Loading...
PL 02/29/1968 - 31003/�` PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1968 PAGE 1 �, ROLL CALL• The meeting_was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Hughes. Members Present: Myhxa, Jensen, Hughes, Erickson, Ylinen Others Present: City Attorney Herrick, Engineering Assistant Clark APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 8, 1968: MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Co�ission minutes of February 8, 1968 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: FEBRUARY 14, 1968: MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Co�ission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control meeting of February 14, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � R:ECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: FEBRUARY 28 1968: MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control meeting of February 28, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MCNUTES: F�BRUARY 15, 1968: � MOTION by the minutes of of February 15, unanimo�sly. Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the �'lanning Commission receive the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried APPROVE COMMITTEE ON ORDINANCE REVTEW MINUTES: FEBRUARY 22, 1968: MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Coum�ission approve the minutes of the Committee on Ordinance Review of February 22, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE COMMITTEE ON ORDINANCE REVIEW MINUTES: FEBRUARY 24, 1968: MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the Commiteee on Ordinance Review of February 24, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voCing aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hughes referred to the minutes by saying they incorporated comments by him and notes by Mr. Myhra, but the February 24th meeting minutes were written � by him. The minutes referred to an item (Proposed Zoning Code, study with the � City Attorney) which appeared later on the agenda. ' Planning Co�ission Meeting -�February 29, 1968 Page 2 � He also called attention to four letters written to flood control agencies �..� and the Corps of Engineers in St. Pau1. They were written essentially to each of the people on flood control zoning and the information retumed will be used by the Committee. � �. ORDER OF AGENDA• 1. 2. An extra item, rezoning request by Dr. Ingebrigtsen, was moved up on the agenda to be taken between Item 7 and 8. No other change was made in the order of agenda. HYDE PARK REZONING PROBLEM: Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman, Inc. Chairman Iiughes read the letter he received from Mayor Kirkham, dated February 21st, and addressed to the Planning Cou�ission. He said that beyond the information given in the Mayor's letter, the Council turned down the request of the Commission for a zoning consultant for study of this area. As far as he could see, the Planning Co�ission has no further business to transact in regard �o Item 1, except inform the consulting firm we are not likely to use their services, although they have been so informed by telephone. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission ask the City Manager to write such a letter advising Mr. Chapman that the Planning Com- mission would not be working with a consultant, but that they will ba proceeding with their study of Hyde Park Addition without their services. Upon a voice vote., all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED R:CZODTING REQUEST: ZOA ��68-01, ELDON SCHMEDEKE: Lots 16 through 19, Block�l2 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition. Rezone from R-2 to C-2. Mro Erickson referred to the last paragraph af the statement he turned in to the secretary. The complete statement is as follows: � "Eldon Schmedeke Rezoning ZOA �k68-01 From the City Manager's report of January 4, 1968, it appears that accord- ing to the Revised Zoning Map of July 1, 1953, the subject pxoperty was zoned R-1. Previously it appears also that the only commercial zoning in the ai:ea applied only to lots lying East of the a11ey between 3rd Streer and University Avenue. Most of this commercial property, of course, is now part of University Avenue. In January of 1955 a special use permit was granted to Mr. Schmedeke on Zots 16 and 17, Block 12, only. In th'e December 1955 comprehensive rezoning, the area involved, i�cluding the subject lots, was rezoned from R-1 to R-2. Since we do not have before us the former list of permitted uses under R-2 zoning, I am not prepared to state whether any co�nercial use of the subject lots, except for 16 and 17, is in violation of our zoning code. At least a year ago this Planning Commission commenced the discussion of a comprehensive study and possible rezoning of the area between 57th and 61st Avenues and University �o Main Street as we have been under constant pressure to hear requests of various kinds for small parcels within the area. I�eel this area needs some study and possible rezoning because inconsistent uses exist in the area. It appears