fi:••r"4 t �.,i ',r.l:•.R r':;it•'',i.. ','y:f.t..tr.� :Ii'�:n.1+•4}•• :e,�•''� i �l wtf;Aj.-wfit•taN.t.�(lY.'.�aFitw.:4a4tr4.::,.}..�rLtti'',. •.w:•,,..b.44N�ra•h1�1:..'x�...t.�.rs i.:»4v.�Lj;Y.Ib.+:a~.i?.,.tt+.tt n.f..r.fj•4,t';(;t�k,t::,';:y,`'1•-,•'.:,..°^'}3,ri•+' 1'-."•J'at•�:•{•i';-�.1"�t�i<4;..).'•'Ct t•.. ,N•.!n�Tt!:YT:+�r;•,,�•�_,/. :;'°t;�,:t�'•Ly.t •�f•I.yi"ir�,_, — .,t �. .� ,•' �It:;..e.' t^nir �(i•,..•i'� .t' . .. ,•j tt•�}.c.'}r:lr,'. Y{.,t r • ,•l' • -yam • ':l'..• 11 t. • •r\ti, �•• - .�' , -) .�.,,•, i tit'',.}'"'� .( r i, t•, t Kr ,,,;Y., WESTLING v. CITY OF ST. LOWS PARK Afinn. ' 219 f I'. Zonhn� G�•tII3 petilirntc•I- has the burden of prot:ing by = t;S•.:' 1'r/wisiun of ordin:user declaring that clear and convincing evidence that the re- ;r.;'• lief he :aeel,s will not resell in suhst:tnlial all a nts eouL1 not he built te�thin u"e r-- !a Ilse dt,tt•ict c•xee•pl by special permit iletritnrnt to nelghorutg property improved had legal effect of variance provision, not in reliance on such restrictions, is special use permit provision, where area Where there is-no settled case and the for which special prrmit to build apartnt`ttt rnnrl has found th•it the values of sur- x house was sought had always hecu Zoned rounding single-(unity residences would be fair one-family delache•d dwellings and "ot depreciated by granting a permit for con- fur aparUnrnts, titruction of an apartment building, it was :,� ;'�'• proper for the court to conclude that the 2. Zontng 0-378 4 Z. city rounril was justified in denying the c::,' , :c:,= ' Suprenle Court's 1.111"lla-e indicating; permit. argument that that there is rtu i<gality to E properties adjacent to property for which permit to Ilse fur proposed purpose is sought "tight be devalned if permit is granted ap_ Dxc•orsky, Rosen & i2avich, St. Paul, for ;, E'?•;:�', plies only where permit is sought for Ilse of alipell:tnts. :fy se expressly permitted byproperty for purpo O'Connor, Green, Thomas, Walters Zoning ordinance, or not forbidden by the belly, Minneapolis, for City of St. Louis ; ordinance, and there has lice" full corn- Park. pli:Iltce with conditions imposed for obtain- ; �_ ::7+ •» Galin son c Minne- ', 1 `'•; ;; ,', in Mullin, G permit. s C SwirnoEf, apolis, for respondent, Sherman. ,ti:i:'-'a: .• 3. Zoning 0-645 0wiler seeking permit for Ilse of laird , OI'1NION i 5 t r„ `Ys?:':;;.;" 'i• not permitted by-existing zoning restric- : `.,r.•_ ;i:.i':•;: tt , has burden of proving by clear and - e> ncin•Y evidence that relief sought will not result in substantial detriment to Plaintiffs are real estate developers who ,}''•J y,'.� :' `''_ ' .t•'`,'• appeal,cal front a Judgment denying them a ;"< N"r' +'a• ' + r ' neighboring properly improved in reliance � 1I j g 4, 'r,;�'•.r' 1•"• . special permit to construct an apartment on such rest rictions. ',: %,.r„•.�-'i• ¢ •if•'!'I+;'• bnihling in the city of St- Louis Park. «•, +; f 4. Zoning Cr-GOG Upon plaintiffs' petition for ;t writ of mand:units involvill - the same litigation, Where there was no settled case and ,• �' :;.•; we held Ihat they were not entilled to a set- court found that vahtes of sin 0e-L•unily ;z•:, ,•c; ;. residence surrounding land in onc-fantily Ovil rase., Consequently the only issue for dwelling use district for which permit for review is whether or not the findings of *�• '` ' "•:;!•,,:_- fact sti t port the. conclusions of law. We ;;F : it' •,' : ,y �� .construction of apartment huildin� was I 1 't'. ,,.,, :•., sought would granting depreciated by grtting of hold that they do, • := _ :,';' ,4"��' , ' permit, it was proper for court to conclude i'•' '=.i.;-t `.: j; 1'hc court's findings may he snnmta- '•::. that city council was justified in denying rii •,`,,,,i ` zetl as follows: n 19.1.1, plaintiffs ac- i.,R,+tc;�' `:; `a''',• ; permit. quired -10 acres of farmland which from 10-17 to 1062 they developed into 64 single- .,1': Syllabus by the Court faultily residelle", and ? con- al:u lmc nos A special-use permit has the Icgal ef- twining 3.9 units, which were isolated from :��t;;`:;'r'',r,• ;:� feet of ;t variance where• it allows :t Ilse of file remaining property by railroad tracks. land uol perntittrd by existing zoning re- Two parcels. containing a little more than strictions. Under sneh circumstances the S acres, remain undeveloped. It is in this ,•`}-;;;`,'i;";_ . :}�t;;;` .y l:,•• a •,,t. 1. \Pestling v.