The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-06-85 Council Workshop MinutesMINU'I'ES Ol~ TFIli WORi<SHOP METiTING CI'LY COUNCIL LI'CTI~E Ce1NAD~, MINNESO"CA Vovember.' 6, 1985 Pur.suant to due call. and noti.ce thereof a wori<shop meeting ot the Council of the Ci.Cy of LiCtl.e Ganada, N,(i.nnesota was hei.d on the oth day oE ^Iovember, 19H5 i.n the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 LitC1e Canada Road in sa.id C~i.Cy. P~tayor ~1icl~ael L'~ahey chaired ehc meeCing and called it to order at 7:00 Y.P4. and Che followi.n~ members raere present at: roll call: f4LM,BERS PRESEN"I': ALSO PRES7;N9': i~layor Councilman Counci.lman Council.woman Counci.lwoman Ci cy Cleric City Pl~nners Recordi.ng Secretary Me. hti.chael. Fahey Mr. F11.I.liem L'l.esener Mr. Ri.cl< Collova Ms. ~lugs Nard~ini Mrs. U~verly Scalce i-Ir. Jose~h Chleberlc P4r. Dave L,i.cht Mr. SCeve Gr.:i.ttman ~lirs. KaClil.cen Glanzer Altayor Pahey opened the workshop meeting. 1?ahey Chat the Copic, oP discussi_on a[ the meeti.ng wo Rutzlclc ~roposal, the WaiCe Steneroden proposal Tftese matters are on the agendai of the November. Council f:e1,r it *aould be helpful Co Pet some of. prior to thie Council. meeti.n~. informed the aucli.ence ild be the Car.dinal/ and Che Kri.enlce property. 13 Councii meeti.n; and thc i.ssues :i.roned out Mr. Fahey i.r~formed the audience thaC Che council. has called a public hearing on the C~r.din~l./Rutziclc proposal. on ir~dusCri.al rc;venue bonds for Che November 26 Cowlc3.1 meeting. iyr. Rukzick i.nf_ot'med the auclience thaC when h~ came in wit_h his ori.~i.nal proposal he caas i.nstr~cted by Che CounciL co I.ook into purchasin~; tk~e baclc portion of tLi<a Flinter pr.operty. i]r. Rutzick did Chi., and cxme baclc wi.th anoCher proposal which added more apartmenCS than his firsC one. AC a Council meeting Che ~(~iyor inc(i.ca[ed that the number of' apairtmenC units was too heavy. 7'heref:oze, RuCZick descri.bed another clesip,n l.ayout for h~i.s ~~iroposal i.n which r.he number of apaetm~nt wiits i.s reducecl. Rutz~ick is al.so pcoposi.n~ Cliat a 75 foot buff.'er remain along Iona Lane and a porti.on of the peoperty be l.eFt open f.or future commerci.al u,e. Rutzicl< stat:ed that he did not providc £or roacl access to IZice Street as he does noC own the Land and tkie owners sirc not interestecl< Itutzick f.urther i.nformed the Council that his proposal i.s f.ox 1~ti4 apartment uni.ts. Rutzi.cic then sugp;rsted an area for seni.or congregate di.nin,;. Mr. P'~hey stated that he i.s not ~i.nterested in the. con~re~ate dining iinless :it i.s locatec( in one of. rhe a~artment bui.l.di.ngs. Page -1- ~ t r.NU•rr.s c~cy c~~~~~,~;.~. Nov. b, 19£35 t4r. Pi.erce commented that he understood l.ow income hous~.in; saouid be al.l.owed and asl,ced for an exp'l.anation of Cl~iis proposal. Rutzi.ck explai.ned that. uncler the i.ndustri.al. revenue fi_nanr_i.ng, 20% of the uni.ts would have to be occupied by 1ow income occupants. Howevei°, these peopl.e could have salaries up to `:~26,500 per year. The rents tor these ~nits would be the ,ame as for the oCher uni.ts, thciC is, $550 to $675 per montha Rut.zick aiso r.eporCed thaC undc:r. the f.'i.nanci.ng Che rents are not subsicl:i.zed at a11, Mr. Pahey indicated Chat the control factor would be the amount oE the rent. I~ahey i.ndicaCecl that the City ktas requested that someone Irom the Minnesota t(ousirig A~ericy be presenC to expl.ai^ tkie proga-am, buC chey coere iiot avai.l~ibie foe this meeting and would attend Cl.