PL 09/28/1967 - 30997^
�
PLANNING COMMISSION i�ETING SEPTII�IBER 28, 1967
ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 7:35 P.M.
Members present: Myhra, Jensen, Hughes, Ylinen, Erickson
Others present: Darrel Clark, Engineering Assistant
APPROVE MINtTTES OF PLEINNING CO;�IISSION MEETING: SEPTEMBER 14 1967:
\
PAGE 1
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the minutes of the Planning
• � Co�anission Meeting of September 14, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
n
�
RECEIV� MINUTES OF BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING:
SEPTEMBER 6, 1967:
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission
receive the minutes of the Building Standaxds-Design Control Subcommittee
meeting of September 6, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
ORDER OF AGENDA:
l.
The Planning Commission decided-the order of the Agenda should be:
Items 1 and 2 as listed, Item 3 to be the rezoning request (ZOA �k67-10),
and the balance of the agenda as written.
CONTINUED PUBLIC
zoA �k66-o6) :
: PLANNED
DISTRICT, HAROLD SCHROEDER
Mr. Harold Schroeder and Mr. Howard Dumphy were present.
Chairman Hughes stated the public hearing was still open and was held open
for considexation of a number of items; including a report from the Building
Standards-Design Control Subcommittee.
Member Erickson, referring to the Building Standards-Design Control minutes
of September 19th, said the Subcommi.ttee's motion was that the Planning Commis-
sion accept the general concept and design together with the exterior treatment
as proposed, but parking requirements and setbacks must conform to the City
Ordinances. He said they noted the setbacks showed 30 feet ar.d thev should be
35 feet, and an additional suggestion was made that some overhead protection,
such as a walkway or tunnel access from the garages to the apartments be con-
sidered. These were suggestions by a member, but were not in the motion.
The Engineering Assistant said that P1r. Schroeder did revise the Parkin
� and setbacks, reduced the commercial area and increa.sed �h�arking_lot_area.
He said ��e met with Mr. Schroeder and found the same errar as the Building
Standards-Design Control did. The quesL-ion of access could not be answered,
completely until it is knoc,m where,__and if, si�nals are to be installed. It
, Planning Commission Meeting=September 28, 1967 Page 2
was suggested an additional 24 feet from the property be_g_iven_.so,that_,more
_..__._ ._. ._ __ _
^ lanes can be added to East River RoQa ana if this__is_done, whether.or nat_it
�..__.____. -- —�
--- -. _—_.. __ . __ _ - --
should be considere� part of the parking requi_rement axea. The drainage should
--------F--�-- _...�.,._ -- ----------------------______.____
_be no pxoblem.
�
� Mr. Schroeder said he prepared an addendum to the previous report. At the
meeting with Mr. Qureshi, City Engineer, Mr. Belisle, Building Inspector, and
Darrel Clark, some of the problems wexe reviewed. Basically these have been
xesubmitted �vi.th this drawing. On the commercial area we have subscribed to
_. _ __. _ ___ _..
_.. ___-----_�,._ ._.,_ . ___ _..__.._
the 25 foot setback from the property line to the edge of_the pro�erty lines.
.._.._.._--- -- __..__,_ _._._...y_.___._._ .__._._�_..�._..
We have reduced the amount of total floor a�-ea in the shopping center area
_ ._ _�____.�_____ _ _
. . ___.�___� .
rather than trying to in�ringe more upon i.he creek property. Nir. Schroeder
xead�the Addendum to the Commission reviet�ing and commenting on the Statistics,
Illuminations Standards for Exterior Spaces, Signs, Procedure for Establishiiig
Street Access and Egress to the Shopping Center, and to the Apartment Complex,
Proc�dure for Establishing the D°sign of Truck Loading and Unloading Areas in
the Commercial Center. He said to note that the garages have been movedTback
--_..__� ____._..._.__. _
to 35 feet from the property line of_East_River_Road. He_said that_if_they
__._ .___._____..__�_.�.----.,. _ _ . -
wexe to have 108 units,_they should have 270,000 square_feet ground,area_ar�d
�_v.,_.___..�_._...---__ _ ,
axe about 515 s uare feet short of the 2,500 square�foot per �unit. He felt,
� �_ __ _. _._._ _
._.... �_. _. .____ �. _ -
that this might, be_ us_tzfied on the basis that they have__25 foot_ setback _from_
__. __..__...__
_ � _ ___ - --- --- --
the edge_of the parking__lot. He _s_aid _they__coniorm__iiz__all, other_respects.,
In answer to Chair.man Hugnes aslcing if the Engineer�.ng Departmen� haci
----- ..____ .__ ___._. ----
.
checked all^the�material submitted for the Planned Development of__S�ringbxook
._.._...__.,. _..r _. ...�. .
