The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 02/08/1968 - 31002'� pLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8, 1968 PAGE 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P,M. by Chairman Hughes. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Myhra, Jensen, Hughes, Erickson, Ylinen Others Present: Engineering Assistant Clark APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION_MINUTES; JANUARY 25, 1968 Member Jensen called attention to the sentence in the minutes of January 25, 1968, Item 5, Rezoning Request, ZOA ��68-03, Aro Industries, Inc. "A suggestion was made if it might not be feasible to tile because of the terrain" saying it was completely in error, and, as it could not be determined exactly what it meant, he felt it should be deleted. � MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission minutes � of January 25, 1968 be approved as corrected above. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CONA2ISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 22 1968 MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�ission receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of January 22, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEAZS MINUTES: JANUARY 24 1968 RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: JANUARY 31 1968 MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the minutes of the Soard of Appeals meetings of Janaury 24, 1968 and January 31, 1968 be received. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ORDER OF AGENDA• Chairman Hughes said that, in addition to the items on the Agenda, there is a communication from Mr. Malcolm Watson, City Manager of Columbia Heights, a letter from the Peoples Church, and a letter from Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman, Inc. � MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive and file the letter from the Peoples Church and the letter from Malcolm Watson of Columbia Heights. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Planning Commission Meeting - February 8, 1968 • Page 2 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA ��68-01, ELDON SCHMEDEKE: Lots 16 thru 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition. Rezone from R-2 to C-2. Chairman Hughes read the public hearing and explained that in the past it has been the practice of the Planning Commission to give the petitioner an opportunity to speak in favor of his request, then the Planning Commission mem- bers may ask questions and finally the members of the public speak for or against the petition. Mx. Schmedeke asked if there had been any correspondence opposing his request, and he was told that nothing had come in. � Mr. Schmedeke continued the main reason for the rezoning request was to � get a bettex title for his property. In case of his death, his wife wauld have a difficult time to sell and he doubted the party buying it would be able to borrow money with this type of situation. He wislied to make it crystal clear that Lots 16, 17, 18, Block 12 are commercial property and 14 and 15, now used for T.H. �k47, were considered commercial and bought as such. This property has been used conunercial since May 1, 1948, before Fridley, and since then there has been new ordinances and new code. He was never informed in writing, never received notice of any kind when this was taking place, and according to the rezoning, he was zoned two times, if not three, since he came out to Fridley. Lately he was informed by "the people in the know" to take this xoute. Because f.wo lots were taken away from the front of his propexty, which were definitely commercial, he had to buy two more lots, one north and �ne south, and they definitely have to be rezoned. He decided to include all the lots, even though three are, and always have been, commercial. ^ He wondered if the Planning Commission received the Council study of his prob- lem, and as close as he could judge, it seems they also are in doubt whether or not he is commercial. The sinall lots were left commercial on the East side of the alley, but when he purchased the lots, the State took half for T.H. ��47 so half of the building sefi on commercial. Other than that, many of the people that he talked to about this were surprised that he was not zoned commercial and figured he was after being �here so many years. The Chairman then asked for comments or questions from the members of the Planning Co�mnission. � In answer to Myhra's question about the commercial property, Mr. Schmedeke said when he came out to Fridley, thexe w�re no buildings, just lots. The people purchased the land, built their homes and then found out they were zoned cotmnexcial. When they rezoned, he was not informed, At 7:55 P.M. Member Erickson entered. The audience responded as follows: Daniel Erickson, 5860 3rd St. N.E,: I am a close neighbor and I do not have anything against Schmedeke