(•ilk•of St. bmis Park.279 Mbin.attG, 157 \',\1:2d 56. " 5 •.'i: :` ,r rd"?' 1 •/' ,. ,+: r-l�{�N7 .y., tj; K AV%T a�� t••ttK•i•s '1�=�1+.'rr.' 'J .�,. T ,W1't n «, _wy. ?� .,.,: ;'~'r i• t'f I t t 1 J: :ri r 2 t �`�'1: ,j•l >> ?h •.3;...�-�.. F*1-? r, :�. _ 4•,•.•�' .•c;.�' t E t,�',"Y'•}•ram.. "ra+ ',''4: it ;'At ,.; �•{`i'. -1 .{rh I, •'•tt•r •.,'+.,� .L�:. t,y '��, �,t •'�'•'7ti t.'•�, �,•;!' �, ' �.!' .;,3ti.4:•It.3� <' :1p ;1T�t' .i •P1 .l':•{:� :�5' tip'= �: 4• i t•'4 r{' 't i_'ti••.�' t. ,},.+7,,t., ',,�'t' "_; ', r at`:, :� '-+: ;'1':,• �;t. '�. '!'�„' a:� r'l,•'! A:.:'J. ::d. ,'�. p^' :i'r :a e' jet;' Y:,ria:. '�a �iii :Y' t. r^ r' 1. .,.{..' ., !F? .•:I. .�. i 1 1 •,�' t.. is {.,. '1 Ih.�r '' • j .'t .. T4 f,:�:. a v ' '' j `}' } '• _' %'lr., r i ?,'�1. t ,t'., t�. s.� •.4'.f:, �. 4' �:��•'•i•,i.Sa,l ti .i�.. :��. •A,..i• ',7 {�• s,• .1• ••i y, •'�I:r ;{ ••,;•,t .�tt=••y, ��•c r, •4;5 :,i'., lie '..,-�= ?: �•`,'�' :;y.• ' '� �' 1• _ +.: ,1.�' f' i 'Yeah t.. ,,•y:i.. *. •t`c }i,, "r',' r ,�1:,'' ,.,• �1 •',:'� :,:• •1' :L� _'+, i.. t Tt.{:; ,ti. .pvy..t*•r._::Li,t� , i 'f••'tom,. .'{ ,1.V t.• .,i•• 't• 'I ,• _ -4- at'rt• ,,t. �,•'� .a.'.._ ,- .,;•s.;1,�•- �.{: •1, ��, '1� ;Siii` .. .f,r1.;••,,•.e.i P ;,� .1 .r•- •t'� .,.• ,yt •p �, •'�.{ ��f {j,i.. '.+...}, ::Sr�(„-aj'•t:3 rare , ;l, 't:.:� Cjt. 1'. } yi. •+ 1.,t,tali• '�;,•. `},4.J.�' •.`., �'i• ,r' {li`i1 p�• 1 ..dale.7a.,1.1+' WEST 220 Minn. 170 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES 4, area that plaintiffs wish to construct an ap:ulnunt building{ would not increase the �rdtage of North St. Paul, sit; apartment building, As zoned by ordi- dcnstty res111ting if single- :umy ctvellin taeisame category. Plaintiff: gs " ' : nas- denied a permit td nances adopted in 1932 and in 19.19, the were cons rue rc m le same area, They ?r r in ' - properly in question coIlld not he used fut• point out that the height of the huildin6z �i,,..: ' �,'a �niti ple-family dwelling 1 �ultiple dwellings and a p:irtment houses. and the actual area occupied would not that purpose. The trial cl 1 b I I he significant ordinance was adopted in enlarged by an apartment building. Nor i '.,'r; iht action of the village coin c c and ca ricious since the; 195). It provided that within the one- would any increase in noise or traffic re, y f,x= ':' trar P family use district, apartments could not he stilt or any greater demand for fire and t t:;', , ron(ormcd in every respect I ) I 1 P protection, P 1y�;�; r.$ions of the zoning ordiij built except b• special permit. The stated police rotection public health services, ! •-•: purpose of the exception was to provide a sewer and water. l :;,;: r-as evidence that no potcnti: method by which land having unusual } t=} or health hazards wotild resell= building; characteristics, due to subsoil con- (1] To sipport of their position, plain- Plaintiffs seize on the f; ditiuns or the elevation of the water table, tiffs rely principally on three cases. y'; , ru.tge in the Ostrand case might he more efficiently utilized. Ostrand v. Village of North St. Paul, 27$ ;s.a;' 147 \.\V.2d 575) 114inn. -140, 147 N.W.2d 571; Olsen v. Cit• ` That section of the ordinance was in- of 'Alinncapolis, 263 Minn. 1, 115 N-W.2a � "« * * The only othd rooked by plaintiffs in Nuvenibvr 1902 by 73•I; Golden v. City of St. Louis Park, 266 ccived at the hearing were� :ul -application. .which alle.Kcd that the 5 Minn. •16, 122 N.W.2d 570. The fallacy of �'�''.' property owners whose Ili, acres in question were low, swampy, peat- plaintiffs' contention, as we view it, is the �ti• adjacent to plaintiff's prol;l filled, and had a high %eater table. The pro- fact that the special-permit provisions of feet that in their opinions t! posal u:es to construct an apartment build- St. Louis Park Ordinance § 6:177.1 have might be devalued if thy ing consisting of no more that 24 units on the legal effect of a variance.= The des- =` granted. Such argument Ill a parcel containing 1.3 acres, devoting the tinction between the 'instant case and those other parcel, containing 3.S acres, to open which plaintiffs cite is the fact that the 1° (2,3] Lest there be -y space. The planning conlntission of the city area here in question has always been Ply.