...�._ . _------- _._.r_---._
�Park,_Darrel Clark_said it had been done,
Member Jensen asked if subsurface drair�age was considered to pick up the
water in parking lot areas which is where you �aould have the most intense run
off. Mr. Schroeder saic� they felt they could rely solely on su-rface .drainage,
having the runoff property maintained to prevent erosion. If that does not
appear to be adequate, some sort of undexgrou�zd system could be devised. Storm
se�vers are not deep enough to keep open in the winter. He added that he thought;
as Darrel mentioned, they c10 have the best oppoxtunity for handling storm water
because they have adjacent streets where there are stoxm sewers and the creek.
Chairman Hughes mentioned the fact that the road from the apartments to the
parking lots on the Southeast corner is raised considerably above the garage
area which could present a water problem.
Member Myhra said he had recently driven through an apaxtment complex and
was amazed at the number of young children, and he asked Mr. Schroeder where
he had planned the play area.
_�Ir.__Schroeder said they planned_ a control.led area�with sw_imming poo1,
and whether it was _enclosed or..open,__it caould be_�rotected_according to_law.
Memlier Jensen slid that somehow he__seemed to recall_the.pool was_,paxt._of
__.� ___ __�.___ _._. _ _ __
__ .. __ -- - -- -
' � the package in the beginnin�. Mr __Schroeder said it_.was_part_of the master
��.--.—. -.
plan and is in the'phasing either as__second or third phase,__depending_hcs��_ tlie
inancin�_is�arr�ed. He said he felt it is an im�ox_tant part in that it sets
n the tone of thelcomplex. It should be considered in this phase �^nd_furfiher
elabor.ation should be made of the recreational facilities in ge�zeral. Mr.
Schroeder said tt�at if the Planning Com.,-nission :aould Iike, he would�be happy -
to accept an appzoval of the Planned Developmc.nt Pla.n at this phase taith the
�provision that�the final determination of the recreation facil.ities would be
�
Plan�zing Commission Mee�in� - September 28, 1967 Page 3
acceptable to the Planning Commission and �ngineering Department.
� Chairman Hugl.ies said it would be desi.xable to have a minimum_area__for,
--_ .._.___
__ __
recreational facilities sho�an now but he realized it__would be difficult_to.
----- -- -- - - -- -- ---'- -- --- --- ---- - --- -
tell now what basic faca.li.ties are to be installed.
There were no objections to that by P1r. Schroeder. The Creek, obviously,
is one area, apartment buildings anothex, parking lot and garage another, and
they would accept the balance of the area fox recreational facilities.
Chaix'man Hughes asked if Mr. Schroeder thought the approach specifying
a minimum axea in xeserve accomplishes this?
Member Jensen said_that,the recxeatioiaal_area_could be_anything from a
lawn up to and including _a__full_y_ developed_�ark_, Recreational_axea _in a__
-------
----- -
_. .
g
eneral location is a_lzttle too vague_for _oux pux�osess He continued that
he hoped theyTwere aiming at a little higher rental market.
Mr. Schroeder said they hoped fox professional people.
Member Myhra said he could see Mr. Schroeder's problem, but he wondered
if there were some standard fox a recreatic�n area commensurate with the needs
of the people.
Mr. Schxoeder answered, with the kind of money that is going to be invester,
they are obviously going to do whatever is necessary to induce people to rent
apartments. Member M hra_felt the recxeational area should be incox oxated_in
_- - _� ___ _ _- --- --- ---_ � .____— --.-�'---
_ ?_' - - -- -
the plan_,to insure_playgrounds for the children. Member Jensen_f.elt_ the_lay_out
n __.__ ___-- ------ ----- - -
was ideal. Chairman Hughes asked_if �.t would be_feasible to take the most
--- - ----
probable outcome at this point and outline a lan on the basis of that and:
__ _
_ _P ��___. __ ___.._�_�__
indicate there is a possibilit___of_change needs as far as play��:ounds are con-
,.__...._�_--- _____ _ _._
_ _----_ ___._ __- ---
--- -- -- --- - __
, __- y _ _ ------ __ _.
cerned. Mr. Schroeder asked how specific_a statement did the_ want_and added
__ _ _
he would lil.e to ive this statement this ev_eni.ng4 He said he could mention,
� g�---- -
the �pe of play apparatus,_such as swin�sZ sand box__areas_�teeter-.totters
and toddler yard will be prov_ided: T
Membe-r Erickson said he was not at all interested in holding Mr. Schroeder
to a swimming pool. He thought if it wexe essential to rentexs or the complex,
it will be put in.