having his property commercial. Mrs. Fxank Gabrelcik, 5923 3rd St. N.E.: I believe that Eldon's property was• commercial, has always been and should be commercial property. We probably ,r� wauld be confronted with the same problem and his property should be so zoned. Don Crooks, 5910 2nd St. N.E.: I have lived here since 1946, Eldon came shortly after. It does seem unfair to change now. The change should have been made when he built hi.s business. I have known nothing objectionable. He should be zoned commercial. Planning Commission Meeting - February b, 196� Page 3 Frank Gabrelcik, 5923 3rd St. N.E.: I have property on 58th and Univer- � sity. I always thought my property was commercial. Schmedeke has been no bothex for ZO years. I would have the same problem if I wexe to sell my property. Mrs. Lucille Heins, 5832 University Ave. N.E.i We have been living here since 1956. University Avenue is considered the main street of Fridley. I see no.reason why anybody on this side of University should not be commercial when the other side is. Mrs. Harlow Kinney, 5841 22 St. N.E.: I, personally, have lived here since 1948, my husband since 1936. I have always known it to be commercial and have no objections to having it zoned commercial, Mrs. Raymond F. Harris, 5840�University Avenue.: I always thought it was co�ercial and I think he has the right to have it zoned commercial. � Mrs. Elmer Gabrelcik, 5845 22 St. N.E.: I think it should be commercial, too. Member Myhra said he noticed quite a few of the people here tonight have indicated they had lived in the area prior to November 14, 1955, when there was a meeting on rezoning the City of Fridley. He-asked if any of the people in the audience had attended this meeting. The answer was that they had not received a notice of the meeting. � � ^ Mr. �chmedeke said he did not know of anyone in his area that had attended the meeting. He asked to present a petition signed by the people within 200 feet of his property. He had not consulted the apartments because, he said, the people keep moving in and out and the apartments are sold frequently. He showed pictures of his buildings before and after the tornado, MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive the petition, with nineteen signatures, presented by Eldon Schmedeke this evening. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Chairman asked if there were anyone present who was against the petition. There was no answer. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning CouQnission close the Public Hearing of the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-01, Eldon Schmedeke, of Lots 16 through 19, Block 12, Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition to rezone from R-Z to C-2. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unani- mously. ' The Chairman explained that at this point the Commission has the opportunit-- to discuss the matter, act on it, recommend approval or disapproval, continue for further study or refer to the Subcommittee. He wished to point out one thing relevant to the discussion, Mr. Schmedeke commented he felt the present situation, under the zoning code as it now stands, would allow the continued present use, regardless af ownership, and that the land, if it would be trans- � fexred to another owner, could be used in this manner. It is correct that a non-conforming use would be continued in that fashion in the future so that it is not an emergency matter. It would not work a hardship against the owner at the present time or the future owner. Plann_ing Cou�ission Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page 4 '�� Member Jensen said he thought the problem the Planning �ommission is facing here this evening is somewhat clearly pointed out in a statement made by one of the audience this evening. Mr. Gabrelcik made the coumnent to the effect that he has property on 58th and University Avenue at the present time and believed it was zoned commercial. He, also, made a comment something to the effect that he would like to be included in this rezoning. Jensen then added that the Planning Commission had a more or less continued study, in some form, of this area in the past year. It was not always a zoning problem, sometimes the problem of street access and just recently a number of requests for rezoning to apaxtment houses. The Planning Commission has recognized that they have very unusual circumstances in this rather large area of the City of Fridley. The zoning is peculiar to say the least, to have nearly 80 acres zoned in such a fashion that the highest use that could be allowed would be double bungalows. He felt in his own mind that this is an error made in the past, We are all familiar with the area. Recently, within the last month, the Planning Commission turned down two separate individuals who requested zoning to multiples. The basis for turning down these requests