Loading...
PL 04/27/1967 - 7232^ PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING - APRIL 27, 1967 Page 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members present: Erickson, Hughes, Jensen, Myhra, Ylinen. Others present: City Manager Wagner, Engineering Assistant Clark. APPROVE MINUTES OF �LANNING COMMISSION MEETING: APRIL 6, 1967: MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Co�nission Minutes of April 6, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE MINUTES OF BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1967: MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the minutes of the Build- ing Standards-Design Control meeting of April 4, 1967 be received. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECENE MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING: APRIL 19, 1967: MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the minutes of the Board � of Appeals meeting of April 19, 1967 be received. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . RECEIVE MINUTES OF PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETiNG OF APRIL 20, 1967: •. , . MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities received. Upon a voice vote, all ADOPTION OF AGENDA: 1. � Erickson, that the minutes of the Plats & Subcommittee meeting of April 20, 1967 be voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that Items 1, 4 and 6 be taken in the following order: 1, 2, 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��67-02, J. R.� DuMOUCHEL: Part of Lot 29, Block 1, Marian Hills Addition. Mr. DuMouchel was present and informed the Commission he was the owner of Lot 30, Block l, Marian Hills Addition and has been for eight years. Lot 29, at the present time, is what was left over after 52nd Street was put in and is to the north of his lot. It is a pie shaped piece of land. For years it was just a hole, and a collector of garbage and junk. Last fall he and his neighbor agreed to purchase this piece of property. He had it surveyed, paid back taxes, had a deed prepared and recorded, leaving 40 feet in the northwest corner for his neighbor, Mr. Stanley Prokopovich. The property is too small to build on, is still bare ground, but he has started to plant evergreens. It is just a matter of having the area look better. . Planning Co�nission Meetin� - April 27, 1967 Page 2 ----._. In answer to the question of whether or not Mr. DuMouchel had a legal description of the division, Mr. DeMouchel said he had two deeds, one for ^ Lot 30 and the other the balance of Lot 29. The reason for the lot split request was that the assessments could not be split without it. It could not be determined now if the assessments will be on two separate statements or one. � The question was brought up whether or not Mr. Propokovich had filed a deed for his 40 feet and the Engineering Department was aske� to chec'�c on this in order to prevent a small piece of land, too small to be utilized, being returned to the City for lack of payment of taxes. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission accept the reconunendation of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee and recommend approval of Lot Split ��67-02, part of Lot 29, Block 1, Marian Hills Addition, J. R. DuMouchel, upon verification of the remaining triangle of property of Lot 29 actually being a recorded deed to the abutting Lot 1, Block 2, Marian Hills 2nd Addition. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Member Erickson said that he thought the Co�nission would be doing the right thing if they asked the other party to also enter into this, principally because if we allow the lot split and accept the deed to the other property and acceptance with the deed, he is still under no obliga- tion to pay the taxes as he has not petitioned for it. He could let it go and the City wauld wind up with a piece of ground that is no good to the City. The neighbor could accept the title and never pay taxes or assessments on it. Mr. DuMouchel said he hasn't had the property long enough to get a tax statement and therefore does not know whether it will be one or two statements. Mr. DuMouchel was informed that the lot split request will go to the Council on Monday for their consideration, and it would be advisable for him to have his deed available and also the deed for the smaller triangle if Mr. Pr�pokovich has one. 2. DISCUSSION: FINAL PLAT (P.S. ��66-03) SHADY OAK ADDITION, ANDREW GAWEL: Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision ��92. . . . Member Jensen explained that this was reopened as a function of a study to the north. An overall study is being ma.de of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, concerning in part the parcels of 0'Bannon, Chies, Carlson, etc. As a result of that study and the point it is in right now, it appears that Benjamin Street will be a street of considerably more importance than we recognized previously. We feel now the need for addi- tional right of way. In the Council minutes of August 15, 1966, some consideration was given to the needs of Benjamin Street. The second area of discussion was the likelihood of 61st Avenue being terminated in a cul de sac at the northwest corner of this�subdivision. It was felt if this were to take place, a turn around easement should be requested on the north end of Lot 1 of this proposed plat. This could be done in simple deed fonn and held as an easement by the City without filing until such time as a specific decision was made. Benjamin Street will almost certainly be a major collector street for the entire neighborhood both to the Planning Commission Meeting - April 27, 1967 Page 3 north and south. A 50 foot street would be too narrow for our purposes as a major collector street, and would not be eligible for State Aid as their ^ minimum is 60 feet. On August 15, 1966 the Council discussed a slope easement to allow for grade matching which would not be used for construc- tion. Mr. Gawel explained the delay in the final plat was because of diffi- culty getting the hard shell from the surveyor, and after it was ready, it was held up because of the study of Section 13 which might alter the street pattern or lots. Mr. Gawel stated he had sold the property described as Lot 1 on the hard