Chairman Hu hes _said it would be_bettex io have _some_.,definite mention___af
g- ,- - ---- .
it, and some_indication under which_the�ool_will,__or will not�_be built_. In.
the future some other committee may be faced with deciding whether substantial
---- ----- - ---- - --_-__ __ ------ -- —
compliance has been met tiaith and they will look_thought the plan_for some
�uidance, He agreed the Planning Commission has no business telling people
whether they should have a pool or not, but as long as it was a potential
facility at this time, mention shouJ.d be made of it.
Mr. Schroedex said that in the future if they do want to build the pool,
then they would ask the Planning Commission for approval. To eliminate the
pool fxom the plan as shown �aould solve more pxoblems.
when
n rlember. Myhra asked that the�Planned Development is completed, what happens':
Chairnian Hughes ansF�ered that it. is treated like any other Gity property,
but the plan conti.nues --- does not die. In this particular circumstance, the
Ipetitioner would come up and receive a building permit through regul_ar channals.
Planning Commission Meetin� - September 28, 1967 Pa�e 4
-----�
Chaixman Hughes recalled that rir. Schroeder mentioned at the last meeting
� that. the intent was to provicte a_ bridge_across the creek behind_.the �oirunex.�i��.
axea, and�also mvntioned some type of access on tlie other_side_out_.,to_Ruth.
t_�____.__t —»--- ------ . -- --- - ----- _—_ __ __ _._
Mr. Schroeder said the lot concerned with the bridge is a rather short
lot, not buildable Uut it toould be in the best use fox access to the proper.ty.
They planned to keep the_oCOnership, but if the City ever wants it and would
maintain it, they_would consider deeding_it_ovex. �~
Member Jensen said, speaking of the lot, that it would remai.n entirely a
private parcel, no easements and the developer cvould have contxol over the
use of it and maintain it, as it would be encompassed within the boundaries
of the plan.
Mr. Dumphy identi.fied the lot as beirig Lot 4, and that if Fairmont Circle
were to be vacated, this request would be made in the usual manner.
Chairman Hughes said it might be desirable from the owners' point of
view to have the property all one zone. Access onto Ruth Street is also,�,
desirable. �y~.J--v_�� �-��
Member Ericicson asked if it is the intent to have one free standing sign,
would it be advisable that there are no othex signs and where should the sign
be set.
n Mr. Schxoeder said a temporaxy sign would be erected for the Project and
there would be other signs to identify the apartment complex notifying the
public that the apartments are fox rent.
Mr. Dumphy said that if we have any identifying signs as far as the
apartment complex is concerned, we should arrange it so the signs axe back
far enough off Liberty Street so as not to be in conflict with traffic, sh�uld
be visible from East Rivex Road, and the sign be worked into a bxick planter
axrangement.
Chairman Hughes stated the entrance road off Liberty Street will be for
the formal identi.fication of the apartment_com�lex_ �
It was mentioned that the signs would obey the_sign ordinance,
In speaking of illumination standards for exterior spaces, Mr. Schroeder
said that one half foot candle would only allow a person to see where he was
going but it still would permit people to stumble and �reate shadows: .�ao foot,
____
is a level which one can safely negotiate with and drive without lights_and
---__ ___--___ _____--------_______. — ------..______,. ----
�Tat is tfie one they propose using.
Member Jensen wor_dered if the possibility of a sign being erected on a
building and protruding above the ��all. was intentionally left out.
Chairman hughes said the decision is whether a sign is_acceptable_or not
__--. . --- ____._�___._----_._ ___. __._ .-------------
---- - --- ...
n to a landlord: �What�aze the standards a].andlord would use? A sign which
__.. .__ _
co�=�red the entire front surface of a stor�. would not be acceptable,_or built
_ . ---- - --- -- ------_ _---
on tlie frorit suzfac.e but extends 50 feet above the structure would not be ver�
--- ._----___ ._---------- ----- -- -- __---- --- - -..._.__.