was the fact that we could not be put in a position of spot zoning. If we take a single little piece of this fairly large area, consider it only by itself and rezone it to something e1se, the stage would be set for a rather broad overall rezoning�in that area. If we turned down a rezoning request for something across the street in the same circumstances, that individual could take his grievance to the court and demand this second rezoning would take glace. . ^ Jensen continued the Planning Commission is cognizant of the problems and • recognize the need for additional study so that a completely thorough new look could be given to this area. They have taken steps to contact a professional planner. Tonight Mr. Chapman of the firm of Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman, Inc. is here with a proposal by his firm. This proposed study has been initiated at the Planning Commission level and the Council is aware of it only by reading our minutes. We have not discussed this with the Council. We want to talk in terms of facts about the cause and need for this study and give them a time table. We must determine whether this s.tudy is to be made before we can make a recommenda- tion on the request. Based on the statements he just made, he said he felt the only propex and logical course for the Planning Commission is to continue this item until they are able to make a fur�her examination as to whether or not a study can be undertaken by the planner. Member Myhra repeated the fact that the people have a real problem, not only those with a non-conforming use but the balance of them. He thought that having this study would be the best thing for the people in that area. He would be voting out of ignorance as this is altogether too complex to simply make a decision, and he added that for this time, would very much like to have professional advice. Regarding the date of postponement, the Chairman said if Council approves the request for a planner, the completion�date would be tentative; if Council does not approve the request for a planner, then the Planning Corc�ission will have to work from their own knowledge. �, MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission move to continue to the first regular meeting of the Co�ission, following action by the Council upon their proposed request for a professional consultant of the Plannin� Cozrunission Meeting - February 8, 1968_ Page 5 Hyde Park Addition area, the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-01, Eldon Schmedeke of � Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition to rezone from R-2 to C-2. Member Erickson wondered if the Coimnission could table action on the rezon-� ing until the next item on the agenda was considered. Member Jensen agreed. The MOTION failed. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-01 by E1don Schmedeke be tabled this evening until completion of Item ��2 (Proposal for Hyde Park Addition b� Planning Consultant) of the Agenda. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Chairman said that assuming the request for a planner was put on the Council agenda fox February 19th, it could be brought back to the Planning Com- mission on February 29th. Councilman Liebl, a visitor, said that Mr. Schmedeke and fihe people are here for one question, and that is to ask this Co�ission if they are willing to approve the request of Eldon Schmedeke only, and not for the whole area. He urged them to ma.ke a decision, either approving, or disapproving and stating the xeason why. The petitioner and people who signed the petition would like an answer one way or another. The Chairman thanked Councilman Liebl for his con¢nents and said the Com- T"� mission members who spoke on this request previously, outlined his opinion. If • The Planning C�o�nission were to vote on this "yes" or "no", he could not vote knowledgeably. In terms of the impact of this rezoning request upon the long term zoning pattern of the area, he agreed that R-2 zoning was not proper, but in the form and manner in which the area had developed in the past, it was not proper to keep it at R-2. This he felt sure of, but beyond that, he found him- self unsure. He felt the Planning Coimnission could do a tnuch better job in the way the Hyde Park Area should be developed in the future by getting the opinion of an expext. This is not an.emergency situation and his feelings were that this is the best thing for the Commission to continue the study. �, Member Erickson said he did not think the Commission wished to be pushed into a situation where they would have to vote on the rezoning request now, and.that he was really firm in the belief the matter should be studied further. Myhra stated that this does not seem to be an unusual procedure as it has been done in the past. Mr. Schmedeke added that he, a1so, would like to see approval or disapproval. He suggested that if the