~e November 26 meet.i.ng. Mr. Milo Wo1f coi~~menCecl that he fail~d to see. j~istz.f.i.cat.i.on for addi.Ci.onal apartroenCS i.n Lit~le Canacla particular.ly west oF 35E. 1'akiey stated that Che business comrnuni.ty feel.s that addi.tior~eil apar.Cinents would generate mor.e business. Mr.s< Scalze poi.nted out that not zill. of Che busi.ness community felt thi, way. Mr. Ldo7,f questionecl how the owners would be able to ~et these aplz~tmen[s rented, ~1r. Rutzi.ck stated that there is a 99% occuE~ancy rate :in Li.ttle Canada. Mr, Pahey indi.caCed ehat the Council. held a hearj.n~ on, this proposal ~ cor'rection at a previous Council. meet i.np, and there was pru~ one -c~~'}~czec~'~{~ to the res no proposal at t.hat time. At Chat maeting Che proposal cal.led for 13f3 85-11-528 apartment uni.CS and the City i.ndi.cated that: Mr. Ruta..i.ck should loolc i.nto the purchase of the Winter property. Presently, the Counc.i.l i.s focusing on this plan. Mr< Ted Ilergstrom as'~ced how [he pl.an i.s different fr.om Che ori.p,i.nal. one< Pahey explained t:hat the apartments are moved f:urther to the south and a 75 Loot buf.fer. z.one to Io~ia Lane is being maintained. h,lr. Bergstrom sC2ted that he was opposed to the pl.an ~,uid fel.t Chat some type of. residential housi.ng shoutd be con>trucCC~~d adjacenC Co Iona Lane, ~1r.. Fahey pointed oue tPiat if road access were to come in From Rice Street there would o~ly be room for a sin~le roro oL homes atld i.t would noC be econornical7.y feasibl.e to construcT. Che road. Scalze pointed out Y:hat the Counci.l told tiutz,iclc to i.ncorporate Che Winter property whi.cn is zoned R-1< 'Ptiere orere no i.ndications Chat the Counc:il woi.ild chinge Che zoni.n~ from 12-1. Nlr. Pahey pointed out that the property w~il.1 develop some day. 1?ahey stated Chat Ize thought Chat the 75 foot butfer. would get f:avorable reacti.on. However, i.f che neighborhood i.s agai.nst the propos~4, then Che Co~mcil w~i.ll have Co consider this. Yage -2- ~:I~U'l'IiS City Council ~ov. 6, ]9F35 Mse Nardini pointed out that Chis is li~i,ical;Ly the same development. as Rutzick's or~igi.nai one, but: spreac! ouC on ~.i larger. piece ot property< Mc, B~rostrom asked how f.`ar th~ apar.tment bui.ldi.ng coas from ehe buffer zoriee hir. Rutz~ic'~c indi.ct~Ced that the bui.Ldi.ng woul.d be r:i.~;ht up t:o Che 75 foot buff.er zone. Mr. Wolt i.nd:i.catecl ChaC he was opposed to the proposal. T4r. RuCZ,ick i.ncli.cated that the 75 Leet woulcl not be touched anc.i all the trees would rernai.n. Mr. I3er~strom fel.t that Ghis coul.d noC be done. Ber~sCrom indi.cated l:haC the property wus zonect R-1. and that he would not ~e opE~osed to R-1 development, Fahey stated Chat therc wa, the question o£ wheeher th.is was f,~easible or reasonz.ible. Fahey commented ChaC P~e coul.d not see how the areai was ~oned as i.C i.s. i•Sr. I3er~scrorn stated that i.t was zoned ~~-1 as a buLLer Yo Ionei Leinc. i[L. RutzicLc st~ited that he is st~il]. agrea~abl.e did not incorporate the Winter propert:y. hir. sL~ould be addressed. Pahey indi.aaked that if care of. at tLii.s point, someday the whol.e piec Fahey pointed out thaC i.t was not Leasibie to homes on thi.s proper.ty. to the first pro~osa~l that F'ahey fei.t that this property the propeet.y is not talcen could devel.op commerc:i.ally. devel.op a si.ngle r.ow of: Kr. Fahey stated