Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/1989CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota January 12, 1989 Minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, held January 12th, 1989, at 8:00 o'clock p.m. at Apple Valley City Hall. PRESENT: Councilmembers Goodwin, Holton, Humphrey and Savanick. ABSENT: Mayor Branning. City staff members present were: City Administrator Melena, City Clerk Mueller, City Attorney Sheldon, City Engineer Rosene, Personnel Director Boland, Park & Recreation Director Johnson, City Planner Kelley, Associate Planners Hickok and McMenigle, Assistant Administrator Lawell, Street Superintendent Ling, Planning Intern Plummet, Police Chief Rivers and Planning & Development Director Welsch. Acting Mayor Humphrey called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. The Councilmembers and everyone in attendance took part in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Goedwin, approving the agenda for tonight's meeting as presented. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. APPROVE AGENDA DEC. 29, 1988 & JAN. 5, 1989 MINUTES MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Savanick, approving the minutes of the regular meeting of December 29th, 1988, and the special meet- ing of January 5th, 1989, as written. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. Acting Mayor Humphrey asked if any one was present to address the AUDIENCE DISCN. Council at this time on any item not on this meeting's agenda. Rita SOCCER ASSN. DiRico and John Trucano, of Apple Valley Soccer Association, presented DONATION a check for $1,500.00 to the City for the purchase of soccer goals at the new Eastview Athletic Complex. The funds were raised through a soccer tournament the Association hosted. The Council thanked them for the donation. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, approving all items on the consent agenda with no exceptions. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. CONSENT AGENDA RES. 1989-9 PURCHASE LOADER CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MOTION: of Savantck, seconded by Holton, adopting Resolution No. 1989-9 awarding the purchase of a Used Articulated Wheel Loader to Ziegler, Inc., the low bidder, in the amount of $98,879.00. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, adopting Resolution No. 1989-10 approving specifications for "Two Dump Bodies and Snow Plow Equipment" and authorizing advertising for bids to be received at 2:00 p.m. on January 31, 1989. Ayes - 4 - Nays - O. RES. 1989-10 TAKE BIDS, DUMP BODIES & EQuIP. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, adopting Resolution No. 1989-11 approving specifications for "Two Single Axle Cab Chassis" and authorizing advertising for bids to be received at 2:00 p.m. on January 31, 1989. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. RES. 1989-11 TAKE BIDS CAB CHASSIS CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota January 12, 1989 Page 2 MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, approving a Joint Powers Agreement for Bidding Traffic Markings, Street Sweeping and Seal Coating with the Cities of Burnsville, Eagan, Lakeville and Rosemount and authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the same. Ayes - 4 - Nays - O. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, approving Change Orders to the contract with Richard Knutson, Inc., for Project 88-284, Water Treatment Plant Utilities, in the additional amounts as follows: No. 2 - $30,817.45, No. 3 - $68,850.05, No. 4 - $3,780.50 and No. 5 - $3,998.69. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, approving Change Order No. to the contract with Channel Construction for Project 88- 300, Zoo Watermains, in the amount of an additional $11,531.50. Ayes - 4 - Nays -. 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, approving Change Order No. to the contract with Ceca Utilities, Inc., for Project 88- 306, Eagle Pond Utilities, in the amount of an additional $1,756.41. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, adopting Resolution No. 1989~12 approving specifications for purchasing "Household Recycling Containers" and authorizing advertising for bids to be received at 10:00 a.m. on January 30, 1989. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, approving reduction of the financial guarantee for Summerfield 2nd Addition to $10,710.00. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, adopting Resolution No. 1989-13 approving the final plat and development agreement for Eagle Pond First Addition and authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the same. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, adopting Resolution No. 1989-14, approving the final plat and development agreement for East Valley Plaza and authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to sign the same. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, approving renewal of the licenses and permits for 1989 as shown on the listing dated January 9, 1989. Ayes - 4 ~ Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, approving hiring the parttime employee listed in the Personnel Director's memo dated January 9, 1989. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. J.P. AGREEMENT STREET SWEEPING SEAL COAT, ETC. CHANGE ORDERS PROJ. 88-284 CHANGE ORDER 1 PROJ, 88-300 CHANGE ORDER 2 PROJ. 88-306 RES. 1989-12 TAKE BIDS RECYCLE CONTAIN. BOND REDUCTION SUMMERFIELD 2ND RES. 1989~13 FINAL PLAT EAGLE POND RES. 1989-14 FINAL PLAT EAST VALLEY PLZ 1989 LICENSES & PERMITS HIRE PARTTIME EMPLOYEE END OF CONSENT AGENDA CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota January 12, 1989 Page 3 (This portion of the meeting was recorded on audio tape and a transcript is available in the meeting's minutes file.) Mr. Kelley reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation on a DOMESTIC REALTY petition for rezoning from RCL to M-3 at the southwest corner of 138TH & CEDAR Cedar Avenue and 138th Street. The Planning Commission has recom- REZONING mended denial because no development plan or preliminary plat has been submitted which would determine how the transition between the proposed multiple residential and the existing single family use, on the west, would be treated and uncertainty about traffic impact. Staff recommends referring it back to the Planning Commission for incorporation into a complete evaluation of the vacant land in this area as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Goodwin, accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the rezoning petition of Domestic Realty from RCL to M-3, on property at the southwest corner of Cedar Avenue and 138th Street, and directing Staff to prepare a resolution of denial on the request. DENY REZONING 138TH & CEDAR Frank Kleckner, representing the petitioner, presented a preliminary layout for 80 townhouse units on the site. When his company developed the Timberwick area abutting the site, buyers were told this site would have a higher density. A row of duplex lots was developed as a buffer. He understands that 139th Street could be constructed with access to Cedar and the layout for townhouses provides two accesses to 139th Street and one to 138th Street. Mr. Kleckner said that, based on the old cluster zoning agreement, they believe that up to 100 additional units can be constructed on the remaining eight acres. The cluster zoning originally covered 70 acres on which approximately 120 single family lots have been developed. The units he would propose are brick and cedar exterior. Tom Stuebe, 13980 Granada Court, representing residents of the area, read and presented a petition to the Council opposing the rezoning and asking it remain zoned RCL. Mr. Humphrey asked for clarification of what is permitted in an RCL zone. Mr. Sheldon read the permitted uses contained in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Kleckner said he understood certain variances were grandfathered in when the ordinance was changed. Mr. Kelley said some setback and lot size variances were grandfathered in when the ordinance was revised in 1983. Previously it allowed attached housing, but that use was deleted. Councilmember Holton said this site and the property to the south should be designed together to provide proper access for the corner. Councilmember Goodwin asked what type of access can be allowed for the corner? Mr. Kelley said 140th is a City street for access and there is access at 139th and Cedar which may be allowed. Mr. Helena said staff believes a frontage road from the Zoo Road to 140th Street may be able to be constructed, but this layout would preclude that and the option should be looked at. Councilmember Savanick said she believes this is "spot" zoning and should not be allowed. Councilmember Goodwin said when people buy property knowing what the zoning is next to them, he believes it should not be changed unless a good reason to do so has been demonstrated. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota January 12, 1989 Page 4 Mr. Kleckner said the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is DIII. All clients he dealt with in the Timberwick area were informed that something of a higher density would be going on this site. He approached Mrs. Calistro about developing their property together, but she is not willing to at this time. Councilmember Savanick expressed concern about limiting the number of vehicles coming from this property to Pennock Avenue. There is a need for a public street through the area and this layout would not allow it. Mr. Humphrey concurred that the entire area should be looked at in depth. Vote was taken on thc motion. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. Mr. Welsch reviewed the report on the Rolling Ridge proposed develop- ROLLING RIDGE ment, west of Diamond Path Elementary School. As the Council directed PROPOSAL December 15, 1988, a plan for the entire parcel was reviewed. A re- vised plan has been prepared expanding the park area, providing ponding and providing an additional access at the northern end of the site. This additional access, through the east half of the property, can be preserved via "official mapping" even though it is not included in the preliminary plat. Mr. Melena read a letter dated January 12, 1989, from Michael Doughcrty, representing School District 196, explaining its understanding of the impact of the City officially mapping the School's property. It has no plan to develop this east half of the property now, but is concerned with future value and marketability of the property. The '~ understanding is it will not affect the marketability; official mapping only prescribes the location designated for a future street and/or park area which must still be acquired by the City at some future time. Councilmember Savanick asked what the County's plans are for Diamond Path? Ms. McMonigle said the County CIP shows four lanes, divided; but the County Engineer said that is a mistake, it will not be a divided highway. The curve will be straightened to a "T" intersection at 145th Street. Mr. Melena said the understanding is that this layout is acceptable to the County and it will allow the accesses to Diamond Path. Councilmember Savanick asked that the City get a written response from the County. MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Savanick, approving the staff alternate for the Rolling Ridge and School District road connections and referring it to the Planning Commission to proceed with the official mapping process for the northern road connection and park area shown. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. ROLLING RIDGE ROAD CONNECTION OFFICIAL MAPPING ORDINANCE 430 REZONE ROLLING RIDGE ROLLING RIDGE PRELIMINARY PIAT MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Savanick, passing Ordinance No. 430 rezoning part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, to be platted as Rolling Ridge, from Institutional to R-lC as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Savanick, approving the preliminary plat of Rolling Ridge, as recommended by the Planning Commis- sion, with revisions per thc staff alternate and a northern access to the east, and directing preparation of a develop- ment agreement. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota January 12, 1989 Page 5 MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Savanick directing the City Engineer to prepare a preliminary feasibility report for public improvements in Rolling Ridge and construction of 144th Street, to connect to Diamond Path, with sidewalk on both sides for its entire length. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. ROLLING RIDGE PRELIMINARY ENG. REPORT Mr. Kelley reviewed his memo dated January 12, 1989, concerning zen- OUTLET A ing/Comprehensive Plan censistency on Outlet A, Saddle Ridge. The SADDLE RIDGE Planning Commission held a hearing te consider changing the zoning LAND USE from "NC" to "R-2" or "R-lC" to be consistent with the existing "D-II" designation. The property ewner objected to any rezoning away from "NC" until such time as the market determines an appropriate use. The Planning Commission recommended a Comprehensive Plan dual use designation of "D-II/NC" to satisfy this conflict. MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Goodwin, authorizing submittal of a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment, from ~'D-II" to II/NC", to the Metropolitan Council for Outlet A, Saddle Ridge, as recommended by the Planning Commission. SADDLE RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Acting Mayor Humphrey asked if this action could wait until uses in the entire Pennock corridor are studied? Mr. Kelley said it is not necessary to act new, but it will probably be a long time before this small piece of property develops. Councilmember Savanick said all of the property along the west side of Cedar Avenue should be studied in total. There are other parcels in that area on which the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning are inconsistent. She questioned whether the zoning should be changed instead of the land use designation. Mr. Humphrey said he disagrees with the dual designation and believes the zoning should be changed to conform to the "D-II" designation. Mr. Melena said Planning Staff is working on bringing these inconsistencies into cenformance as directed. They have identifisd 50 pieces ef property; five are completed and 22 are in progress. It is anticipated neighborhood meetings will be held on some of these parcels and may include a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, tabling this item until the TABLE MOTION next regular meeting, February 9, 1989. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. Mr. Johnson presented Mid-Winter Fest buttons to the Council. It will be held February 11 and 12, 1989, and information on the activities will be forthcoming at the next meeting. MID-WINTER FEST Mr. Johnson reviewed the information regarding a sscond ice arena SECOND ARENA contained in his report dated January 8, 1989, with the Council. COST INFORMATION The report included preliminary cost estimates based on the assumption the arena would be located adjacent to the Hayes Park building. If the City were to bond for $500,000, or half the construction cost, annual debt service is estimated at $54,000. Operating expenses are estimated at $158,780 annually for a total annual cost of $212,780. Revenue is projected at $94,960 which would leave an annual cost of $117,820 to be funded. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota January 12, 1989 Page 6 Other impacts affecting revenue are proposals by both Eagan and Lakeville to construct arenas. Lakeville volunteers are conducting fund-raisers for that purpose. Eagan has scheduled a bond referendum for February 14, 1989. Councilmember Goodwin said he would like to know what benefit an arena in Eagan would have for the Hockey Association. The Council asked that further discussion of this matter be deferred until after the Eagan referendum. MOTION: of Goodwin, seconded by Savanick, approving retaining the firm of Ernst & Whinney to assist in fringe benefit analysis to comply with the requirements of Section 89 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 at a cost not to exceed $7,750.00. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. ERNST &WHINNEY SECTION 89 AGREEMENT ORDINANCE 431 CORRECT HEATING PERMIT FEES CLAIMS & BILLS MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Savanick, passing Ordinance No. 431, amending City Code Section 1-23, correcting the fees charged for heating permits to $4.00 per 10,000 BTU and $3.00 per 500 CFM. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Holton, seconded by Savanick, to pay the claims and bills, checks numbered 65663 through 65846, in the total amount of $4,714,163.15. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Savanick, seconded by Holton, to adjourn. Ayes - 4 - Nays - O. ' The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 o'clock p.m. Transcript from January 12, 1989, City Council Meeting Rick Kelley: This item is consideration of proposed rezoning for property which is lo- cated in the southwest corner of the intersection of Cedar Avenue and 138th Street West. The property is currently zoned RCL, residential clus- ter. The Comprehensive Plan currently designates the area DIII or resi- dential uses from 5 to 12 units per acre. As I indicated, the existing zoning is RCL. There are some existing duplex lots located both to the north, on the opposite of 138th Street, of the subject property as well as adjacent to the western boundary and those duplex lots thought to have access to Pennock Avenue. There are two single family lots coming out of the cul de sac in Timberwick 5th addition also, but in the very south- westerly corner of the property. The site would have access to 138th street. We would also expect that at the time the property to the south is platted and developed there would also be an additional access to Cedar Avenue at the upper-139th street alignment which currently has a flow access situation on the east side of Cedar Avenue. The intent, here, of the petitioner is to rezone the property to M3, Multi- ple Residontial, which provides for a variety of multiple residential uses with the varying intensity depending on the number of stories and the number of bedrooms that would be provided in each unit. The maximum number of units which would be allowed in our M3 zone, in a three-story building, consisting of all one-bedroom units, would be 17 units per acre. Out of public comments received at the hearing that was held December 21st of 1988 before the Planning Commission were all in opposition to the rezoning; citing auch things as increased traffic, adverse affect upon adjacent property values and inconsistent use adjacent to the predominant single family uses in the Timberwick and Oaks of Apple Valley area. The petitioner believes that the previous residential cluster zoning on the site does provide for attached housing and they are simply trying to clar- ify the uses on here by the request for M3 zoning. The Planning Commission, at a subsequent meeting, did recommend denial of the M3 zoning based on the fact that there was not a firm development proposal and plat being submitted, as well as, the fact that the M3 zone would, in fact, allow more units per acre than the Comprehensive Plan so designates. In addition to that, they also expressed some concern over the fact that all the vacant property along the Pennock Avenue corridor, on the west side of Cedar Avenue, has yet to develop and they were somewhat unsure as to what the total implications of traffic on the Pennock Avenue corridor would be from this and the other vacant property as it began to develop. That was the reason cited in our recommendations to deny at their previous meeting. That's the extent of the staff presentation on this. There are a lot of issues that, obviously, have to be resolved before the property, any of this property, can really begin to develop. Consequently, staff was recom- mending that part of this proposal be incorporated in the overall City Comprehensive Plan update so we can best determine the proper road net- works and land uses that should be used adjacent to Cedar Avenue. I believe the petitioner also has a presentation here and I was also informed by the neighborhood that they have a petition that they would like to present at this Council meeting as well. Gary Humphrey: Thank you for the introduction. I think at this time we should, before we go on with further discussion, have a motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation. At this time, I am continuing the discussion. Do I hear a motion? Motion by Savanick. Second by Goodwin. Tom Melena: Mr. Mayor. Gary Humphrey: Yes Tom. Tom Melena: Along this same line, what staff would like to see on this is the, our recommendation is to deny this and direct further study on the area in question to include all the way from 138th Street to the zoo road, and'for the Council to be able to give us direction in that regard. At the same time, in talking to the attorney, he is advising that if it is feeling of the City Council to deny this, as per staff recommendation, that you should direct us to write up the motion for denial and resolution for denial and then put that on consent agenda for the next meeting. That way.we will have everything detailed out in that resolution and motion for the analysis and the reasons for the denial. Frank Kleckner: (Showing drawing of property.) This is north; the drawing got a little bit misconstrued and I thought it might be easier to for everybody to understand. This being Cedar Avenue, this being 138th street. When