Planning Commission would read the write-up of his propexty prepared for Council, they would see that one half of the lot that his building is setting on was at one time zoned co�ercial, It is not a new building or a new business. He has every intention of tearing down the house on the north property where the trailers and cars are stored if the rezoning request is granted. It i.s also true, Chairman Hughes stated, that two requests for rezoning to apartments were turned down on the basis that the Commission did not feel it proper to set a precedence of rezoning in this area at this time, and chose to deny both petitions. Planning Commission Meeting - Februa 8, 1968 page 6 � Mr. Schmedeke asked if the Planning Commission was aware that he was asking to rezone five lots which included the two lots he first bought. He asked that the request be approved or disapproved. When the public was asked how many would like to have their property zoned com�aercial, a majority of the hands were raised. One member said he did not think it would be necessary to hire a plannex for the area from 57th to 60th as there are no objections there. Mx. Schmedeke said the majority of these people who signed his petition were within 200 feet of him. There is a petition coming from the entire area but he is trying to get his request through n�w. He said if he had to, he would go further, but he was hoping he would not have to. The thxee lots are commercial and he thought he could prove that. If he had to go further he supposed he would but he was trying to do that the easy way, ' Membex Myhra said he thought that Eldon was perfectly right in speaking only for his property, but he didn't think he was asked to serve on the Planning Com- mission just to consider one piece of property. The members were expected to think in terms of the entire City and think in terms of long range planning. If we get a professional con�ultant, and if the planner solves the problem, Mr. Schmedeke would have no problem. If we have a professional consultant, and Mr. Schmedeke's problem is not solved, he would not be in a different position than he is now. . • � MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the previous motion be remade and that the Planning Coumtission table this item, take Item ��2 (Hyde Park AddiL-ion Rezoning Problem) on the agenda and then come back and consider this item. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. HYDE PARK ADDITION REZOIVING PROBLEM: Bill Chapman of Nason, Wehrman, Knight & Chapman, Inc. to present cost proposal. Mr. Chapman reported he had made a review of the large area, and that he had no planning answers for the property at this point. The proposal is for the perfoxmance, for technique and professional assistance to help the Plan- ning Commission. He said, addressing the general public, it is well for them to know the Planning Commission axe people donating their time to help them with no particular guidance, something like a trip to California with just a car and compass. This Planning Commission has made a decision to ask for a proposal. To be considered is what can happen to this area and how can it be improved. Our proposal is to review these various aspects, get the feeling of the people concerned. Some of the alternates would be developed and discussed with the Planning Commission members, To prepare a background plan that would give this Planning Couunission some guidance for the regulation of the area in the futuxe, alternates of pattern of use would be developed. He hoped upon completion of the study that, working with the Planning Commission and develop- ing a circulation type of resume, i.e, work the example as to the intent, whether it is residential, commercial or industrial area and to the community in the future. It seemed to him it must be a plan that can be carried forward; � can be performed over a period of time and a sequence ot steps for the Planning Coimnission. The services would be on a time and cost basis with an outside limited figure. It would be performed within a period of three months. Member Jensen thought it would be false economy to delay this particular study waiting for a staff planner. Plannin� Co�ission Meeting - Februa 8, 1968 Page 7 �"� Councilman Liebl said since he was councilman of that ward, he was very surprised to learn of the request for a planner because nobody in his ward has asked for a feasible study. His people have told him this, that they were interested in a change from commercial for 57th to 60th, but not between 60th and 61st over to Main Street. There are nice and beautiful homes there now. He did not know at the present time if the people were willing to change to commercial at 60th and 61st from University over to Main Street. Chairman Hughes explained that the Planning Commission was not at�tempt- ing a decision but they axe asking for a study; not for a study to change