that he hoped by havi.n£; C11e ororkshop meeting some i.deas woul.d develop f:or thi.s piroperty and i.ndi.cated that tlie Comtcil. w:i.l.l be tak~ing action on the Rutzi.clc proposat at the next Couaci.l meeting. ~r. .Pi.ezce asked how much property w~s R-1. C11'~ey replied that: the Wi.nter p~roperty wras R-1 ~ahi.ch has about 190 f.eet of: Erontaoe on Rice Street, Ms. ~ardini ~~ointed out that the Counci.l. di.d noC have to do anything regar.ding the Wint:er property, but felt that Che whote area shouid be consider.ecl at th:is time< Mr. Pahey askecl if. the Winter proper.ty could bc develor>ed resi.denCial.ly wi.th access coming From Li.ttle Canad~i Road. 'Che Pl.am~er pointecl out Chat the City ~oould end up wi.Ch ,ome very long ci.tl.-de-sacs and wou7.d ziiso have residenti.al and commerci.zal. uses on t.he same street. Pahey poi.nted out that the City requi.red this i_n Mr. Lee's first devel.opmente The I'Aanner k~o:i.ntecl ouC that Mr. I..ee has not developed this res:idential property an<I it may be more economi.cal Por him to let the property sit; than to puC the utiliti.es i.n for thi.s type of. devel.opment, PSs. Nardi.ni. aslced Che cosCS of puttin£; in a rotad. Mr. Collova estimated the cost at $125 £or the sCreet and utilities per foot f.or one s~ide of the street. Page -3- MT.NtPLES Ci.ty Counc.i.1 Nov. 6, 19f25 Ptrs, Scalze Lelt that somethin~; could be ctone =.ai.th the other s:i.de oL the street Co mal<e t:he pr.oposal. feasibl.e. Mr. Pahey incli.cated that he will not vote for a proposal thaC does not. include Che tlinter property. Ptr. Jim Ftutzi.clc proposed ~a 125 ioot buffer ancl i.ncl.ude~i parkin; or some other. ameni.ty i.n Che back. Rutzi.ck i.ndicated that he dia not lcnow iE the Im1a I.ane peopl.e would be happy with si.ngle fami.ly liomes baclced up aFainst them< Rutaidc i.ndicated that the bufEes zone could be i.ncreased with par{cing and some amerii.ties incJuded iri this ar.ea. i3ut~iclc i.nd.icated [hat there ar~ a].ot of.~ ways thaC the plan coulcl be handled i.n order to sati.s[y the Iona I..ane residents, Rutzick stated that he would I.ike to accommodate Iona Lane as we11 as the Wi_nters, Mr. Sdo1f was concerne<t about noi.se levets from these ameni.ti.es. nr. 13erf;st.rom stated that i.t coas hard to react to thi.s suogesti.on unCil somethi.ng w::~s on paper. Pahey poi.nted out: that if the td~inte.r property devel.oped residentially Che lots would be about 140 f`eet deep and the buffer would be the backyards. F~hey pointed out that the apar.tment buildi.ng would not: be behi.nd a1L the homes on Iona I.,ane and would have less ot an impact then homes al.on~; the 7.engCh of: the Iona Lane homes. tiJi.th the apartmerit:s the buif:er woul.d be wider in soroe areas, Fal~ey asked the res:idenCS how [hey woul.d £ee1 i.f. Che bi.~ffer ~oms i.ncreased. Mr. Blesener indicated ~thaC he felt Iona L,~ne would be happi.er ~aith the building against the butf:er zone, then l~aving the parking 1ot located in this area. Illesener. felt that car.s caould be more of: a d~isturbance than a staCionary buil.ding. Pahey astced Rutzi.cl< if: he would be wilLing to increase Che buif:er zone to 100 f:eet. Mr. Rutziclc Lelt that Chi.s woul.d be fea,ibLe. Mr. }lergstrom asl<ed how hi.gh the apartment bui.lding would be, Rutzict< repl.i.ed t_haC it would be thr.ee stories hi.gh, or about 30 feeC< There would also be a level of unclerground parki.ng. "Ir. [dolE felt that t:he Cop Lloor would eliminate the privacy of: Che residents on Ion~a Lane. Fahey asked i_f Che impacC would be less -.if tlie apartments were stri.ctly on the Cardi.nal property. Mr, I3ergstrom f:elt i.t would be lessened as the. buildi.ng wotil.d Uc. over ?