- standing by the bench and bi of St. Louis Park recommemled that the zoned for one-fanpily detached dwellings make'it clear that the quote{ application he denied by the city connril .' application and not for apartment houses. Helices the lies only to situations whcli and tin Deceinher 17, 1962, it was denied. provisions for a special permit arc actually '�'' a permit to use their propert4, variance provisions. Therefore, Olsen v, expressly permitted by the The findings of the trial court which are City of Minneapolis, supra,does not control �. , ecnlyd decisive are set forth in an ap_ e anee or not forbidden by since there the property for which a Permit and they have fully complif endix. to erect a gasoline filling station was sought tions imposed for obtaining ==` III its rouclusious of law, the court hrttl was :dready zoned for commercial pur- is not such a case. The ii that the order of*the city council denying poses, subject only to securing a permit. , sentcd is governed by ot+ the special-pernpit retlilest of the plaintiffs \\'e held that the city council could not s Filister v. City of Minneap{ was not nmeasunable, .11-hitrar}•, or woi,l,. deny a permit esce.pt upon evidence that the tf 53, 133 N.W.2d 500, 17 A.L.1! but was in accordance with lapw, and That proposed Ilse would constitute a nuisance. rari denied, 382 U.S. 1.1, g plaintiffs were estupprd front rompl:u,l;,lg In the Olsen case, the trial court found no } I„$d.2d 10. That case dc: of the ordinances or the action of the noun_ sound basis for denying the owner the use tempt to construct an aparI cil. for which his property was Already zoned. {: crty which was restricted t; , dwellings• There, our cJccj On this appeal, plaintiffs assert that the A similar result was reaclie<t in Golden v - the adverse effect which till only issues for decision are the propriety City of tit. Louis Park, supra. There, too, would have on adjacent pry Mid legality of the cunncil's denial of plain- the property was zoned fur the very pur- other things, we said (2701 tiffs application for :1 special permit. They pose contemplated by the special permit. N.W.2d 504): { alle-; e that the council's action was invalid The court found that there was no valid i becalse the denial was unrelated to public basis for denying a permit for an auto- "* * * Courts have health, safety, and welfare. The thrust of mobile junkyard in an area surrounded by r'. of the rights of surrod :1111101:1nts' arg;Ilnu•nt is th:11 the nnnlher of similar indIlstri:d establishmc•111s. The case owners in passing on t� it.r.uns fx , won Tccu p, the 5 1 rlJltt-:nl which troubled the triad court Ostrand v, zoning restrictions. 2. Wit. Luuiv Park Orclinnitet, 1i:177 pews repvalc,l sit March M. 1!M. by (h'dinaticc• M). 911. )•1�1. s(y •i��f�•1j;•: lti.17 lit:• —.I•.i f1. t .4.;,�c'.,• *r, _'•;-." `r'R+., 1 f' r`-i!''f f`r" -•,t''�.'•^�" ,�tt.. µ •� tY iM1:)•?' .,i{• f� = p ,''• ti Y:3liirk .,t.},Z•[ see-H �,{ r .s:. ri.. i l4. T1 it ? r (• , rl',.• - i ` �. . •t :w,'•.p; -r.:.•' ''t}•, i+: wr,.? 1;�i r•: ;,�(Rf• �• .tit 1 .C'�•i•''a•'' '-�• S'' .y•_q+ ,.'F .i• �F,:%�^ :�:•. .t ''f::�.g:�!{. ..� f''.t.p; ;• .,j,r�'-!`<-i^{.�•'' iy': '�:r.p•�';d^•• p•µ:�:°i• .t�^f,h:'• re '•�., �tM •T' 't.:�•' •t. :�.Ni•t,,:. :jf .. •!•• ,•r. t. .. •,w •, .`.�s,'l• � :'t..� •'''r: _T � t' -1^ «•,. ♦•'. all .art.. _ !•, +r. �t __ .�•.•_ '�i -3*. t•yi.. ,a.1 .: �.5;[1,./Y • _ • ,•per •� !,\``itt,•" ,,T .,, 1• �'.-y•/ ifs (.t_ J• t- '•,' atni,i •i'•i'i•• •illy. •�t.•1. .'da'�, � � , •^f .��r,i i :',t�:'a•'• •c{r i• 'r `!K`i• � r: _.i,' ie. f...l� r• .� a'•,4; ,•,. p-ti i. ', .1. +.�' `' .1 --�. • -'- ;. .,-1 `' .., Y•'�i.. r• I r I M3 1;•` •t :1. •y. .l. -y•'r' _ w,•,,•'p •P+•f (. .; t_:. v .-+..,•.•Ir:..•%v '•:7 t .r^: :i .1` .Y .i�. ". :' ., ;• �ti !1i ill ,. Jer' °'` .,^`•..- •��s,, ' '• :v,.r i. i} a•;:°4�;• l,�t. •�• >r.• .{ .. :. . •.•; - - -._...-....-�-- - ---+-- •---•--___� -----"-—'- - - ---._- --,- - - -- •mow•:-.. ...... -.7",...� `rVESTLING v. CITY OF S'1. LOUIS PARK Rfinn. 221 rite i,.170 N.\\"d 21% f f'ill.t>;c of i�cnth St. Paul, slitr•n, falls into " + r plaintiffs 11ad !hc bill-dell j. 