from something to something, but a study for the area based on the fact that this Co�ission does not feel the whole area should be R-2. Myhra said that the reason for considering the area from 60th to 61st, was to study the road pattern coming to 61st. Erickson mentioned the Coimnission thought the area of 16 square blocks zoned for two family dwellings is improper. We are trying to find out the proper thing fox the area and not to take it 1ot by lot. We feel this is the correct way to go about it. He didn't think taking two lots at a time is the pxo�er way to handle it. Chairman Hughes informed the audience that it costs $40.00 to go through the procedure of xezoning. If each owner had a lot in that area and put in for rezoning, it would be $40.00 for each lot. It can be done that way, ^ but the Planning Commission members feel it would be erroneous to do it that • way. Councilman Liebl said, regarding the area between 57th Avenue and 60th Avenue fxom University to 3rd street, that the people feel it should be conunercial the same as on the East side of T.H. ��47, which is commercial. Those people could not understand why commercial is on the East side of Univexsity and they are not zoned the same. He thought that was why they were asking to justify it by requesting to rezone to conunexcial. They just want their problems solved, He did not think very much would be accomplished by a study and there were people in that area who did not go along with it. From 57th to 60th Avenue the people thought they were commarcial. He felt he could see no justification for the fact that the pxevious Planning Co�nission made the East side of University Avenue com- mercial and not the West side also. This is the problem. Member Erickson recalled the property on the West side of Univexsity Avenue was commercial but the highway took it. Councilman Lieb1 stated it was commercial, but was rezoned to R-2 so the State got it cheap. The whole layout of this plan should be commercial. Near 61st, the people are proud of their homes, Jensen asked if he were assuming the Planning Commission was talking about co�nercial for the area between 60th and 61st. He had no understand- � ing of that, but he agreed with Councilman Liebl that he was correct, there � are beautiful homes, largely single family dwellings in that area. He didn't think it was fair to those people to be in an area zoned R-2. They deserve some consideration, also. He thought it was unfair to them as well since the entire tract is zoned R-2 and the study must include that area without any attempt to prejudge what it might be changed to. � � �� Planning Commission Meeting - February 8 1958 Page 8 There was a discussion regarding xates, personnel assigned and method of procedure with Mr. Chapman. � Member Myhra said he believed that, in view of the fact that the City Ma.nager and the Planning Commission feel the need of some help in the study of Hyde Park Addition, it seemed to him they should now go to the City Council for what they need, and it seemed to him Mr. Chapman covered the subject,�and he will be working with the Planning Commission. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that a special zoning study of Hyde Park Addition as outlined by B. B. Chapman of Nason, Wehrman, Knight & Chapman, Inc. in their letter of February 6, 1968, be adopted in order to give professional help to the Planning Co�ission in the matter of resolving the rezoning problem in this area. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Ylinen added that he had heard a lot of comments in this particular area, and believes it points out the necessity for some professional guidance. It was mentioned tonight that in the last 10 or 12 years mistakes were made in the zoning and classification of uses of the land in this rezoning and this is exactly what would happen if the Planning Commission made single decisions. That is the reason, he added, that he had seconded the motion and was in favor of recommending this proposal to the Council. Mr. Gabrelcik said the people who live in the area do not believe in having a planner. The Chairman made a su�n.nary by saying the Commission has said individually and collectively that they presently feel very highly in favor of a study of the area as necessary and at this point the Co�nission has two choices: 1) to undertake the necessary study on its own using its limited time to accomplish the task or 2) hire some assistance. The present man power in the City Engineer- ing Department is not sufficient to do this. The individual members of this Commission, however dedicated and self-educated in the problems of use of land, are not qualified to conduct a'study of this sort. The amount of time required that the Commission should undertake on its own would be prohibitive from the standpoint of giving an answer for rezoning of this area. The only logical thing they can do