_00 Peet away and the property slopes, D1r, W~i.nter indicated that he fel.t 100 feet was a good buff:er zone and poinCed out that no one was concerned about a butf.er zone when the t3oat and N1oCOr P1art property ancl Curley's TV ancl 7'i.erney's Liquor deveLoped< Pexge -4- rtTNU~rrs Ci.ty Council Nov. 6, 19E35 Fahey :indicated t:hat. the past: Counci.l CheaC dealt, with this development probably fe1.C thae the Cdi.nter property would be zoi~~ed commercial some day, I'ahey Ee1.t Chat T.he Iona Lane peopl.e should be aware of: t:hi.s and Tahey i.ndi.caCed th~~C i.t was reasonable to ki~.i.m to h~ve the fr.ont portion oI the Wi.nter property zoned commercial, b:ir, .Bergstrom f.e7.t that if: Che 100 foot buffer zone was undi.sturbed tliat would be fine, however, Bergstroin felt that Cl~e area would probably be str.i.ped. Mrs. Scal.ze ~>ointed ouh that P:he CiCy coul~ control thi.s un<ler. a I?UD. i4r. Roclcy S1aiCe indica[ed Chat Che apartments on CounCy Road C are very close to the homes on Jessi.ca Court and they are not adversely ef.Eecti.ng these homes. itr. Wolf indi_cated that he mi.~;hC bc~~ agreeable to a 100 foot buf.f.`er. ~i.f. Chere was no parkin~; lot or other ameni.Cy locat:ed i.n that: area, Pahey indi.cated that there would have to be some porti.on of. groomacl lawn. Mr, 13ergstrom suggesCed the 100 f:'oo~ bufLer zone and an t~ddi.Ci.onal 25 f.eet of: groomed 1awn. RuCZiclc countcred wit:ti 75 f.'eet of. undisturbed buffer ancl 7_5 feet of €;roomed lawn in additi.on. t~tr. Winter i.ndi.caCed that he gave a 25 f:oot drai.na~;e easemenC to the latce because of the draina~;e probl.ems Che people on Iona Lane were having. Mr. Rutzi.clc stated that he woulcl l.ilce t:he option of: putti.n~; i.n addi.ti.onaL trees and planti.ngs in Che buffer zone. G(r. Wo7.£ indi.cated that thi.s rneanC that Mr. Rutziclc pl.arm ed to change the €~rade of the properCy. P1r. .31.e>ener indi.cated that with the buf.fer zone at 100 feet and Che baclcyeirds oE Ioria L<ane considered there would Ue 175 Leet betcaeen the apar.tment buil.di.ng and the kiomes on .Tona< Mr. [~utziclc indi.cated that some of: tlle trees in the. b~ff:er •z.one coould be higher Chan the apartment. ilergstrom poi.nted out tl~at the proper[:y on which the apartmenCS woul.d be locaited i.s hi.gher Cltan Iona Lane. Mr. Rutzi.clc suggested that Chey come back with something on paper. Fahey aslced Che grading plans for the ~ropert:y, Mr. Ji.m Rut~ick replieci t:hat they have not done a grading plsin as ye~. Scalze aske<1 i[ the apartmenCS az'e located higher P:han 7:ona Lane and T.he woods are not graded f.f Tona Lan~~~ would hlve dr.ai.nage problemse Mr. Jim RuCZi.ctc r.eplied [hat they would p:i.tch the property and a storm sewer would be i.nstal.l.ect. Mr. Collovasuc;gested that he woul.d l.i.lce co see some sorC of: f:asC-g;rowi.n~ trees planted~in the buffer area. Scalze sup,gested pine trees as well. Pa~;e -5- TIINUTES City Council. Nov. 6, 1~)85 Mr. Rutziclc was agreeable. Bergstrom 2~ain suggested a ro~a of single tamil.y homes ~~butting Iona Lane, :lergstrom felt that Che property values of Iona Lane would clecrease ~•ri.th ~n aipartment buildi.ng. 13ergsCCOm Ce1C YhaC the