'll mte r;tte}ory. t'laintifi Wicre soul*lit of proving 1>} clear and convincing evi- } ,. I was dcttiecl :t permit (cs cnnsirticl a eknce that the relief they sunl;ht would t' } , nndtiplr•Luuil} dwrltiut; in aft arva coned nnl result in :uty subsl:urii:tl drlrimcnl for that purpose. •I'lic trial court held that* neighhoring property improved in reli- the action of the village cunncil W.I., arbi- ancc on the validity of the ordinance." i. ';T ' `► ' ,- - trar}• aad capricious since the prctl,osc`l use The distinction between a variance and fu-,,led in ever}• respect with the pro- Cot :t shtrial•usr perutit has rcccntiy been de- �. visicnts of the •naming ordinance. i'h'rr fined in %ylka V. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. ` . . .. teas evidence that no potential traffic, fire, „`` —,--, 167 N.\V 2d•15,•19, where we said or health hazards would result. •'* * * Villikc a v:tri:utce provisionPlaintiffs seize on the following lint- tvbirh pt emits particular props rly to he };Wage in the l)stt:uul c se ('375 \lien. 1 ltr, a• � ' :; ' * ' used in a m;utm r forbi(de» by the ortli- •t.:: . 1.17 N AV-2d 57 5) i v'. n:utcc by varying the terms of the ordi- s � •t'. • _�,�{,`•x•,,. • * * * 'I'tte only other evielence re- nancc, a special-usc provision permits ccivctt :It the hearing were stalenu•nts of property, -wilhirt 111e discrcliml of the • : _. ;_:;:;.• .,: ;' properly owners whose properties were go,'criling body, to be Itscd in a manner adjacent to plaintiff's property to the a{- expressly authorized by the ordinance." feet that in their opinions their properties (Italics supplied.) i,light be devalued if the permit were The New Jersey Superior Court has de- 1 granted. Such argument has no lel;314-" scribed these distincttotls in a recent cast: jj:,:<�,- :•�:: [2,3] Lest there be an} nlisunder- "* * * Variances are to be distin- e. i t. . standing by the bench and bar, we wish to giiished front special uses, or permits for -•4 make it clear that the cluutect latl�uage ap- special uses, under zoning ordinances in �:... , lies only to situations where owners seek that variances relate to unnecessary permit to use their Property for a purpose hardship tvhiic 'special uses' relate to expressly permitted by the zoning orttin- those authorized on a different basis, a,,cc, or not forbidden by the ordinance, C. g., sithstantial public service and con- ,,,,,.t;• .r , and they have fully complied with condi- venience from the use and absence of tions imposed for obtaining a permit. This danger or anttoyailec to nearby property is not Stich :t c:+sr• I'hr site beer per- owners or residents." Griggs v_ Zoning ':;;;`. r':.•; ;v;c Borough sentcd is governed.,-by our decision in lid,of Adjnstntcn ugh of Prince- t of 1 0 :,:,•',: � ';.. •,: +; 111, W4, hitistcr r. City of Minneapolis, _77U \lien, ton, 75 N.i,Super. 439, 183 A2d %•S •-.-t,,;' i• , S3, 13.3 N,\\. d 500, 17 A.L.lt.3d 7 3,.), certio- 11ti. rari denied, 382 U.S. 14, SG S.Ct. •17, i It, a later case, the New Jersey Supreme �••a. 1.3:d.2d 10. That case dealt with an at Court emphasized the fact that one who tempt to construct an apartment on prop- ;t;, '—`•:: ' =:"� seeks a special permit where the proposed , '• : -t'•F•,�:"r•• erty which was restricted to single-family purpose has been legislatively sanctioned dwellings. There, our decision tinned o» has a mach lighter burden than one seeking the adverse effect which the proposed rise a Ilse variance. The court's view was sort- would have on adjacent property. Among marirce[ as follows: other things, we said (270 \lion. S-t). 133 "• `i" - a, N.\V.2d 504) 1'hc basic difference between use #! ii :, ;}• 'which is a special exception a»d one .•,,.,t't''i.':.t"t`..•• •:r.,. * * l'ourts have lice» Sulicitotis which requires a variance is that the ' of the rights of surrotmiling property former is legislatively omitted in a owners in passim,• on the propriety of zone stibirct to controls whereas the lat- zoning restriction.. * * ' ter is legislativcly•frohibiled but may be I''• ''� # * * * • * allowed for Spccial reasons. Verona ---?-\ 1), F •t,�'k7�" v ,S' t•4'!1'C•!1'� 4F!;>1fr'_:'.'F.tir,Fti f+1`'1;,'.r..w.-;r..,y�- rf.Yi• V•;•iK::?:. ,,. .•�ti.t' 'is 4Y1�,:y•f.]'3:,td1l4t.�}„'tfad+!Ip>='+'?