at this point is to take on a trained, knowledgeable planning consultant who can do the leg work necessary to get a logical answer and lay down ground work for the future of this area. By hiring a planner, we do not close doors, we open a lot of them. We do not close ourselves to any course of action. We are not even committed to listen to the planner. It was his under- standing that the firm of Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman, Inc. is highly qualified and comes to us highly recommended. The audience were informed that this request will go to Council at their next regular meeting on February 19, 1968. RETURN TO ITEM ��1: PUBLIC HEARING; REZONING REQUEST ZOA ��68-01, ELDON SCHMEDEKE: Lots 16-19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition. Chairman Hughes explained that, under the circumstances, the Planning Com- mission has no alternative but to continue this matter until Council's wishes are made known. . MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Co�ission continue the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-01, Eldon Schmedeke, Lots 16 through 19, Block 12, and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition, to be rezoned from R-2 to C-2, to Planning Commiss�on Meetin� - February 8, 1968 page 9 � February 29, 1968 and with the condition that if the Council at its next meet- ing approves the hiring of the firm of Nason, Wehxman, Knight and Chapman, Incorporated to study the problem of zoning in Hyde Park Addition, the Commis- sion wi11 have to wait for further action until the study is completed, and if Council does not approve, the Coimnission will take action on February 29, 1968 or March 14, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani- mously. � �"� 3. RICE CREEK ROAD/CENTRAL AVENUE PLAN: Continued from Januaxy 25th meeting. Mr. D. L. Scherer, 6523 2nd St. N.E.: I prefer having the street come in on the North side where presently shown. If you take a road on our side, thexe is nothing left. • • The latest map was again checked by Mrs. Kassow, Mrs. Sko�, Mrs. Mi1es, The3lmann's and Rev. Henderson. Mxs. Skog: I was wondering about a road going out to Central Avenue. If it is not put in we have no outlet. We have to have another outlet onto Central. Member Erickson showed her that �his road would enable her to develop the entire parcel. Mxs. Skog; I could put a cul de sac in the center and still get out, however, I don't want to block Morley or Scherer. • The comment was made that the road does not have to be put in at that point. The problem is whether it is desirable to force a person to put in a road they don't want. Myhra observed that the point is there is a goodly number of acres which should be developed and considered. It is in conflict with individuals and the Plan�ing Commission tried to avoid this. Rev. Henderson reaffirmed that they were just not ready for it now or other alternatives. They wanted to go on record being firm on this. Erickson questioned if thexe was any possibility of temporary cul de sac on both 0'Bannon and Skog pxoperty as far as developing was concerned if the Central Avenue road didn't go through. He was told by Jensen �hat it would be quite possible and feasible to put temporaxy cul de sacs in a number of poten�ial spots. This initial study was brought about by the recognizing of the Subcommittee that this area had to have a street plan, something to point towards. The plan in front of them now is a kind of conclusion the Subcommittee felt they should draw -- a simple street plan tha� Council can adopt without any specific pressure on any individual to take this plan and plat his propexty. It was not his feeling that anyone has to be forced to give us a road with possibly one ox two exceptions. The entire idea is to be as flexible as possible. It could even take fi£ty years to plat and the plan would stiil be workable. The Chairman explained that the Subcommittee took the initiative. The aim was to develop a lasting worthwhile street pattern, Pressure to change will even�ually come and we axe fortunate living in a community that will protect its citizens by providing a workable plan. What has been done is unpreceden�ed in Fridleu. • Planning Commission Meeting - Februar� 8, 1968 Page 10 The audience were told the fact that the Subcommittee might recommend this for a street plan for adoption by the Council does not take away the � right of the individual to come in and present an alternate plan. The plan won't be put through until the actual construction takes place. If this were adopted at Council level, it is rather unlikely that anyone would come in with a better plan that would supersede this. There is always those alternates that someone would come in with their own specific plan and it might be adopted if it proved to be superior and conform with the suggested plan. It gives people an opportunity to see how they