Ci.ty should not be worrying about Mr, Rutzi.cl<'s c~~conomi.c,. f;l.e,ener indLcated that the Ci.ty i.s not coorr.ied abouC Itutzick's economi.cs, but r.ather. Hessrs. Winter's. C~ahey felt that there aouLd be more impact Yo Iona Lane wiCh a row oF si.n~;le f:arni.l.y i~omes than wiCh the 100 foot buLf:ex~. Pahey pointed out Chat if homes were bui1.C Che t:rees would E~robably be cuC down and grass put i.n. I3er~strorn commented thaC it i.s more normal to back up to homes tLian it i.s Co t~n apartmeni: bui7.d:ing. Nardini pointed out that Che Yiomes would be backing up Co a natural area. Scal.ze asked if. the Iona Lane res.i.dents caould be more a~;reeabl.e if. ~he apart;ments were occupied by senivr cit:izens. 'Che res:i.dent:s di.d noY: lcnoca< "Ir. Fahey i.ndi.cated that another question the Counci.l. had to tiddress cvas the depth of frontage o[ commercial. zoni.ng along Ri.ce Street< Fs~hey pointed out that the Trtinters would l.:ike the front por.tion of their property coned commerci.al in conjuncti.on wi.th Che sale of the back portion of the properCy to Mr. Rtitaiclc, It r~as poi.nted o~rt that the 'Lierney's Liquor property has a 198 foot depth anci [3oat anct MoCOr. Mart has 3£30 feet of. depth. Mrs. Scal.ze f.el.t that the commercial zoni.ng should go no fwrther back than one l.ot. Mr. Waite stated that Che problem with that is tl~iere is not enough room to confor.m to commesci.al setbacks. llaiCe stated that lie ~ooulct be agreeable if.' he were gr.anted tlie ,ame vtzri.~nces that were ~ranted t.o Lot 1 of Iona Lane, Mr. Fahey asked i4r., WaS.te wttat he was proposing for Che SCener.oden property. Sdaite replied that he pl.anned to devel~p Lots 7. throu~h 10 as residential and L,ot 1.1.*,aoulcl be an of.Eice buildi.ng wi.th parlcing i.n the baclc, P~hey aslced if Wai.te caas sti.ll inCerested in the KrS.enke property for his proposal. Wa:ite suggested three alternatives. The firs[ would be acquiri.ng the Krienlce property t.tt a cost of about $100,000< Setbaclcs would be a problem and £l0 Ieet of a 1??_ Poot lot o~ould be losC Co seCbaclcs. Pagc -6- ~INU'C7iS Ci.ty Council. Nov. 6, 19f35 The se.cond alternative would be to p.,et access from the Schri.er property. .tt would cost between $25,000 an<1 :~35,000 .Eor the purchase oE the l.ot. 'Phere caoul.d be about $15,000 in assessments againsc the proPerty and woul.d be problems with comrnercial and resi.clential mixe<l lots. The t.hird al.ter.native woul.d be to ~eC <iccess from CounY.y Boacl C, b~it ch~~C would involve the condemnaCion of a IZOUSe and ChE: deveLopers would encL up ~oith excess footage. tA1so, there woulcl t~e a cul-tle-sac over 1.,000 feeC l.ong. ['i.nally, tPiere wout.d be abou[ $80,000 in assessments Chat ~aoulci not be ass~:ssabl.e. Mr. F'al~ey asked Wai[e kiis preLerence. Fahey pointecl out th~l from a cosC statndpoint i.t wo~ld be l.ess expensi.v~ to come i.n f:rom Sylvan >tree~, Mr. Wai.te reportecl Chat Dr.< ICrienlce is not interested i.n sellin~ just Che one par.cel that he would necd and Wai.te. cannot afEord Co purchase all the property. ,91.so, Schri.er is not. i.nterested i.n sellin~. 4dai.Ce asl<ed t:he City iahaC they wanted to do. Mr. Fahc:y stated tha[: I~e was not adverse t:o condemn:i.ng a developcr's 1ot, but would noC be in Eavor. of condemni.no a resi.dent:ial home. Sca7.ze stated that if access ca~s Chrough Schri.er's pro~erty, t.he CiCy could not a71ow commercial tr~if:ic t:hrough the Schri.er devel.opment. 