shell and that it has been deeded. He was told t�e new owner had to appear on the plat. � Member Erickson said the final plat should be resubmit_ted and Mr. Gawel could go back to what was originally proposed -- 74', 74', 77'. He was told that as long as he had to redraw the plan because of the fee owner of Lot l, the lot sizes should be restudied, and in his opinion, Mr. Gawel could go back to the original proposal with smaller lots but more for the street. He thought the Commission should ask for a deed for cul de sac to be held on file in case there is need for it� Member Jensen (chairman of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subco�nittee) was asked if he felt it would be desirable for that co�nittee to consider this further than it has been considered here. Member Jensen answered: "I feel the needs of Benjamin are very clear. In the interest � of allowing Mr. Gawel to move ahead at his own pace, I feel we should have an additional 5 feet on Benjamin Street as originally proposed and addi- tional requirement of a document giving an easement to a segment of the circle, a maximum depth of 20 feet on Lot l." To Mr. Gawel, what do you anticipate would be the response of the new owner of Lot 1 relative to a turn around easement on the north end of his property. Mr. Gawel answered that he did not know, and would have to ask him. Chairman Hughes wondered if we might ask Mr. Gawel to discuss with the new owner the possibility of that party providing a deed to the cul de sac. This is a question which makes it difficult to come to a definite conclusion and recommendation to Council. Would it be possible for you to discuss this and come back to the Planning Co�nission next meeting? The Engineering Assistant asked that if he were to get the easement and Council agreed with smaller lot sizes, does he have to come back? As long as there is the possibility of Benjamin becoming a heavy traffic street, the full width is needed. It would be well for the corner lot to be 80 feet because of possible heavy traffic. As to the interior lots, the Commission wondered if 72� feet would impose difficulty in building. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission recommend changes to the preliminary plat (P.S. ��66-03) as illustrated ^ on Exhibit 1, April 27, 1967, the reason being they feel Benjamin Street is going to have to be a 60 foot street and it might become a State Aid road or at least a major collector, and there is tne possibility of the need of a cul de sac_at the end of 61st Avenue at the northwest corner of this property, and to recommend to provide for this eventuality Planning Commission Meetin� - April 27, 1967 Page 4 without placing a permanent change in the plat. Upon a voice vote, all ^ voting aye, the mDtion carried unanimously. 3. REZONING REQUEST: ZOA ��67-05, LOWRY REALTY COMPANY REPRESENTED BY R L. ERNST: Lot 8, 2nd Revision Auditor's Subdivision ��21. Rezone from R-1 to R-2, R-3 and Open Space (Park). Chairman Hughes (Chairman of Parks & Recreation Commission) stated that at one time the Parks & Recreation Commission considering acquiring this entire parcel, making a brief study and having an appraisal made on this parcel. Mr. Ernst said he represented the owners, Devon, Incorporated, and they have a sale, pending rezoning. This is low lying land with a substan- tial amount of peat. The owners feel that a number of things beneficial to the City would be accomplished: connecting Oakley Street to 67th Avenue; loop water systems; improve traffic pattern; the existing park would be extended to the north to 68th Avenue giving access to park public right of way. The proposal calls for double bungalow and multiple dwel- ling complex with city park extension. The comment was made that everything in the area immediately west and north of this property was hard hit in the tornado. The majority of the homes are rebuilt now and were built larger and improved. This was originally a$13,�00 to $17,000 area. Very few come close to that figure now, there has been a tremendous improvement. The area is completely ^ surrounded by residential. There is no concern about traffic now, but it is doubtful if a multiple dwelling complex would be acceptable. In the past the Planning Commission was in the throes of trying to make bad land good by rezoning to another use. In the past five years, there have been passed more and more restrictions on multiple dwellings. You do not, � at the expense of other areas, make a high density. You car. be more � • selective on what you put in the CiCy. Mr. Ernst said this was the first time he appeared before the Planning Commission and wondered what the impression would be. Member Jensen said that he was going to remove himself fro� any dis- cussion of that application due to the fact that Mr. Ernst is a client of the firm he works for. From here on, he would just listen. Chairman Hughes told Mr. Ernst that any person requesting a rezoning is entitled to a public hearing. We have had in the past people who have come in and discussed questions and problems with the indication that, if it seems likely, they would petition. The costs are $40.00. In som� cases, the Planning Commission has been able to see relatively quickly cahat the � pattern would be so that the requestor could decide whether or not he should go ahead with the rezoning. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission set a public hearing date of June 8, 1967 at 7:30 P.M, for the rezoning request h (ZOA ��67-05), Lowry Realty Company, of Lot 8, 2nd Revi_sion Auditor's Sub- division ��21, to rezone from R-1 (single family dwellings) to R-2 (limited multiple family dwellings) and F.-3-A (general multiple family dwellings). . Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - April 27, 1967 Page 5 � The Engineering Assistant Clark conunented that if the plan were developed, the land should be platted. The zoning and platting could be � done together, so that it would not be completely held up. The zoning would be considered first, and a sketch showing how the plat would be drawn would be adequate at this time. n 4. REZONING STUDY: A. L. WILLIAMS. LOTS 6 THRU 9, SPRING BROOK PARK: Rezone from R-1 to R-3-A and include a study of the area between Ashton Avenue and railroad tracks. Engineering Assistant Clark said a similar rezoning request came up in 1962. We were going to try to get more people involved, called people in and ended up leaving it just as it was. Chairman Hughes told Mr. Williams that the Commission discussed this area pretty much along the lines of wrong zoning. After a recommendation to determine what might be done to straighten out the lines and access, we felt you should have the opportunity of looking at this. We ask you whether you would be interested in passing around to the other property owners this plan and see if they also would agree because it would affect all the people. The map showed that north of Liberty Street and East of Ashton would all be rezoned industrial. Everything between Liberty and Longfellow, East of Ashton to the existing industrial would be rezoned R-3. Between 79th Avenue and Longfellow Avenue and east of Ashton, everything would be rezoned R-3 including the industrial. It was noted that two little R-1 lots north of Ely should be added to.M-1, this would be to the benefit of the block to bring it all under one zoning. This is the proposal that the Planning Co�nission came up with, but do not feel we can take action until we Hear from the rest of the resi- dents. Mr. Williams brought up the alleys and said most of them are not in use. If they were vacated, it would increase the size of the lots a little. When Chairman Hughes asked Mr. Williams if he thought this was some- thing he would like to serve as a go-between, notify the property owners that are actually involved, he agreed. It was suggested that a copy of the map be sent to Council, not as,a recommendation, but just a thought and that we believe this is the best plan, but we are open to suggestions. 5. REORGANIZATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE: Meeting with City Attorney. a) DISCUSSION OF ZONING FOR VETERINARY CLINICS: (Uses permitted in C-2) City Attorney Herrick said that Chapter 45 ought to be redone, and the first thing to consider was the method, whether to take the present method and rearrange it in a logical manner or attempt to rewrite some of these areas. � Chairman Hughes said it seemed to him the temper of the Planning Commission and Council is in terms of making Permitted Uses more narrow, more control over things that would be objectionable, more in terms of a new Chapter than a rearranged chapter. Planning Commission Meeting - April 27, 1967 page 6 The City Attorney thought perhaps we should do both, but the question is how. It would take three or four months with help. The Planning Com- mission was given an Outline of Proposed Zoning Code worked up by the /� City Attorney for reference. Suggestions were discussed relating to the outline. No decisions were made, but Mr. Herrick suggested that he would work on it and come back at the next meeting with what he has, and will work on Sections 1 to 4. The Commission referred to the request for a veterinary clinic and asked if the City Attorney could come up with something by the next meet- ing for a Special Use Permit and criteria. The Engineering Assistant was asked to get specifications from the requestors to incorporate in the criteria. Chairman Hughes told the City Attorney the Planning Commission thinks highly of the outline he presented this evening, and asked if it would be desirable for us to make some recommendation to Council that they should hire an assistant for you to do some of this work. The City Attorney said he had been given funds for this purpose. He asked that the memhers look over some of the other related chapters, consider the general approach and give me what suggestions you might have either as to changing the out- line and bring in other suggestions that we haven't talked about yet. Also, request they look over the "Declaration of Policy": 6. REZONING REQUEST: ZoA ��67-04, S& S IN`JESTI�iENT COMPANY REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM SHAW: Lots 1 thru 6, Block l, Carlson's Summit Manor Annex 2nd Addition. Rezone from R-1 to R-3-A (general multiple family dwellings). �, MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission set a public hearing date of June 8, 1967 at 8:30 P.M, for the rezoning request, ZOA ��67-04, S& S Investment Company for Lots 1 thru 6, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor Annex 2nd Addition from R-1 (single family dwellings; to R-3-A (general multiple family dwellings). Upon_a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7. REZONING REQUEST: ZOA ��67-06, WYMAN SMITH REPRESENTING MARIAN HILLS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: Lots 1 thru 11, Block 2 and Lots 1 thru 6, Block 1, Marian Hills 2nd Addition -- rezone from R-1 to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) and Special Use Permit. It was noted that only one owner was listed on the application sheet. The Connnission decided that they would not discuss the item until all of the signatures are on the application and that the Engineering Depart- ment should check into this. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission set a public hearing date of June 8, 1967 at 9:00 o'clock for the rezon- ing request (ZOA ��67-06) Wyman Smith representing Marian Hills Develop- ment Company of Lots 1 thru 11, Block 2 and Lots 1 thru 6, Block 1, Maxian Hills 2nd Addition from R-1 (single family dwellings) to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) and Special Use Permit. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. /`� The Planning Commission used the following schedule for the time of the public hearings in order to stagger the time: 1) ��67-05 at 7:30; 2_ ��67-04 at 8:30; 3) ��67-06 at 9:00. Planning Co�nission Meeting - April 27, 1967 Pa�e " 8. FUTURE LOCATION OF PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE AND YARD: The Commission discussed the appraisals dated 4/13/67 in the agenda, � but did not come to a decision. n .n MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the item of the Future Location of Public Works Garage and Yard be tabled until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT : There being no further business, Chairman Hughes adjourned the meeting at 11:35 P,M. Res� �� submitted, Hazel 0'Brian Recording Secretary 0