we made the proposal we did not have the formal proposal to make. I did give staff a copy of what we thought would be our primary way out, and in the interim we do have a purchase agreement to proceed with this type of a project. Which basically encompasses 80 townhouse units and what we've tried to take into consideration. Number one, from day one, when we developed the Timberwick area, we knew and we told our clients that the area closer to Cedar Avenue would be a higher density than single family and that's why we put the twin homes as a buffer. The City has seen a lot of situations where apartments come in and there's no buffer. This was taken into consideration long ago. What we've tried to do in incorporating this type of a design is have access to 138th street and do what ever would be necessary to encourage people to utilize that exit out to Cedar avenue rather than coming over and putting any more traffic on Pennock, which is obviously a problem for a lot of the people in the community. We're aware of the fact that 139th, which is just south of our border, here, would conceivably have the opportunity to be extended across Cedar as another access. We've provided, in our preliminary layout, here, for two potential accesses down to the property to the south. I would assume that Barb's property, here where 139th would come in and move down to 140th, to give access to her property and allow for some townhouses er some buffering here to the other Timberwick property to the south where there are single family. We would anticipate trying to save any of the natural vegetation in this area and do whatever buffering we could possibly do between the twinhomes and the two lots that touch on the southwest corner of our property. So we feel that we have tried to address the concerns when Cedar Avenue was built this is basically; there are some trees, but its basically a lot flatter ground than what we had to deal with over here in the single family residences. Now as far as this cluster zoning, and this took place before I got in- volved with the property, but as I understand it, this whole 70-acre piece, 10 of which was designated for multiple and 60 which we used for single family, initially had a designation of three units per acre. We have got approximately 120 single family lots when the whole Timberwick area is developed which, by virtue of the cluster zoning agreement, would indicate that we would have somewhere in the neighborhood 100 units that we could put on here. We feel, in all honesty, that weve got an opportunity to put a project in. The lots, the houses or the townhouses, would back up to the other units in Timberwtck rather than having a road or driveway. So ascetically we think it would be pleasing. We have an opportunity, we feel, to do a project like this; high quality brick and cedar, for the most part, double car garages; two and three bedroom units. We feel we can get the job done if we can get approval for an 80-unit project. I dont know, specifically, what that zoning is going to be but if this thing falls out of bed, and I dontt mean to hold a hammer over anybody, but I think if we get this done it's going to be a benefit to the communi- ty. The longer this thing sits here undeveloped, the more pressure I see for a higher density project somewhere down the line. So I guess that°s where we're at. If we can get this thing off and running, I think we can do a heck of a nice project for the community. This is just a rough rend- ering of the type of unit that we would anticipate. Gary Humphrey: Does anybody on council have any questions of the develop- er? Bill Holton: How many units per acre was that? Frank Kleckner: That would work out, I believe, to approximately 10 units per acre. It was originally a 10-acre piece and then when Cedar Avenue came through, they took a little over an acre so its something in excess of eight acres that remains and we're proposing 80 units. Gary Humphrey: Is that everything for your question? Bill Holton: Yes. 3 Gary Humphrey: Any more questions? Do we have a representative of the neighborhood? Tom Stuebe: Yes, I'm Tom Stuebe, from Timberwick, we're behind the con- cerned citizens opposing this petition. I would like formally, at this time, to introduce the petition to the Council. If I could take a few minutes just to read the highlights of the petition that summarizes our reasons why we're opposed to these petitions. Here are the following reas- ons: There are many of us, the residents, purchased our lots and built or purchased existing homes in reliance that the existing zoning, RCL, would remain. To grant the petition, would certainly adversely affect the property values in our neighborhood. By the way, we have well over 100 signatures and we have still some more to come in so I'll supplement this to the additional signatures as they come in. Con- trary to what the petitioner said, we and our family bought the lot from Domestic and we were certainly told that the zoning would stay what was in back of us so I have to take opposition on what he said, that we were informed. The subject property is rolling and wooded terrain and, we feel, certainly well suited for the existing RCL single family cluster designation. For those of you who are not totally familiar with that, I invite you to take a look at it. It certainly is not flat; it's rolling and wooded; comparable to where the single family homes currently are placed. The