1'4s. Nard~i.n~i pointed out thaat Che Ci.ty Counci.l a1.re~ady i_ndicatect to i~1r. Wr.~:iCe T.hat the Ci.ty caould not he i.nterested in access tk~r.ou~;h Schrier's devel.opment due to the dumping of commerci.al craff`i.c in the Schrier development. P1r. ldai.te stated that iL Che City wants h:i.m t:o access of'f. of Rice Street, he w:i.ll. work on it. ScalzEt pointed out Chat Wa1.te had the options of access f.r.om eiCher Rice Street or County Road C. Fahey commented that: he woul.d noc be in f+svor. of condemni.nf; a homa: on Count:y Road C. Pahey 21so po'inted out that the commercial depth shoul.d be the same on both sides of Iona Lane, Mrs. Scal.ze felt thaC Che commerciaJ. •r.oning should only ,n,o 130 feet baclc f:rom Rice SLreeC, Fahey fclt thaC khi.s oras too narro~v. Mrs. Scalze poi.nted out thaC the homes on Lots 1S and 2 on Lona Lane w~i.1.~1 ^ot: want commere:ial zonting; behind T,hem. Scal.se f.e1t that commercial zonin~; behind these I~omes wi.l1 decrease t:he: value of the homes. ~fr.s. icalre did not f.ee1 that only going baclc 130 feet would cause a problem and i:>oi.nted out that Curley's TV and 7':i.erney's are matci.ng a 1i.vi.ng on their properties. Pakiey felc t:hat 1.30 Ieet wo~ilcl i.mpact the 1lomes on Lots 7_ and 15 anyway <.~nd felt that comroercial zoni.ng two lots dee~ woulcl be reasonat~le. Page -7- MINU'I'ES Ci.ty Council. Nov. 6, 1985 P1r. 'I'im Townsley of.~ iona Lane f:el.t th2t :i.t wz~s ^ot reasonable to have commerci.al zoni.ng behind hi.s home ancl point:ecl out that thi.s wou7.d devalue hi.s home and put: money into the developer's pocket< Tls. iVard.i.ni su;geste~d that perhaps the C~i.ty should requesC a butfier on the south as i.t. i.s on the north of Iona Lane. Mr. B1.esener stated th~~t he could see Chis if llr. ISri.enlce were deve:l.opi.ng Che whole piece of proper.ty, and tk~e Ci.ty required him Co buy the Steneroden properCy as it i.s raquesting th~C Mr. Rutzi.ck buy the Wi.nCer property. PSr. Pahey commented that the people f.conGing on County Road C will have to pay f.or ehei.r h~i1f of: the road i£ they are able Co di.vide the bacl< hal.f of tiieis property, Nar.din:i pointed out that thi.s would force t.he people to se11 off the bacl< of thei.r 1~nd i.n order to pay for tf~~eir assessments. ~ahey stated that hc was cvilli.nf; Co support some reasonable condemnati.on of: the Kr.ienke property on Rice Street i.n order to get access from tl~at directi.on. Dr. IZrienlce sCated thaC he ~aoul.cl be lgainst conclemnation, tZrienLce reported that he purchased the property over 15 years ago and has kept i.t all. these yecirs i.n order. to ensure chat it develops as one piece and not in a piece-mea~~l. tashi.ori. Krienke reported chat he presently ha~s ewo devel.opers lookinp, at the pr.operty ~incl fel.t tkiat thi, talk of conclemnatiori would scare of:f Che developers. Dr. Krienlce felt Chat there should be some t_ype of bufLer zone bet:~aeen the R-1 property of Zona Lane and Che adjacent:.13-3 propert_y, Mr. Waite suggestecl that per.haps the best appro~ch would be to go baclc to his ori.f;i.na1 proposal. f:or mini-warehousi.ng i.n the back and an off.ice building i.n the front.. A1r, Pierce poi.nted out Chat: T~tr.. Wai.te or~i.gi.nally ~roposed a car-wash. It was point.ed ouC tli~t 6daite eaoulcl subst~itui:e an office buil.cli.n~ foe the car-YOash. A mernber of the audience aslced Che 1i:fe-ti.me of