��esiraFile.to the Plannina_C�mmission.._� The sign ordinance covers it, but is
�ttiere any other type wa should talk about? �
, Planning Commission Meetin� - September 28, 1967 page 5
Mr.___I?umphy_`said the__signs.would be unifoxm so .as not to disL-urb the con-
_formity_ of_ the buildin�. .
-----__�. _� � _-- _ _ _---
� ___._._ .._____
Mr. Schxoeder said the landlord would control the type of sign put up,
but if the tenant �aants a_laxge__size_s_ign,,,_the�landloxd can._say!'no".,
_ Chaixman Hughes wondered if they could layout some percentage the landlord
could use. The person who is leasing the premises always wants a large szgn.
Mr. Schroeder said it gets to th� point where really the landlord is the
person who would hatTe the greatest amount to lose to permit a sign which is
not in good taste with either. himself or the other tenants. I�Iost of the
shopping centers are exercising this kind of control.
The Planning Commission felt only_one pex�manent_single free standin� si.gn
.._ __ --._._____..-----..__.._
may be elected in the district adjacent to Easi River Road to identify the
' --.._�.._.___—_.---
. . . .. - -- .. __._ �_._.__._ __---. � __ �__ _.— _ . ___.�_. _____+
shopping ce�zter.:
Chai�'man Hughes said the Plannirig Commission was quite we11 satisfied on
the basis of the specific people with whom they are dealing.
Mr. Schroeder said they would be ha�py to include wha�ever percentage the
Planning Commission would want.
Member Jensen asked, as this comes up for final development approval, will
you have some leases? Mr. Schroeder said the more permanent tenants probably
� would be secured by Iease.
M��lION by Myhxa, seconded by Ylinen, that the Public Hearing of the
Planned Development District, Har.old Schroeder (ZOA ��66-06) be closed. Upon
a voice vote, all uoting aye, the m�tion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Erickson, seconcied by Jensen, that the Planning Commissiori
recommend to Council approval of the Planz7ed Development District of Sprir�gbrook
_.._ _.. _ ___________
. ______ _ .,. __----- -- — »�.. .
� - --` __._ ___---_._
�ar as amended_at_the meeting of September 28,�_1967 and_calling_Council's
__.__ _
attention to the discussions of the changes af the �roposals_as underlined_in,
tfie minutes. � Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��67-05, ROBERT DeGARDNER REPRESENTED BY RONALD J
WERNER, ATTORNEX: Lots 52, 53 and 54, Block E, Riverview Heights.
I� er w
Mr. Werner, representing Mr. DeGardner, Mrs. �ia�a Johnson and James Riley,
attorney, was present and also Mr. DeGardnex.
Mr. Werner gave a short resume of the probl.ems relatin� to the reques.ted
lot spl.it saying they found several title defects and the m�tter of titl.e
opinion was subject to what a suxvey wou].d disclose. It became a�parent it
would be necessary to torrens all of the property because of the problems:. A
torrens petition was initiated in Anolca County and a decree issued on February 6;.
1967 at 10:23 A.M. and signed by Wi.11iam T. ,7ohnsan, District Judge. This was
done without a suxvey. 'I�ie torrens examine� dici izot require a sui-vay. The
n real estate ag�nt step�ed off ���hat they thought �aas the encroachnent and cazne
up taith 10 feet. The survey asked ior in the contract for deed �aas re�uE:st�ed
six months after title. A letter �aac� rcceived fxom the City of.Fridley because �
the County was asked to �pli.t assessments and rarl to get a lot split appr.oval.
, Planning Commission Meetir� - Sep�ember 28, 1967 Page 6
Mr. DeGardner said he had gotten a permit to build a house on Lots 54,55
and 56.
�
Mr. Werner said Mr. Suhl, present occupant of the house in question, has
enough land even if the house is.off .centex.
Mr. DeGardnex added that the lots are 90 feet deep and have 75 feet front-
age. The problem is how much to give.on the Iot split. The present home is
an old two story farm house and it would not be feasible to pay the assessments
as is (two frontages, on two streets).