�t�'��•C �,. tin?!' ;>;: kt.t" "l+h•:frt' ,�{`1.cri;i i+. !' biso; i +.Yt�!�h?,`a2•:h '�'; y. •,i •�i '�..... I`ti,;`'i.�',c.t5 ti!{ l1'tt is i. t 't s,••'`f•:c.�i'f�i,:'.+, t r,•�1•, ?' 'r.-••T„'a t .. ... '_, •'ri.,'t it'•L_� a ,.t: '•r•-ai' ,,', 'l. ',}^i,,.7•� y •1.: • :ti..t.'ti ti.• 't •` ' •a- y ____ -.-. _ .�._-_ -.� .—.��.._.-_._.._ - _ _ -_- T''t.3,fy,4t t'i.,�}•,Y•1. •+1~i i�Yir' 222 Itliulr, 170 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES MwNERS v. STATE •1ttc, r. Rlayur ;,till ('ounril of lloruttgh Section G:177 of the zoning; trdinalle mil 9iz�. scud reasonably, faint} of West Caldwell, -19 N.J. 27-1, 2, �"� the regnircments set forth in said ordinlnc. ; t��'ity Willi the sound devek, A.ZcI G51, GSS, and that tile. use proposed in said applica. ,.' • 't �,xztiettlar neighborhood iovw The distinction ►v:rs expressed by tile. tions was a Ilse suitable for such property �;�ptchensivc plan of tile. Cit -aild one which would enhance the value Of 3`at1.all in the interest of tilt• $ttprcutc Court of Rhode lsl:uul ill tile. Iol such parcels and one which would "fit �clfarc of the said ncib lowin tail,ua e: "cx f~`+� ti '' 1; affect the public health or safety of tht .•` City. * * * The variance contemplates conmlunit ' to any extent greater than'tilt ' :► departure front the terms of the urdi' construction of the permissible single, _.. ' `; ^That plaintiffs expressly e Hance in order to ]occlude confiscation {amity dwellings upon such parcel, bill enor t that ��•,�::' :+ a:.••tn' s that the-tici bhbo of property,', while the exception content- the values of the surrotimlin g anef ad`oinin '= ,cuctld continue to be develu I I plates .1 perillitted Ilse whets tinder !he. single-family residences -o►vned by interg tjnnily residential property terms of the ordinance the prescribed venors and others would he depreciated hurl y cr.:ervenors relied upon the c. conditions therefor arc putt:' Kraemer the council granted either tile. plaintiffs' ; to?iglpUorftood as visually Ill} v._Zoning 11d. of Review (if ('itv of NVar- petition for rezoning or the special permits ',`'. t.;. wick, 9� R.I. 32.5, 331, 201 A2d 6,13, 644.3 sought and thus the public welfare svoulrl � `;:. ' 'That at no time prior to t' suffer. ' trty, of single-family dwel [4) Ill the light of the broad discretion "` i, plaintiffs manifc ircnors did `(2) I y par. ,+ p• .ronfcrrc<t on the tit}• cotntcil to grant or � That file tracts represented b �;.,. to build an apartment bui]di, date a vari:utce and the heavy burden of t•els '/\' :11t(1 111' are a small portion of be w'3,:;' t0 intervenors. proof under which a petitioner labors, we total area of the subject property, which is1: are persuaded that tile• decisioll of the lower in turn a small portion of tlic total area of 3Cf1`: "That at the time of accl court dismissing the cumplailtt is antyrl}' . the (:fly of St. Louis Park, and to rezone , , land and at all times to :u supported by the findings. Specifically, the parcels `n' or 'R' to an R-4 zoning or to r present, the plaintiffs Nadi court Cuund that the ralncs elf surrnnmting .,rant the special permits prayed for by the � �n apartment or multiple d and aiijoining single-Itnnily residences plaintiffs would constitute spot zoning, ', subject property and nut owned by intervenors and others Nvould be from them in this respect 1 1 "t,i} 'f.. plaintiffs have realized the ttr actions of the cis cou: tleprrciatc. and thus the• mhlir welfare hcnclits tit �:drs:unl:Lp:Lrtnx•nt ek•vclupnteiri ,- y Would suffer by grantor". the permit. As a ., --- -- the time of acquisition. I' further finditt;� the ctrurt held that :Ln} "tt.{he. sublert properties and :Loy ci:timcti title to the property and ipaniship as to these small portions rep- httnlsl»p to plaintiffs with respect to the S --- -' I > c_IF(lTi}leant s uul `iV is minute co years aforementioned wit acres here involved was "minntc:" contp:urd pared to life lscnc_Tit` r prtriousl ' dcrpv ' of its zoning and the use to the hellefits previously derived by plain- i _ _I_..