mini-war.ehousing. Mr> Wai.te indic~ted thaC i.t caould bc bloclc consl:ructi.on and should back onto ~Iona Lane so no fence woul.d be required alqno thi.s property l.i.rie. Waite poinT_ed out that this i.s what tie propos~d 9 rnonChs ago, tdait:e pointed ouC that the property coul<I be accessed through I.ot 11 and Lot ].I. woul.d contain the ofEice builclin,a i.n thc Eront with paricing i.n the baclc. Pal~ey su~+gested that the whol.e parcel could be rezoned B-"L YUD and then the Council woul.d control the pl.acement of everythi.n~. One. resiclent of Iona L.ane indieated Chat hier proper~y woulcl be deval.ued 7.0 Co 15% by bei.ng next to a PIJD. 'Phe 1'lanner i.ndicated that values woul.d depend on what waxs contai.ned i_n the I'tID, not jusC by bei.ng adjacent Go a PIJU< 1'age -£2- t4SNU'f'E;S ~ City Counci.l. Plov. u, 7.9F35 I)r. I,L;rienlce felt that the ofFice bui.l.dfng i.n the front of the Steneroden property ancl Che mini.-warehousi.ne i.n the baclc roas Che most l.ogical way to develop t:he property. Mr. WaiCe pointed out. tl'~at there would be a 25 foot buffet' in Che back of CYie mini-,tora~e and thi.s area woul.d be t:reed and have plant:ings. p1r. Piercc eisked L1o~a much chan~e ther.e Giould be in the gracle. Mr. SdaiCe repl.ied thaC he di.ct not lmo~o aC Ch~is poi.nt.. P'ahey ,uggestect that the Counci.l cooutd worry abouC thsC when they had something on paper. 'Lhe Ci_cy Engi.neer ~aould also be loolcin~ at [he drai.nage of the area. Pahey cornmented that i.t appeared to be the concensus of tl~ie Coime7.'1. thaC Mr> ~dai.te should consider development of.' thc: Steneroden property wi.th the ofEice bui.7.ding i.n th~ f.ront and mini-storage in Y,he baclc. Waite suggested that the ol.`Eice building be thr.~ee si:ories h:igh ~ai.tt~ 4,000 square feet on each Pl.ooc. Nardi.ni asked ~al~at Icind of depth woutd be needed :in the rezonin; Co accommodaCe t:hi.s size buildi.ng. Mr, Wa:i.te thou~hC that 270 f.eet of d¢pth would be needed ~nd pointecl out thaC. this would be tne shoiCest commerci.al property on Rice Street. ilr. 'Cownsl.ey i.ndi.cated that he cvoul.cl be opposed co tl~ii.s. The Ylannec poi.rited out Chat e.in ofF.:ice buildi.ng is onl.y occupieci fr.om 8 A.it. uriti.l. 5 P.M. during wee4c days. Mrs. Scalz~_ felt that a three-story oLfice bui.ld~.ing was Coo roucli. 1~ahey i.ndi.c~ted that he would go along wi.th a sCory and a hal.f.. Pahey Eelt that the buildi.ng shoul.d be compat:ible wit:h t.he neighbochoocl. Wai.te sCated that he w~s lootcing for some ~uidance from thc Counci_1.. Pahe}z felt that tiie concept loolwd ~;ood. P4r< Townsley felt thaC the wor.st kind oE res:idcntial c9evelopmenC caoul.c( be better than an ofli.ce buildin; in hi.s bact< yar.d. Mr. Coll.ov<i f.elt th2C the bul.lding sl~~ould be as far. forward as possible and the parl<ing should be :i.n the badc oF the bui.lding, Scal.ze a~reed that the buildi.np, should 6e compatible wi.th the nei~hborhood, Mr, 't3lesener Le].t thaC any parlcin~, should be al.on~ Ricc Street and the bu:i_l.di.ng shoul.d be towar.ds Che bacl< of the lot. Kr. I?attey su~;gested that Mr. idai.te draw up some alter~~atives. 