rezoning of property from RCL to M3 would set a precedence for the adjacent acreage, to the south, unless those eight acres to the south of the property would become medium density populated and would further contribute to the traffic problems on Pennock Avenue as out- lined in the next statement here. The higher density than RCL would further compound the already exist- ing traffic problems on Pennock Avenue. I think we're all aware of the 18-month study and all the problems we had. Regardless of how accessed, that is Granite Avenue or whatever, until the subject area is developed, we feel the future residents of this new area would use northbound Pennock Avenue to return from the downtown Apple Valley area to their residences and yet further saturate Pennock to the north of 140th. Therefore, it is essential, we feel, that the density in subject area be held to a minimum which, in this case, is the existing current zoning of RCL. In summary, we feel that the interest in safety and preserving residential property value of existing citizens, in the surrounding neighborhood, far out weigh the economic interest of the petitioner. For those reasons, we respectfully ask that the petition for rezoning this property from RCL be denied and the property remained zoned as the RCL designation. I think we all feel, the 100 plus concerned residents that have signed the petition 4 feel, that the only viable way to handle this is te keep the existing zoning at RCL and let's minimize the density and alleviate or minimize the problems that we are expeciencing on Pennock Avenue. So, with that, I will formally submit the petition and, again, we're going to supplement the petition with additional signatures as they come in. Right now we have in excess of 100 concerned families that have signed the petition. Gary Humphrey: Thank you for your presentation. I detected some differe- nces of opinion as to what RCL zoning is between the developer and the neighborhood and I believe the staff or our learned attorney, perhaps, could enlighten us somewhat. Jim Sheldon: He can in a second. The permitted uses in a RCL zone are single family dwellings meeting the standards of the uniform building code, placed on permanent foundations and having no horizontal axis that is less than 18 feet in length and any use permitted in the R1 districts, as regulated, and then there are some conditional uses also. So, it's basically, a pretty much of a single family zone. Frank Kleckner: May I ask one question. If you look on the zoning book that I've got, it shows the charts for square footages and so on. On the RCL, cluster zoning, is a double asterisk. If you flip the page over, there's a comment, on the back page, with a footnote that indicates some- thing to the effect that there are grandfathered uses; that these are subject to something to the effect that the previous zoning, RC2 zoning or RC zonings, there are some variances in there. They've got that chart in there that shows setbacks and so on. Gary Humphrey: Rick, do you have anything to add to this? Rick Kelley: The asterisk essentially says that where not specifically addressed in the applicable subdivision agreement, R1C requirements shall prevail for RCL districts. What this is specifically referring to are that setbacks and lot size requirements in the chart for RCL would be the same as a single family zone. Some of the confusion arises here out of the fact prior to 1983 the Gity zoning regulations did allow attached housing units in RCL districts. When the zoning code was amended in 1983, that provision was deleted. Gary Humphrey: Thank you. Do we have anything from the council table? Questions? Bill Holton: I guess one thing that I don't think the development pro- vides proper access to the south. I think that would be one of the reasons that I don't think we're ever going to get an access onto Cedar at the 139th alignment. I don't think that the Galtstro property is going to get an access onto 140th. So when you look at that property, you're going to have to look at both parcels. Frank Kleckner: But, then we tried to work with Barb. 5 Bill Holton: For how long? Frank Kleckner: For the last year and a half. But, you don't anticipate letting her go out to Cedar or to 140th? Bill Holton: It's not our decision. It's the state and its the county and I don't think they're going to allow accesses at those points. So I think you're going to have to preserve an access through there anyway. Frank Kleckner: We've tried to allow for two. Bill Holton: Those are still...in a townhouse thing that would never work. So what would be presented to me would never work all by itself with even the accesses in the right area. Frank Kleckner: Are we talking about no accesses there; even at 139th? Bill Holton: I'm not sure, but I'm just saying I think that the accesses are a problem. The two properties really ought to be designed as one. Tom Goodwin: What are you aware of right now about accesses, the distances from the corner and all that kind of thing? As far as you know, Rick, would any accesses be in order as you understand the rules right now? Rick Kelley: Well, on 140th Street, that is a City street so the City would have authority there. On Cedar Avenue there is an existing access at the Upper 139th alignment. I guess it's conceivable if the County would allow another access to go in and line up with that. Tom Melena: There would still probably be concern with that. One of the