__ _�__ _ tdb} on, and plaintiffs by their tiffs and did nut outweigh the detrinunl I'I:untrff from the land over-all tort( clod of the land in question that would be stif fered.by intervenor and 'tut ottt�vcts,*t t e cict ..lent that would be _' suered by the Intervenors and others on residcntial created their ff others if a special pt•rniii were grained. neighborhood in questio flit- subject property :uid otiicr persons af- Accurdin�ly, tilt' judl;nrcut of the district :. their own actions and 1' fected by a permitted rezoning or special court is affinned. permit and by the defelidalit City of St. All Affirmed• Louis Park.' c' "That the plaintiffs h APPENDIX,:l\T)1 X t , That at all hearings acid meetings of tie that the refusal of the' Planning comnusston and city council eial permits or for re.: "That the planting commissitpn and the unable,arbitrary or cat afnrcntrntioncd, tile plaintiffs were a{, �' s council could reasuliahl}• find f ront the forded fall opportunity to be hcarcl. ']'hat .►ere abuses of discrctli evidence: the plannting conunissiolt and the city count "(I) That plaintiffs' application for a cil in all respects diet nett act unreasonably, ,° 'That the plaintiffs special perulit for parcels ':\' aml 'It' under arbitrarily or capriciously but on the other that the granting of 1`• 3, '['lie ewxvs are rolb•rUai al '.'. Italhlaipl', :Utlhortt.v t•stencb•t1 k>a property inctx•r h3 2. of the rezoning would The Law of %.•nitig. :nit i'lattnili l: •d.) - n>:r Isis property in a mamnri• Awhidttrii by { ment to the surrounds: er .1-1. pp. a to 9, whore the rtile rs slalr.I fhe ortlin:ntec While :t speeial exrtttrtiair Other landowners ill t thus: "\ •prri:ll exrt•pti.m rrse diiG•r:x alltitt:+ hint to pot his property its it mxc from :t r:ni:uur ill that :i cariamr.• is :Ili %vitieh the orditintive expressly porotits." Park;' 1 _ _ _ ..-a..�-s•�'..•r.--rtt^•t�•r•r;.•+•ss!trs'r!s**'il>::, .•- .- i -rr+r+•n^,..Tr`+p. . �rt rpt�•tV:. .r^'a'tt;;;�,•;-�•-•�1.'.rti••.,r•.T ls3.•:q••.7% tPG1C�,Tn.;..ate;-� r,�t:•..Yy t�"�+��'ti,,i•r �.;'..yl^.t•. ,et�� iF?'.fit y' t� t ,`�'�. -•�''1`;•Ci,l� .�'�� Jar,-. r,tr:+,Y')'t�';. ,t-:d:%L1, ! t•"i•.•;�•. . 't• � ,.ti;� .•tl'�`�..,, i?':•h•') d��• r _ �� l a I. ,•t 1. . _,ice•'.S. „� �'} 1. .a, .. i.5' i;}. 'F, Sd..r• ta' 'r':t .:7t', p'�•�.t�r'.+••.:.:Y•tt, %,yf i f'-'•�r4� {, - t%y• , -,. i . ..t,�..' a :it" i� 1 ( 'i' 't t_i ,.:AF•34.ti."r�' .1•,).. h. 41t 1 S •�r ..•ti .b: S ' 'r••'i •�` _`�'. ! aJti i/.• '7�4't}`' r in •4,• F} it Ire,'•J .1 } y ('... , i,.' t r.Y ra t• ,t J �i-. . '. � s _ .. . ,. ^t ;3 ,re.•'' t '.'�,. .t),. . `• rG• ♦ '•ti ,p.l." • •' 'Ivy-,4• .�i+ �i' 't a INNERS v, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBITiE INS. CO. Minn- 223 Cate nx 170 N.w.2r1 22a la!' c, :11;%ed rcason:thly, fairly and in c•on- ,,rulily with the Sound development of the Otto MINNERS, Respondent, particular neighborhood involved and the t V. f comprehensive plan of the City of St. Louis STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE all in the. interest of the health, safety INSURANCE COMPANY, Appollant. t tvclfare of the said neighborhood and J- • Nos, 41719, 41764. (1',y'•J1•"" •t:,' said City. t �3'= ,:. '• '..:. . tiuprcnlc Court. of 111iuncsnta. ''' ,�': .'t•.: "That plaintiffs ex 1)ressly represented to 7 _ � - -�_ Aug;. li, !)f7. t I ..•.. • intervenors that the would continue to be developed as single- family residential property and that sonic Action against automobile liability in- intervenors relied upon the character o7 iTic stirer by named insured for reimbursement Iici•>)ar1load a•, visuall • observed, of amount insured paid in settlement of contribution judgment rendered against him � f� .• ;t r , 'h.. "That at no time prior to the sate of_pLojj- on third party claim in his action,as trustee, ertyr of single-family dwellings to inter- against joint tort-feasor for wrongful death venors did jrl:iiI tiffs manifest any intention of insured's wife. The District Court, i;4. ..'...,': +•;.:;;: ' to binld nn apartiilcnt building;-on cel_A' Stevens County, C. A. Rolloff, J., render- to intervciiors, par - ed judgment in favor of insured and in- surer appealed. The Sn reme Court Otis "I'hat -it the time of acquisition of their T•, held l that under automohilc liability l:rlul and at all limes to and including the. policy, which was issued prior to July 1, :"":'lx rr ,'. ..: g'' .'•r' g 1 g lq(,% which provided coverage for bodily � fir;,,..