Mr. Werner said Mr. Suhl has been put on formal notice by P1x. Riley and
himself to protect the contract for deed. At the present time, Mr. Suhl is
four months in default. The owne•r of this pxoperty, Mrs. Vera Johnson of
Wii�.ona, does not have the facilities to invest. She still owns Lots 15, 16
, and I7 plus 10 feet on Lots 52 ai�d 53. Ifr. DeGardner owns Lots 4S, 49 and
50, and part of 51. The.re is an o1d garage on Lot 51 which will be removed.
This is a lot split request and also a request that Mr. DeGardner be allowed
to build on Lots S1, 52 and 53, and to continue construction on Lots 54, 55
and 56.
The Engineering Assistant said that in thi� area, a fifty foot lot can
be built on. �
- Mr. Werner said they feel the best thing woul.d be to tear down the old
house, but it is not desirable at this time. An alternate is to gut somathing
beautiful on Lots 51, 52 and 53 ancl it will become an asset to the commuuity.
n -
Mr. DeGardner said if he had to give more than 20 feet, he could not do
it and build. '
Chairman Iiughes said that one of the t�asic reasons fox specifying minimum
side yard setbacks is to avoid close crowding between structure. Tn this parti-
cular instance, it seems likely that any new stxucture th�.t is having to con-
form, from the standpoint of crowding of the structures, doas n.ot offer this
problem. Is thexe a problem presented by water dropping from the eaves? Would
clearance have to be provided? The proposed lot line is 2.2 feet from the
foundation.
bir. Werner said there were no utility easements alo�g the back lot line.
Iie said he wxote a letter to Mr. Suhl �ated August 31, 1967 urging him to
retain legal council and attend the proceedings.
Mr. Werner aslced just where is the drain field and what lots does that
drain field effect, if any?
Ch�irnian Aughes said if the drain field is not on r1x•. Suhl's property,
thexe is no effect.
Mr. Werner said the mo�tgage company, which loaned the money, would like
to know what is going on and they would �aant definite approval.
n Member. Fri_ckson said it seems satisfaction has already taken place. It
is going to req�:ire an approval of a l�t spl.�t in order to bui_ld on that p�r-�
tion r.ight nQ��-. Before I woulrl vote for such a lot splzt, all purties involved
� should b� contacted. I do not think tlie City could be a part of such a lo�
split wi.th�ut everybody involved.
Plannin� Commission Meetixrg - September 28, 1967 _ Pa�e 7
Member Myhxa asked cahose responsi�ility it was to notify all. parties con-
cerned in a lot sp1�t. Chairn�an Hug�es replied that tiie Plannin� Commission
� could not consider the application un7_ess alI of the oti,rners involved are par.tie;:
to the application anci he was no� sure this was the situation in this request.
He suggested the matter be carried over un�il October 12th and instruct the
secretary to send copies of the minutes, along with a letter, indicating when
the matter wil1. be discussed abai_n to Mr. Suhl. The letter should urge hir� to
attend the meeting on the 12th.
n
Member Jensen aslced if Mr, k?erner could verify the locati_on of the sewage
disposal facilities.
Mr. Werner believed a permanent 1ot split would be the 'best solution.
Mr. Suhl may have soniething in rnind such as a private five fc�ot easement for
the land under the eaves so that a stepladcler could be used for painting or
xepairs of the eaves.
Member Er_ickson asked if there wouJ.d be a liability on the part of the
City if they granL-ed a lot split without Mr. Suhl being at the meeting, and
did Mr. DeGaxdner intend to convey the 20 feet by deed. Mr. DeGardner said
on Lot 54 the deecl has already been given.
MOTTON by Erickson, seconded by Xlinen, thafi the Planning Commission table
until October 12th the Lot Split (I,.S. ��67-05), Robert DeGardner, of Lots 52,
53 and 54, Block E, Riverview Heights and xequest Mr. Suhl to be notified of the
meeting and request his presence at this meeting: Upon a voice vote; all vot5,nc
aye, the motion carried unanirriously,
3. REZONING REQULST, ZOA ��67-10, HENRY LAPIDES: Loi:s 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde
Park to be rezoned from R-2 to R-3A. �
Mr. Henry Lapides was present and asked the Pla:�ning Commission to refer
to the drawing of the proposed apartment unit, and also the drawing showing
the structures i.ZZ the neighborho�d. He felt that by putting a nice appearing
building on the corrier lot, and taking away an old building, th�y could enhance
the neighboxhood and still fit in �aith the rest of the area. In back of the
apartment house is University Avenue, there is commercial on 3rd Street o�
the South end and at 59th Avenue is another c�mmercial piece. This is a nii.xed
area with several types of uses.