concerns staff has is that we think there is an opportunity to be able to put in a frontage type road. That is, an offset frontage road all the way from the Zoo Road down to 140th and, in fact, maybe even a little bit furt- her south. The way this property is laid out, that would forever close that opportunity. An opportunity such as that would definitely help the traffic situation on Pennock Avenue. It would take some coordination with the state on the interchange up there at the Zoo Road and Cedar Ave- nue, but we just really feel that it's worthwhile to be exploring that at this time and not to close the door to that opportunity. Gary Humphrey: I think traffic problem is a paramount problem along the whole Pennock corridor. Mayor Branning could not be here tonight. He was called out of town on business. He did relay, to myself and Tom Melena, that he felt this whole area should be looked at as a whole and not spot zone any individual parts because of the traffic consideration involved in this area and the nature of Pennock Avenue between 138th and 140th. certainly concur with that feeling myself. Barb, did you have any com- ments? Barbara Savanick: Well, it seems to me that this is spot zoning. My motion, when I made it? would be to deny the rezoning which means the RCL would remain. I think we added to the motion that we wanted the staff and the Planning Commission to study that entire area. I think we've got to go clear to the Gity border to get a traffic flow and look at zoning before anything else and this is premature. Gary Humphrey: Yes. Tom Goodwin: There's another issue too and I think we faced it up the road at the other end of Pennock. This gentlemen that represented the neigh- bors I think expressed it. Its always been my belief, I don't know, if the people know what's next to them, as far as residential zoning, and they feel that it's going to stay there; they really have every reason to be safe in that assumption unless there is an awful good reason to change it. I think an awful lot of people here bought homes and bought lots in that area knowing that they were buying in a RI area; knowing that next to them was zoned an R1 area. I think we have I think that has to be a very, very important part of this whole consideration. It's a tough corner I don't know quite what to do with the corner frankly. It is a real tough one. I think the people sitting out there have got to understand that too. Nobody is going to build a home like we see--those beautiful homes in Timberwick--nobody is going to build one right on the corner of 140th and Cedar. We understand that somewhere along the line that something different is going to happen. But the fact that it was zoned R1 I think is very, very important and what people have related to me is that was their feeling when they bought their home, and when they bought their lot that is what they were told. To me, I think that's a fair amount of importance. Frank Kleckner: May I make one comment? It's not R1, it's residential cluster and it's DIII on the Comp Plan. If we anticipated putting single family homes out there, we certainly wouldn't have put double bungalows in between as buffer. We got a little smarter when did the 5th Addition. We did not own the property immediately to the east. We owned the property to the east on the 6th Addition where we put the twin homes knowing full well that something of a higher density was going up there. You can put me on a lie detector test, or whatever, there has not been a client that I've ever dealt with that wasn't at least made aware that that was not single family out in that area. Tom Goodwin: What kind of zoning is that? What kind of density are the twin homes that you have there? Frank Kleckner: That looks like R2. The whole area was originally zoned residential cluster, the whole 70 acres. We developed the westerly portion in single family. We figured that the area out to east, toward Cedar, would be a heavier density. Consequently, we put the double lots in there as a buffer. But it encompasses almost an entire area. Lady's voice: It's only three lots and you've got one double on it. 7 Frank Kleckner: This is where the 6th Addition starts. As I indicated we did not--this is Barb Calistro's property--we do not have any control over that. We've approached her and indicated, for over the last year and a half, that it would make sense to develop them together. We indicated that there may be an opportunity to get 139th. We felt it would be app- ropriate to do that if the City and the County were ameanable to doing it. She did not want to have anything to do with it at this point in time, but we tried to allow access. This is the 6th Addition so everything on the 6th Addition that abuts up to this piece was put in as double bungalows as a buffer to a heavier intended density out on this end of the propert- y. Admittedly, part of two lots in the 5th Addition do butt up to this corner. This corner is probably, or in this vicinity there's probably, the woods that are on the property are probably more located here and some up here which we would intend to preserve and do extended buffering and land- scaping along this area where the affected single family homes would be. Barbara Savanick: I think that first of all we were discussing the rezon- ing and the platting and the building design all at the same time which we probably shouldn't be doing. So first of all I don't think we should rezone; if