•':. ' ` )tc.autt the plaintiffs had no right to build q =3• _°' °'" an apartment or multiple dwelling upon the injury sustained by other persons, which subject property and nothing was taken defined insurc<I to include named insurc<1's front them in this respect b• the ordinance P ) s1 rouse and which contained household-ex- :;�;;;:'';;'s '';•. or actions of the city council subsequent to elusion provision excluding coverage of the time of acquisition. Plaintiffs nc uiredin- title 1 q bodily injury sustained by member of �.r;�,.. ••. _ to the property and owned it over the shred's household, household-exclusion pro- aforementioned with full knowledge vision b:u-re<t recovery. .•.t•„ t: *01t, zoning aItd the uses permitted there- 1•_-:_ x.':; on, and plaintiffs by their own development Reversed. of the Lind in question as sing;lc:fanlily �r 1 residential�ntial created their situation and the �' A -- I. Death C-31(1) neighborhood in question as the result of --- Practice of designating one of the ")'° • _`-�'-`'� - IftClr ON'Il aClloIls an g)atllllllg. f,_• , drivers as trustee in action for wrongful � ,,i•' ' * * * * * * death arising out of automobile collision :'., '• i• = h;tt the plaintiffs have failed to prove is strongly condemned if there are other r..; ;'.r l•.�, ,� ' that the refusal of their requests for spe- beneficiaries unless such beneficiaries are cial permits or for rezoning were mtrea- legally competent and consent to the ap- sonable, arbitrary or capricious or that they pointment with knowledge of the conflict of were abuses of discretion. interests.- M.S.A. § 573.02. * * * * * * 2. Death Ca24 "That the plaintiffs have failed to prove. Any contributory negligence on part that the granting of the special permit. or of driver designated as trustee in action for ' of the rezoning would not result in dart- wrongful death arising out of automobile :; •_ nient to the surrounding landowners and to collision merely reduces :unonnt of award ;• ,; other landowners in the City of St. Louis to which driver as beneficiary tvauId other- Park." wise be entitled. ALS.A. § 573.02. ?�''•-• '' \• 1f• ..r ,i ` ....,.. ....,r ^':�...1,; 1i�?)-+.••ir�rT+•r 14u•w'6ry 'Sl4�;t:%�}v.t`•�ll,^•.�rt'l..L`�4�X�X''�;".ry':U•'::� ••*rrYl.l;..:y,��y„'t'!" L.*.c;111. '1'. ^'?+XiF: f'•�t^�"r(��'yyk;: �; },x r,., .. , 1'C'� _. f:t' I� �`.ti'« t1 4 rs. 4.' �* u%�i t5 tit Yi• E.r1 �± 11�N'ly�t>`)y,'�1l <_i +� j )iS. ♦_ 1 yJ t r ;l ri-r. .. 1 1.�� ]n: i'}t'.• .(. ir•'.\~ •l:. . '' )j 'o-.4=tiff Y•.,t.`s .'�• •y'.'rs 1• i }'"• y -�. .ai• %i. '?.rt•i' •+�''�r.d! .• •.•"' r' ,t. ,j •'�". .i •r: t { y t= ii• - ' r-, t. - 'r ;',.ems - ti •,. ;,1:%�,. 't, ' n-„ _ '41 t 't' y�i' .,r' �•, '�•}• ,�r�•.ri� i � a. •�• •(. r;• t_• ... `� ✓' t'~ 1 ' 1 .t •>'i. 44� j� �r�••�., •a .} •,fit , -' .3-.yr. •i�,: ` -• ':':. •C.• .+",tF.•.'n « .. 1:.i. •., .r , r ....,.r -. 't.i f �• .r•. R, ...y. •, -�.. t t;:.•' .s'-�- 7j{, .l. :�� Y 'r 1. �.• T't- .a �9�.t .-l• PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the following reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive : increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts %• - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property - loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill -promised .recreational facilities .� NAME ADDRESS PHONE / �27W .� , ` I /� 0 �jt1 c �`f�3 C 6,7 1- 4 311 6 �� . A6 - r - y, J - P I � PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the following reasons. that are not intended to be all inclusive : - increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety ` - elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property loss of natural areas - failure of -the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities NAME ADDRESS PHONE 2—S .?,X NAAAw Z�► � T lJ V 51P_ - > I c- c l �t /&,Uo 4)( 'z v 3�3 �. �136 !Ak-E> 2d AA • y 3 =� � ,1 � 13,13 (.mil' '�' � _ �l � � ��Y� �?'�� ' �� -"�; �� o • • PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at thi.s time for one or more of the following reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: - increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety - elimination of existing parking - congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property - loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1072 K / - 7 6/0 q CIV0� �? ,, gg 2 K, v u c �u.