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission set a
public hearing date of October 26, 1967 for ZOA �'�67-10, Henxy Lapides, of Lots
29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park to be rez�ned fxom R-2 to F-3A. Upon a voi.ce
vote, all votirig aye, the motion caxried unanimously.
RE: ITEM 2, LOT SPLIT R� UEST L.S. ��67-05�:
The Planning Commission decided to hold a Special Meeting on Thursday,
OctoUer 5, 1967 for the purpose of hearing the Lot Split (L.S. ��67-05),
Robert DeGardnex of Lots 52, 53 ar�d 54, Block E. Riverview Heights instead
of the tegular meeti�g of October ].2, 1967.
�
4. BONDING OI' CONTP.�CTORS :
The City At�orney Herrick told the Cominission he talked with the Rich-
field Attorney �aho stat-ed that Richfield use Off Street Parking Permit
Agreement farm and L'onding procedure to everything except s.ingle family
Planning Commission Meetin - September 28, 1967 Pagge 8
dwellings. When the owner of property malces application for a building permit,
they are required to fill out these forms ancl then, at the time the Council
� issues the building permit, they pas"s a resolution. The building permit
is not issued until an.agre�ment is signed and box-�d posted, An exarngle of ho�•�
the amount of the bon.d is reached is as follows: $2.00 a lineal foot for
curbing, $1.50 per square yard for blacktop, 65' a square foot for concrete
sidewalks and an estim�.ted figu-re for landscaping. Wlien the worlc is completed,
the inspectors in the Engineering DepartmPnt, if found satisfactory, for.ward
another resoluti_on to Council releasing tha owne?- and Bonding Comgany. The
owner puts up the bond which is a corporate performance bond, or they allow
escrow. They indicated they never had to bring sui.t but have, on a few occa-
sions, contacted the bonding company and advised them that if the owner didn't
get going, they would take action.
Member Erickson said that an Page 37, Item 18 regarding ingxess and egress;
we run into this all the time.
The City Attorney said he didn't ask if it applies to parking lots or
driveways.
Member Erickson also said that in some instances where building is begun
in the winter, they wo�ld like to occupy the parking lot.
Chairman Hughes said that if there is a reason for requiring off street
parking, then there is some reason for denying accupancy of the building until
it is finished and available.
� The City Attorney thought the te�n "o=f street parking" is too comprehen-
sive and felt a bettex terminology could be found such as "site development".
Member Ericksan continued that we need samething in our ordinance to malce
these people comply with parking and landscaping. We just don`t have it. In
order not to be a hardship, perhaps something could be passed that the bond
would not have to be paid until the time of occupancy. If the work can be
completely finish.ed, the contrac�or would not have to buy a b�nd. He asked
the City Attorney if we havc in any ordinance any way to enforce somebody
moving in without a certificate. The answer was "no", but we could inser.t a
provisi�n that the City will not pxovide sewer and watex service until all
requirements a-re met with.
Chairman Hughes left the meeting at 10:50 P.M, and Vic� Chairman Erickson
took the chair.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission
recommend to the Ci.ty Council the adoption of an ordinance based on tlia� in
force in the City of Richfield which requires owners who are seeking building
permits to be required in making a contract, to agree to put up a bond at
the time they are seeking occupancy certificates if curbs, parking lots,
stxeets, landscaping, etc., are no� completed at that time. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
5. PROPOSED ZONING CODE:
nThe Coimnission requested this item be carxied ovex to the October 5, 1967
SpeciaT Meeting. .
0
Planning Commission Meeti�g - Septeml�er 28, 1967 _� Page 9
ADJOURIVT�ZEN`l' •
� : .
There being no fu_xther business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
�;c����' �`%-�-�--
Haze1 0'Brian
Recording Secretary
�
�
NAME ;
i
\ -l� �' ' ' 1` ' IN�'
�;, ���
-- �; , ;
� �:� "�
I �- ,
_ t� _ �
� ��.� , s�3�
PLANNING CO1�Il'�IISSION SIGN IN SHEET FOR SEPTII�ER 28, 1967 �
ADDRESS -
r � � � � � 3 / � �, /tl� ,L l��
��� � _
�
i; � ,
%` �l-` %��.�% ,�/,�O..c�-Z.�!���-���!
� _
�
��
�,�
�
�
� �
;.
, �
�_ �
�,
%