were going to rezone at all, I think we should down zone. think that our number one objective in that area should be to gat the less number, least number of vehicles coming in and out of there. The next concern I have is that I think Mr. Melena is right; we need some kind of public road that runs through there and as I see that plan looks like they are all private roads. Gary Humphrey: They, they .... Barbara Savanick: Just a second I'll give you the floor and you can answer them all at once. I sincerely doubt that 139th is going to be a reliable access. It might be a right turn in or a right turn out, but that's not a reliable access; that doesn't give you decent access into an area. Look at the corner at 35E and Cedar. We have some beautiful, beautiful, houses going in there. This area has a very nice high hill on it. Maybe it would be feasible to put very large houses up on top of the hill so they can get the view. I mean that's just a possibility that could be addressed and looked at. Frank Kleckner: I happen to be very familiar with the area up on 35 and Cedar. Those lots, that we put in there, are heavily wooded; they have a natural buffer behind them. They are probably anywhere from 300 to 350 feet deep. We can't get clients to go for those single family which are considerably more buffered then this. As far as the hill here, I think you must be thinking about a different piece of property because the elev- ation of Cedar Avenue and this area here, there can't be a .... it drops off, actually it drops down coming in here and then it starts to climb a little bit. So the elevation from Cedar Avenue is probably, on this corner it might be a 15, 20 foot difference. In the center of the lot, it's proba- bly about even and over here it's actually a little lower than it is here. It looks like theres a hill here because when Eneback came there and did the ground work on Cedar Avenue, we made an arrangement with him where he would use some of his excess material to build a little berm. So if you're 8 driving along, it looks like a hill but that goes up and it drops back down with the property. Gary Humphrey: If I read the consensus of what I'm hearing from the Coun- cil, I see substantial agreement with the Planning Commission decision that this is premature because of the inherit problems that we've been faced with in that particular area having to do with traffic. Approving any- thing such as this would simply be adding to the problem and compounding it. We have two choices actually. If we table it or send back to the Planning Commission, the zoning request of the petitioner is still before us and needs to acted on. I think the direction that I've heard at the Council table and from Mayor Branning is that the whole area should be looked at in depth and the final solution to the traffic problem be reach- ed. In conjunction, that may well mean that we would be recommending and instituting a rezoning action ourself. But we've got one rezoning action there that has to be dealt with and I think it may as well be dealt with tonight and simply vote in favor of the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the rezoning. Tom Melena: May I make one comment sir? Gary Humphrey: Mr. Melena. Tom Melena: Our attorney, I think, would like to suggest a way for you to have that motion worded. Jim Sheldon: If you are intending, based on what you heard tonight and at the review of the Planning Commission matters and that type of thing and records that you have, if you're intending to deny this rezoning, it would be appropriate for you to direct the staff to prepare a resolution of denial that you would consider at your next meeting. As the City Ad- ministrator earlier indicated, that would contain all of the reasons and factual background on which you base this. Bill Holton: I would move that we prepare such a resolution. Barbara Savanick: I would second that. Gary Humphrey: We have a motion on the floor you certainly can amend it Barbara Savanick: Would it be possible just to change the wording of the motion on the floor? Tom Melena: If you wanted to amend your motion to what the attorney just stated, I'm sure our City Clerk can get that down. Barbara Savanick: Well, I think that was the intent of the motion to start with, to have a resolution with the legal language prepared. Gary Humphrey: Well, the motion then is to accept the Planning Commission recommendation for denial and direct the City Attorney to prepare... 9 Tom Melena: A resolution of denial. Gary Humphrey: Would anybody care to call the question? Barbara Savanick: Are we going to separate the recommendations or do we need another motion to thc staff and Planning Commission to look at the traffic pattern and other... Bill Holton: That can be direction and does not need to be part of the motion. Barbara Savanick: Ok, because when I mentioned that hill a few minutes ago, you go to county road--140th and Cedar, there is a very high hill and it does taper down into his property and there are some homes behind it and there are some hills around it. I think that we particularly need to look at the topography in the area. Gary Humphrey: OK, at this point we'll call the question. Ail those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Council: Aye. Gary Humphrey: Those opposed. Motion is carried four to one. Bill Holton: Four to zero. Gary Humphrey: Four to zero, excuse me. Frank Kleckner: I voted against it. Thank you folks. l0