to me, however, that the petition represents the type of spot rezoning that we should not condone. It surely will lead to a steady stream of rezoning requests for adjacent and neighboring property. You will xecall, at oux last meeting, when the petitioner introduced members of the public to support his position, it turr►ed out that they wished their own property to be zoned com- mercial also. � Planning Commission Meeting - Feb. 29, 1968 Pa�e 3� ,,—� I would like to state at this time that I have a completely open mind about the proper use for the 3rd Street area and am not saying that all or part of the area should not be commercial. I say only that if it is to be, it should.be done in a reasonable manner. The property has been used for its present purpose for at least 12 years, and probably longer, without interference from the City, to my knowledge. I do not suggest that it be discontinued. However, a few more months, more or less, of waiting for a study should not inconvenience the petitioner, We recormr►ended a study to the City Council at our last meeting but it was turned down pending the hiring of a staff planner. Since this is their decision, we certainly can cooperate with such a planner, although it may delay the study for a couple of months. I would urge the Council to make his services available for this project as soon as possible. The petitioner has stated that he does not wish to hold his petition in abeyance. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons above, I move that rezoning request ZOA ��68-01 be denied." MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the rezoning request,, ZOA ,�68-01, Eldon Schmedeke, of Lots l6 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park . Addition to be rezoned from R-2 (limited multiple districts) to C-2 (general lbusiness districts) be denied. U on a voice vote, all voting av_, th� moe�on c�arxied unanimously� ^ Mr. Myhra said he noted in the mayor's letter that we will have a new plan- ner. His thoughts were a new planner shouldn't be put on a planning assignment regarding a large area, a pvrtion of which, the Planning Commission in recent e, weeks will have made a planning decision. So far as he could see from reports, that portion of Lots 16, 17 and 18 lying between the alley and 3rd Street has been zoned residential since 1951. . Apparently in the early days of 1953, Mr,Schmedeke sought a special use permit��o build a commercial building in a residential zoning. � He continued, if a mistake had occurred, a chance of a correction being made occurxed later in that same year when a new zoning ordinance for the City ' was adopted. � If an error was made in zoning seventeen years ago, he could not believe the present Planning Co�nission lias a moral obligation to make a correction in the apparent short while before professional help will become available. He completed his statement with finally, so far as he can determine, Lot 19 of Block 12 and Lot 30 of Block 21 axe a clear request for rezoning.without extenuating circumstances and certainly there can be no argument for rezoning before a proposecl�professional planner has had an opportunity to study the matter. • Mr. Jensen wished to make a sta�ement relative Co tha second paxagraph �'� of Member Erickson's motion. He thought the point was well �aken relative to . - a steady stream of rezoning requests and he thought ie should be pointed ouC that this "stream of rezoning requests", cahich could be anticipated, would put the Planning Coimnission in the position of being unable to turn doc,m any request, even though unxeasonable, once spot zoning eakes place. Plaz�xiin� Commission Meeting - February 29, 1968 Pa�e 4 �..� Chairman Hughes said he agreed entixely with that analysis, as it would be the logical result if the rezoning application were approved. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-06, RUTH GEDIG: Lots 15, 16, 53 and 54, Block G, Riverview Heights. Member Jensen saw an error in the motion of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subco�nittee minutes of February 15, 1968. He asked the following correction be made: "waiving certificate of survey for Lots 15 and 16 provided that the�location of the house on those lots are indicated on the survey for Lots 53 and 54." He called attention to the sketch submitted by Mrs. Gedig showing the house exists on Lots 15 and 16 and is extremely close to the lot line, and as they did not wish to put the petitioner to the additional expense of having a survey, suggested the above procedure. Mrs. Gedig presented certificates of survey which she had drawn up and, as they contained the information the Subco�ittee asked for, Member Erickson said that on the basis of that, he would make the motion. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen,_ that_the Planning Comanission concur with the Plats and Subdivisions-Streets and Utilities Subcommittee and.recommend approval of the Zot Split request, L S ��68-06, Ruth Gedig, Lots 15, 16, 53 and 54, Block G,_Riverview_ Heights to_split _5. feet in depth,__50 feet in width off the South end of Lots 53 and 54,_this to be added. to the North end of Lots 15 and 16. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslyA � Mrs. Gedig was informed that her request would be before Council on March 4th. 4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST• L.S. ��68-05, WALTER R. MACIASZEK: Lots 18 through 20, Lots 26 through 28, Block 2, Oak Grove Addition. No one was present representing the petitioner. The area was described by the Eagineering Assistant as follows; All single family dwellings, lots on Fridley Street are 80 foot lots, at the South end of the blocks they are vacant, Lots 18 to 20 are vacant, one owner from Lots 21 to 23 has house and gaxage, Lot 21 has the garage, Lots 24 and 25 one ownership and built, Lots 26 through 28 vacant, and a house on Lots 29 and 30. 'I'he homes built on Fxidley Street are on double lots." Mr. Jensen stated the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee asked that Mr. Maciaszek get a certificate of survey showing the position of the adjacent buildings for the Planning Connnission. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that, as long as the Subcommittee made a motion subject to receiving of certificate of survey, that the Lot Split request, L.S. ��b8-05, Walter R. Maciaszek, Lots 18-20, Lots 26-28, B1ock 2, Oak Grove Addition, be tabled until a certificate of survey, showing the location of adjacent construction, is submitted to the Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ^' S. SHADY OAK ADDITION, P.S, ��66-03, ANDREW P. GAWEL: Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision �92. Chairman Hughes xeviewed the preliminary plat request saying that the peti- tioner had asked that the petition be continued, that it was heard by Council nn January 8th and referxed by them to the Planning Com�►ission. e Planning Commission Meeting - Febxuary 29, 1968 - Page 5 The Engineering Assistant recalled that this petition had been referxed �. by the Pla�ining Commission to Council a year ago. It was looked at in conjunc- tion with the study being made for the SE'� of Section 13 (Rice Creek Road/Centxal Avenue Plan). The reason the Council seni it back was to make sure that there would be no conflict with the stxeet pattexn to the North. Mr. Jensen recalled �hey� asked for a temporary xight of way for a turn around at the termination of 61st Street on the North�aest corner. This is not indicated on the plat. � _ Chairman Hughes read the Council minutes of February 13th which xeferred to Shady Oak Plat, and it appeared from them that it is re€erred to the Planning Commission to coordinate Mr. Gawel's efforts and property owners to the North. That being fihe case (no one xepres.enting the pefi.itioner being present) the Com- mission could continue this item until the petitioner comes in or ask if the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subconunittee would like to look at it. Mr. Jensen wondered if there was a lack of undexstanding of the job of the Planning Commission and the Subcommittee. It seemed to him that this is a prob- lem to be looked at by the City Engineer's office. As far as planning, the �. logical layout fox the parcel of property, the Planning Commission has been all � through this in the past and the Subcommittee was satisfied with the layout in xelation to the adjoining pxoperty. The problem now is a dxainage problem which is not specifi.c to the plat, but genexally to the neighborhood. The Council is probably justified delaying action unCil they could find a solution, � but right now it is up to the Engineexing Department to iden�ify the problem � and propose a solu�ion and determination and the effect of tha� solution on the propexty. If it requires improvement, that could logically be demanded by the developer. If it takes a solution that is more neighboxhood wise, perhaps it is up to the developer to petition the City. The Chairman wondered if it were not possible to consider the drainage problem in relation to similar things in the area to the North. It is not nor- mal for oux Committees to get into the action of drainage. Member Jensen said it is a professional job. It almost seems like an activity of the Council or the Engineering Department. Mr. Erickson wanted to know how the preliminary plat works out with the street layout to the North. Mr. Jensen answered that it fits perfectly with the plan. Mr. Erickson continued that he agxees with riember Jensen's commeats. He said that w� have a proposed street layout in a large area. If we reach an agreement and have the Engineering Department work out the drainage, he felt the people should be able to develop their property. It is not entirely the function of the Conunission to dispose of stoxm a�ater, it is the function of the City govexnment. Perhaps the City Engineer should be asked to come up with a dxainage recommendation so that the Commission can proceed. � Mr. Jensen wanted to know if the developer had filed bonds with the City for various improvements, and