24r. Fahey stated Chat he was not opposed to rezoni_n; the 12ice: StreeC property co commercial C-or a depth oF two lots. Mrs. Scalze C:e:Lt that there should be a compromise i.n this area. It ca~s poinC.ed out. thaC there would be Wi.nter propezty a greater depth t:han two lots thaC would st-111 remain R-1 under I~ahcy's suggestion. Pa~;e -9- 21INU'l'li; i Ci.Cy Counc'i1 Nov. 6, 19£35 Mr. P'ahey sugoested Chat the property ~reaCer than two lots deep owned by the Winters al.so be purchased by Mr. Rutzick, `1'his oiould give Iona Lane more of a buffer zotie. Mr. Rutzi.cic stmted thaf.: he wi1.1 do some roore drawinp.,s on thi.s a~id ~i1so indi.cated Chat he would be happy to Cal,ce over. tPiat property tis we17. i.E~ the Ci.ty were apreeable to seni.or con~,regate di.ni.ng. Fahey sug;ested that the Steneroden propert:y couLd be rezoned B-2 1?UD co ensure that any cleveLopment cai.l.l. be compati.ble wi.th the ne:ighUorhood. Also, anyone purchasi.n~ the propcrty would be aware chat a car wash would not: be compatible ~vith t:he nei.~hborhood. Mr. Townsley sug~est~cl that the mi.ni-sCOrage be brought up further. and Lelt thaC ch:i.s wou7.d have less i.mpacC on hi.s propert:y than an ot'f:ice buildLng. WaiCe indicat_ed that this ioould not worlc and the cents frorn the ofti.ce building would be neecled to make the project work, Ntrs. Scalze informed the develoj,~ers that she would bring their proposal.s t:o rhe 1?arl< Cvmmi.ssioii meet:i.ng f:or a recommendation on parlc charges. Scal.ze asl<ed if the Council had any feelings regarding Lh~; parlc charges. S4i. Pahey fe1C that the Cit_y would prefer. cash rather than 1and. Fahey also i.ndi.cat:ed t:hat ~ai.tti re~;atrd to Che Rutzi.ck devel.opment, the buf.f:er zone bein; requested by the City shou].d be talcen into consi.deration rohen the park charf;e i.s c7etcrmi.ned. F'ahey po~i.ntec{ ouC Chat the City i.s requir.i.ng Rutzicl< to purchase property for open space. Messrs. Col'lova and 731esener. aereed. Pezhey pointed out t.hat these i.tems cvi.ll. be on the agenda of. Lhe November 13 Council meeting. P'~ihey suggested that Rutzicl< and Waite come in e~ith some [vrmal plans for. that meeein€;, Mr. Wai.Ce stated that he ~uil.l. draco up the pLans, but did noC lcnow if they woul.d be ready by the 13th. ~r, Schr~i.er asked if. the Council had dism:issed the idea of: access througli Syl.van Street. ~Ir. I4lesener i.ndi.cated ttiat the Ci.try eoouLd px•efer accesss to the SCeneroclen property through Ri.ce Street. (~lowever, I3lesener clid noC thi.ntc the moratoriurn shoutd be li.f:ced unCi.1 acti.on is taken on the Wai.te proposal. Mr. Wolf aslced i.E the buff.er frorn the Rutzicl< pcoposal would be ].00 feet. 1~a1ey felt that this was reasonable coi.Ch 25 f.ee.t ot the 100 to be groomed, Mr. lilcsener and Nis. Nardin~i incli.cated that they felt the 100 feet buffer. cvas rea:;onable. P9r. Collova also agreed and stated that he would I.i.l<e to see some screening at the end ot the 25 feet. Paee -].0- ~IINiJTi3S City Council. Nov. 6, 1985 The owner of E3oat and P4otor Mart asked how tkiese proposal.s wi11 eff.ect his abi.lity to either rebui.ld or sel.l his properCy. 'Che City .PLanner indicated that whaC is bei.n~ proposed should noe effect the Boat and i9otor i9arC: at al.l< Mrs. Scalie pointed ouC that PUn agreements can always be changed. Mr. ~lesener pointed out that ~ publ.i.c hearS.ng would be held on ariy proposal. to change a PIlD agreement:. Pir. l~ahey thanked everyone for. thei.r inpul: on the vari.ous proposals. There bein~; no further business, the meeti.ng was adjournecl at 9:1?_ P.44. Respectfully submi.Cted, /~ /~ ~~~ /~ `r J/ -C ~/~-~ L~~ L_,%C_ k~ ./lC~-:? n'.. ;; ~J~L.~.. ~ ~'~, , Kathleen Glanzer . Recor.di.n~ Secretary Y<~ige -1.1-