1986-04-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes April 22, 1986 Locke noted that the of the three members of the Water Ridge Associates. The are considering other develo- property now under consideration. applicant, Gordy Hedlund, was one joint venture partnership that is status of that project is that we pers for the site. Schmidt asked how many properties the city had purchased to date in this project area; Locke indicated the city had purchased ten properties, about half of the total site. Schmidt indicated the city has a major investment in the site; Locke so confirmed. Lcoke reviewed the approvals that were made in the past, noting the PRO approval was contingent on the total development package that was put together for the full 10-1/2 acres, of which Hedlund's property was a part, based on coordinated design for the office portion and the residential property portion. Benke recalled the original approval of PRO included the land proposed for this item as well as other parcels, so that approval of this application would leave the remaining portions of parcels south of Tenth Street isolated and/or illogical which was the basis of the Planning Commission's denial of this plat. Given some of the questions that remain, Benke has not heard a lot of argument to go against the Commission's recommendation and would be reluctant to approve this particular plat. Hedlund stated this has been going on for four years and the city is not willing or able to buy him out at the appraised value. Benke stated there were two separate problems: the Development Agreement, of which Hedlund was a part, was not carried through; and the proposed plat is not consistent with what the City has approved before, over and above the fact the PRD does not meet the criteria the city feels is best for that area. Hedlund felt council was not recognizing the sequence of events; Benke stated the city did not proceed with the purchase because the commitments made by the development team, Letters of Credit, etc., were not fulfilled. Hedlund reviewed the sequence of events; Benke agreed there had been change upon change and believes that is why the council is saying that the package that was agreed to was a package and that is now being separated into two different portions, when we consider that separation we are into a different situation and part of that discussion was the Water Ridge letter of notifica- tion earlier and the proposal from Winfield earlier. Benke stated that, given south of Tenth Street is a package and an area that has to be dev~loped consistent to be protecting what is already there and ln order to make sense with what we expect to see in the future, the plat as submitted doesn't meet the concerns of the city. Page Eight