�� 1 -�qf �- 4 � 37 - ,`. =1!v c� ,.?i ' �v��c�!�S�«. G�S`r��i' t��i�— l� z�'— J`7/~ S' 0 S Y 2:L Aa P, 2J � ,f- �� -a2 -7�� !,�- �,z - 6tn--4 l �� > ? 4 10"Ioo � gA41- 1,7SA49 PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the flowing reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property -_ loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp, to fulfill promised recreational facilities • • • • • • • • • • • NAME ADDRESS PHONE ZM 92V C Sgl aWCO220) g06770 041 dk >?, 3 - oY PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the following reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: • - increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired .safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values- of adjacent property loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS i PHONE 5�5 d Zee �- 7'a0 c'rz �'/ ALn �L i tit �`� 1 LeA&-re3P Cie J o n•0- pri e.vP 0- 7 , % GCS d y 9/ ?lq 3 4 'F?7 61 ` G PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the flowing reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive : increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired .safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . ADDRESS PHONE _ q 1 L� 4cl jA JS LLl � ,.� ' � 'L -'`�G��'�` �'��✓"��'' -�: - fir'= 9 9��m 4,eie- 9 �Lsv- Z�4)Jy/? al,4(�Zl-e O I r w IeL Zial PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the flowing reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent. property loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS PHONE /fly 73 .�- v o g 41�- G i 8� P `Zoo e f �-k ( 2 r C- `�l . PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the flowing reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired .safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS PHONE O g3G No 1,Y Job.,L,2:4 1Z Y-W& RXX -;y f 2 1 s OW pay ? _ - - -- U lJ� �r�- �2c � g PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the following reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS * PHONE 6Z)• f / q . 7 67- 4 ` Z NEW PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the following reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive : - increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts possible reduction in home values of adjacent property loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities NAME ADDRESS PHONE ,r X a 22 1 SC &�,6(d 41. 944 -1441 ttL-U-0, , ;�'? q-/ (- . '� Y L I- PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the following reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: • - increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired -safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent -property - loss of- natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS PHONE f y K JL 5 say fz PETITION As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the following reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive : - increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property loss of natural areas failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS PHONE 5' pq5esl � C', :_e le- le- - '9V¢-a-37 /0 d 71gxW gam{35 '� 1�2 PETITION . r As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of the following reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired .safety elimination of existing parking congestion of pool and tennis courts possible reduction in home values of adjacent property loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 Z r PETITION M " As a homeowner in the preserve, I'm opposed to the proposed development of Baypoint Manor as it is proposed at this time for one or more of th.e llowing reasons that are not intended to be all inclusive: - increased traffic in prime recreational area with impaired safety - elimination of existing parking - congestion of pool and tennis courts - possible reduction in home values of adjacent property - loss of natural areas - failure of the Preserve Development Corp. to fulfill promised recreational facilities . . . . . . . . . . . NAME ADDRESS ' PHONE r 6 7- r� 1'L• ' J�`/JM a✓JL 1/l/ > l�,— 4 v' 71 l i) lL � Lt. 36 0 C1 l L A Ie, e Xaf0&,q-r-,o 1-7 . f i l— 1111 G