could do something with their property in conjunction with the balance of the area. Mr. Theilmann mentioned there were two cul de sacs on each side of his property and he wondered if he would be taxed for street maintenance. He was told that could not be answered now, but if water and sewer are stubbed up to the cul de sacs, then he would not be assessed, bue if it went through them, he might be. The sewer might go in this location, but if he desired to have no street, then he would not be forced to have one. However, he would be assessed for the piping. Mr. Theilmann said it would�be of no advantage to him to have his land cut up in small pieces. He was going to object from �he start if the piping goes through. CORR�CTION JANUARY 25, 1968 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: � Under Item 8, Rice Creek Road/Central Avenue Plan, on top of Page 5, the first sentence reads "The Co�ission tabled action on the item,until the February 8th meeting." The date should have been February 29, 1968. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that, under Item 8, Rice Creek Road/Central Avenue Plan, at the top of Pabe 5 of the Planning Commission minutes of Januaxy 25, 1968, the sentence should xead, "The Commission tabled action on the item until the February 29th meeting". Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairma.n Hughes reaffirmed the statement that Item 3, Rice Creek Road/ Central Avenue Plan on the Agenda of February 8, 1968 be continued until February 29, 1968. 4. INTERSECTTON PATTERN: MISSISSIPPI STREET AND EAST RIVER ROAD: It was suggested that the City Attorney be asked �o prepare a Tnotion for the meeting of February 29, 1968 for the intersection plan, that a plan be drawn without Bob's Produce name on it, acquire additional 10 feet for right of way for the East-West street and recommend the improvement. It was agreed a recommendation of the adoption of a future would be in order. Chairman Hughes stated that Item ��4, Intersection Pattern: Mississippi Street and East River Road, would be continued un�il February 29, 1968. � 5. DISCUSSION OF MEETING WITH UDTIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE: PROGRAM METRO- POLITAN AREA DEVELOPMENT: The Chairman said this was �he program the Chamber of Commerce heard last fall. The film shown was very well done. It described the need for metropolitan planning. He recommended it as a worthwhile program. Planning Counnission Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page 11 /'�'� Item ��5, Program of Metropolitan Area Development, was to be put on the agenda of February 29, 1968 for furthex consideration. 6. PROPOSED ZONING CODE: The members of the Planning Co�nission set the date of February 22, 1968 to meet at 7:30 P.M. at the Suburban Engineering, Inc, for the purpose of studying the proposed zoning code and submitting their suggestions to the City Attorney for his corrections and conclusions. . ADJOURNMENT• Thexe being no further business, Chairman Hughes adjourned the meeting at 11:35 P.M. � Respectfully submitted Hazel 0'Brian Recording Secretaxy � /��1 � �� _ . ��' -�.--. � �, ;� — . � �� _�.� _ _ A.SS^�,p.� x < s�.: % r � . ,� SIGAT-IN S�EET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1968 �� NAME ADD�R�SS ITEM N0. _ _ �'�' L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 5 � f S _-t, =-� --�t-�_ 1'1 _ � _ _ _ % _ � . . _ _ _ _ - - ----__ _. � o o_� , _ _ _ <.S __ ___- .��'a ._ ____-�- _ : _,._ _ -- _ _ ��'��- a � �°� �'� l . , ; __. _ _ , � _ �. : - - --- _ _-- 8'ld _-_.3��-- /�� _ _ _ 1 �� \ � _ _ _ J��C' - � .L`>,<"_ l —___ ___ _ ___ -- — �m-�" _ _ _ _ _ __ � � � _`7'1� � _- --- -- ---- _ _--- �-�__a_ �� 11/ �' a---� � , _ �� __ __ _ _ ---- -- , _ _�� _ �_ _ _ . -- � --_ �_ __ 3 _ _ ��_ _ ---- -- _ _ -- �?� ,�.j/ ,, , /�/t-�� 7i��i .� ,`�' �1 3 � � �'� �'�� .� �- -- __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ � T d . .._ .. . .. r ' , ,/ ,f �7 _. . �..E:�� :� �: � �.�_ _ � �Y�- � :� _ � � _ _. � � . . ._ - _ � �_ _ _ __ _ �� __ �f o� -1-,�,.,,��, � ) � ��- � _��C:..eM-��, - - _ -- _ _ _ _ _ � Ut �/;ww.�-e-- ,.. � 11 � _ _ _ l _ _ _ _ _ ' - _ __ _ �`b ��_--��-�-�� _ - _ __ _--- - ��!�� _ - --- _ . s-� �� -- � ��v _�? � . _ _ 1 . - - � ��..��__ _ __ _ _ ��a a - 1�� - �,��_ _ _ _ - `� ' �, , , , , _.. _ _ __ _.- __._ _._---_ __ _ _--_ - -- ---- f k�-�i'?-� _ _ _ __ __ __ � -- �, �, . - _ � ` �� _ . `�_.�. -- - _ _- - - __ _ _ __ ( _ - - � _ _ ��.� . _ - --- _ _--- -- - - - _ __ _. _-- � ��Q - �� - ---- --� _ _ _ _ -� - ��, ;,✓ �� , � , = . . ___ _� -_ � __ _ __ _ ��`.�f-� ��:�-.� � -'�'_ ___ _- - - _ -_ __ _ �� / s�� G'�� ___ _____ __ _ _ �� - -- -- ___ __ � _ , F , - - .� f: � _ l?,�� ,-�,�,-,- _ � ��o �,�� -��,�r � - _ Y . _ ��r _ _._ _ � II r( (( C( _ � .-- + _ _ ._ __ _ _ � �~ 2, �� _ . A� � � s�s` 3 ''. _ _ __ _t . _ �. __ __ _ __ _ _ --- - _ -- - ---_ _._ _ ,r -- -- - - _ _ �_ _ _ � � -- _ =�- ;