he was informed that that is not done until the �' final plat is signed. He said that it was beyond his comprehension for the � ' Planning Commission to initiate a storm sewer study. Planning Commission Meeting - February 29 L 1968 Page 6 ^ Chairman Hughes said that reference was made to a possible plan the City Engineer showed to the Council that night, and he then read the statemen� from the Council minutes of February 13, 1968. The Engineering Assistant thought they were talking about a swale between Lots 6 and 7. There are easements there, but they would have to have more ease- ments, to use a swale. He was asked if he would be able to bring broader mater- ial for this problem at the next meeting. A reference was made to the state- ment by the City Engineer that the ultimate solution is that the grade could not be lowered on Benjamin and Ferndale to allow surface drainage off Ferndale. Member Jensen wondered whether or not the ultimate solution could be delayed. Chairman Jensen then asked Councilman Liebl if he could give the Conanission further information. Councilman Liebl explained that the concexn of the Council was that the pxeliminary plat of Andrew Gawel could not be O.K'd. at its presenC stage because they had to take care of the water problem. He believed Member Jensen was cor- rect in that we should have a proposal from the City Engineer to solve this problem. Councilman Sheridan had the same idea. He felt that since we had a study going on, we might as we11 put it in all one package. He said there was one property owner, Mr. Schneider, who said that if Council did approve the plat, his lot would have been swi�aing in waCer. Before the plat is developed, Council felt a few of these problems should be solved first. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission table the n matter of the Shady Oak Addition, P.S. ��66-03, Andrew P. Gawel, of Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision ��92. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6. RICE CREEK ROAD/CENTRAL AVENUE PLAN; The Chairman referxed to a letter received from Pastor Henderson of the Peoples�Church, copies of which the members had received. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission receive the lettex from Pastor Henderson of the Peoples Church dated February 29, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hughes read the portion of the letter to the audience whexe Pastor Henderson was asking that a decision be delayed. The Chairman said that at a meeting prior to the one this evening, the Commission discussed the matter and stated they would take no action on it until this evening. Z'he Commiss�ton may take action on it if it sees fit.� . Membex Myhra co�ented on the plan by �say3.ng it seemed to him thexe are a numbex of questions to be considexed. 1) Do we need an outlet to Central from rest of the area? 2) If we need an outlet to Central Avenue, where is the proper location? 3) Is is true, as the letter indicates, that it would be possible to put the plan into effect without involving �hat property? We might be remiss if we did not recommend such an outlet. If we approve a plan that does not include all things, we really have not completed our work. � � Mr. Erickson believed that, as long as the Planning Commission had reviewed a number of plans and got conf3rmation fxom as many of the owners as possible, it would be remiss i.f they did not take action at this time. Planning Commission Meeting - February 29, 1968 Page 7 Chairman Hughes explained that it was important that the Subco�ittee and n Commission have looked at the plan in terms of what is desirable if conditions remain as they are at the present time. If some division of land uses at a later date could change the logic of this plan, there is nothing that is so bind- ing about the plan that it could not be changed to fit changing conditions. It should be made very clear to the property owners in that area that one of the Commission members at the last meeting said that any property owner, if he felt he had a better plan, at any time was free to reopen this matter. He thought it was important for the people to remember that. Theodoxe Theilmann, 1540 Rice Creek Road: I still feel that the plan I submitted to you was far superior to the plan you propose in the area of my own home. I can't see that anyone would be better off by the cul de sacs on the East side and another one on the West side. Ox why I should be subject to sewer and wa�er when they don't benefit me. I have lived in this area for 19 years and I don't feel that, because some outsider comes in and buys a piece of pxoperty, we should have to have a plan. How you put in the xoad governs the development of my property and anyone else, and I can't see why you want to split me up that way. Chairman Hughes thought it was important that the desire is to prepare a st-reet plan which will be used in the eventuality that the land would be developed. It is very unlikely that your land will be used, but the possibility is that it may well be used in a much different manner. There is room £or four lots. If that possibility exists, the stree� plan should �ake that possibility into account. If streets were built, the best bet, as we can see now, is to be built in �his n manner. Mr. Theilmann asked if this plan is approved as it stands, could he put a building on this lot? Mr, Erickson said the adoption of the plan merely indicates that this is the way the City pxefers to see it developed. Until the City actually condemns, there is no reason you cannot put a house on it. Mx. Theilmann said he did noi wish to have his land cut up. He did not need a cul de sac as he felt Benjamin Stree� could be used. Member Ylinen entered at 9:05 P.M. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval and adoption of a master street plan dated January 15, 1968 (Rice Creek Road/Central Avenue.Plan). It is not the intent of the Commission to prejudice any rights of individuals nor the City in the ultimate urban devel- opment of the large tract under s.tudy. The study is not intended to serve as a proposed piat in the normal process of platting property, but only a guide for the City and affected individuals in their future planning. Specific layout of lots is not pxovided but has been generally considered. No time schedule is recouIInended for any portion af the plan and it is intended that individual sug- gestions for modifications be given due considexation at any time in the future. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � 7. INTERSECTION PATTERN: MISSISSIPPI STREET AND EAST RTVER ROAD: Final xecommendation set for March 14, 1968. Those present for this item were Judge Elmer Johnson, Robert Schroer and D. C. Chandler. Planning Commission Meeting - February 29, 1968 Pa�e 8 ^ There was a discussion regarding the paving of the 50 foot easement to the North of Judge Johnson's property. This easement had been vacated when the apartments were built. The Engineering Assistant informed the Judge and Bob Schroer that in situations like this (double frontage) 75% of the cost would be assessed to the North and 25% to the South, so that the Judge would pay 25% and the property owner to the North 75%. Another point that was discussed was the heavy traffic on Sunday. The plans were to move the store West to get more cars in front, but the problem of the exit still existed for Bob's Produce. It was felt the cars could go direct to East Rivex Road on the proposed River View Texrace, and there would be no traffic to speak of in the rest of the area unless someone were exploring the area. In answer to the question of a plan to have another traffic signal, the Engineering Assistant said that it is being considered to channel all traffic to signals for access onto East River Road and close up as ma.ny roads as possible. The City Attorney, Vixgil Herxick, arrived at 9:20 P.M. Member Erickson stated that this particular plan shows no entrances or e�its from the Produce propexty from the North. Mr. Chandler stated he did not particularly want to get into the discussion tonight, but this plan is closing off their access to East River Road and xeduces the value of their property. Both lots face on East River Road and South of n Mississippi Place with 256 feet frontage in two lots. The �ngineexing Assistant �old Mr. Chandlex that his access to East River Road is sti11 there, but there is no access to the North bound �-ax�.-���--�� Mr. Chandler asked how far South from ths intersection did the divider strip go. Darrel Clark said that it would be far enough South to channelize the tra€fic - probably down to 64th. � The Chairman explained the Planning Commission would consider the plan on its own merit fixst and the ways and means oi doing away with the traffic problem. Looking at the plan at this point, he said, we find ourselves in the first phase -- the plan on its merits. Mr. Chandler's comment was that they should look at how much it will cost you. The Chairman said he would like to have an opportunity to look a� this and think about the implementation of �his. Mr. Chandler said that their proposal was to leave it exactly as it is. Mr. Erickson asked Mr. Chandler if he had a solution to the traffic which was the main problem of the Commission.. Mx. Chandlex answered that it seemed to him the Commiss3on wa.s �rying ,�. awfully hard to dixect the traffic into Bob's Pxoduce. Tt is up to Bob, if he has access to the North. Mr. Erickson continued that this is not the Planning Commission's pxime purpose to help Bob's Produce. They hava a committment to all parties who have Plannin� Commission Meetin� - February 29, 1968 Pa�e 9 /'�1 8. 9. � land that should be developed. If the area is going to be deseloped, the traffic problem must be solved first. '_ MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�riunission table the item of the Intersection Pattern; Mississippi Street and East River Road. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. REZOIVING REQUEST: ZOA ��68-05 DR. K. H. INGEBRTGTSEN: Lot 11, Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition. Rezone from R-2 to C-1. Set a public hearing date. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission set a public hearing date of Agxil 11, 1968 for �he rezoning request, ZOA �k68-05, Dr. K. H. Ingebrigtsen, of Lot 11, Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition to rezone from R-2 �to C-1. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF MEETING WITH UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE: Metropolitan Area Development Program. Chairman Hughes said he had nothing to report on. He had talked with the Extension Sexv ice and they reassured him there was no thought to propagandize. Mr. Ylinen asked if it was Chairman Hughes' thought that this should be presented to membexs of the Planning Commission, Council and other interested people in the City. The answer was Chairman Hughes originally thought in terms of our various boards, commissions, coxmnittees, rather than the public at large. Gxoups as.laxge as 60 people can be handled, but the Extension Service pxefers to hold it down �to 20 or 40 people as they sulicit comYnents and discus- sions after the film. Mr. Ylinen suggested limiting it to the City Council, Planning Commission and Subcommittee membexs. Mr. Jensen said that at the time he attended one of these pxograms, no point of view�was put across and he didn't feel any effort of propaganda was made. He felt the program was interesting and thought it would be worthwhile fox the group. .A ten.tative date for the latter part of May was discussed. Mr. Jensen volunteered to inform the Council while Chairman Hughes wi11 contact the other Committees and Boards. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:15 PoM. and reconvene in the Conference Room to study the "Proposed Zoning Code" with the City Attorney. Respectfully submitted, Haze1 0'Brian Recoxding Secretaxy � G � COMMITTEE ON ORDINANCE REVIEW -- MINUTES OF 2�29�68 � The Planning Commission, meeting as a committee of the whole, met at 10:05 P.M. NIE�'iBERS PRESENT: Hughes, Jensen, Erickson, Myhra, Ylinen � OTHERS PRESENT: Engineering Aasistant Clark and City 9.ttorney Herrick The zoni.ng code was discuased with the City.A.ttorney. The iollow3ng decisions were reached: l. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 "Permits Required and Certificate of Occupancy" should be deleted e�cept for the following: . "Building Perm.ita, Land Alteration Permits, and Certiiicate of Occupancy are required in accordance with Chapter 46 of this code." . 2. The Committee will recommend wording for the necessary revision of Chapter 46 to include permit and certificate issuance at the same time the final wording of Ch.apter 45 is recommended. Means of pre- vention of use of buildings without a valid certificate.will be pro- vided. Some form of temporary certificate with performance bonding to require completion work is also needed. 3. City Attorney will give further study to Section 3.7 "Performance ^ Stan.dards" to see if it is enforceable and whether some of the requirements are already covered in the Nuisance Ordin.ance. 4. In Section 3.8 (7) delete the clause "provided construction is started . . . two (2� years." 5. The City Attorney will study Section 3.8 (13) to see if it can be covered by a reference to the Sign Ordinance.. 6. Sectiona 3.9 and 3.10 "Land Alteration" and "Mining" should be by reference to Chapter 46. Chapter 53 �d 54 should be deleted. Cla.rk will discuss this proposal with the Building Inspector. 7. In the aection concerning Special IIse Pe:rmits, the Attorney feels that a statement of broad criteria rather than apecific minzmum standards would allow the imposition of tighter or looser requirements as the circumstances dictate. 8. City Attorney will review Item 6 in the minutes of the Committee meeting of 2-24-68. 0 Adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Robert J. Hughes .� Cha.irman • Planning Commission _ s . __ __ , '---" � ' PLA,NNING COI�IISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 29, 1968 � ADDRESS ITEM N0. = _ _--_ _ _._ . _ . _ .._ . � _ ._ _ _ _____ __, __ --- __ . ____ __._ _ _. __ _ _- - ---- n �. - _-- _ _ ��� !`,ll2t�}c�� � �.Q%f v � _ -- � __ _ __ �: �1 __ � ___ __. �� � - � �- � , ,�,�_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ �'7 _ � _ _� _/ � __.---�__- -- _ /-`_� _ � ' . ���/�� _ _ - . ��_ �'U �'J_ _ �� __ _ - _ _ _ �e� 'Z ° � . , !; _ , _ __ � , � _ � . ,_ _ _. - __ -� -- - -- � � L/� � �._� �° _ �. ,� � f �" �C' _ � _ _ __ _ _ � , r�0_ �ll_ _l /V V _��_, _ . _ _ 1V��'%�C __ �� �' / � �'�'�� 7 - ------ - - -- - -- - t _ _. _----- --- _. _ _ i�'ur _ _ __ _ _ � �`�4 - - -- - - � ,b __ __ _ ___ _ - � �� _ _ _ _ _ -- _ _ ___— - ---__ _ _ __._ / _ `I`�- a_ �� ��-�=�' � �� / , _ _ _ C� _ _ _ _ _ � _ � _ ___ �2� __� _� _ - _ � 7� � . -- - - ______ _ __ � _ - --- - __ _ -- __ _ � �° � _ _ _ �. �---.r� _ __ __ __ _ . _ _ __ __ ____________ _ .__ _ f _ _ __ _ __ _ ,� , _ _______ _______ _ _____ _ ___ _ � _ _ ___ _ � __ _ __ __ _ __ �.- _ _. _ _ ____ _ _ __ ___ _ __ _ _ _ �- _ __-____ �