Loading...
PL 06/22/1967 - 30327�� PLANNING COMMISSION NIEETING - JUNE 22, 1967 ROLL CALL: YAGE 1 The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Hughes at 7:30 P.M. .� ..� � Members preserit: Myhra, Hughes, Ylinen Members absent: Jensen, Ericicson Others present: City Manager Wagner, Engineering Assistant Clark, City Attorney Herrick m 1 . � \ � 0 � � i APPROVE MINUT�S Or PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: JUI�TE 8, 1967: Member Myhra called attention to a correction to be made on Page 7 of the minutes. The omission was a motion by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the rezoning, ZOA ��67-04, S& S Investment Company for Lots 1 thru 6, Block l, Carlson's Summit P�Za.nor 2nd Addition from R-1 to R-3A be deni.ed which failed. This should be i.nserted between the first and second paragraph on Page 7 of the minutes. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission minutes of June 8, t957 be approved as correct�d. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING CON�IISSION NIEET]:IvG: JUNE 15, 1967: MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission minutes of June 15, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. RECEIV� MINUTES OF BUTLDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTR�L SUBCONL^�IITTEE: JUNE 6 1967: MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that �he minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of June 6, 1967 be receive�. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. 1. CONTINUED: REZONING REQUEST: ZOA ��67-04, S& S IN4'ESTMENT CONII'ANY, REPRE- SENTED BY WILLIAM SHAW: Lots 1-6, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor Annex 2nd Addition. Rezone from R-1 to R-3A. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from the Summit Manor Committee, Edcaard Fitzpatrick, Chairman opposing rezoning the area on Third Street N.E. near Slst, dated June 20, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. Mr. Wilbur Holm, attorney, said although there are some things you may be familiax with, I would like to review the si�uation. We have six lots in Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor Annex 2nd Addition. T am representing S& S Tnvestment Company owned by Bill Shaw and Bob''Spawn. They will purchase this property if the rezoning is granted, and if it is not granted, they are under no obligation to buy it. ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 22 1967 _ Page 2 What I would like to point out is tl�e advantages. You would have a buffer area between University and the rest. of the property and an increase � in the tax base. It is the intention to have a condition of rezoning that there would be only one bedroom apartments. Generally speaking, there will not be children. The petitioners are the o�mers of 5475 and 5495 Main St�eet. They built that building and would like to do about the same type of job here. I think this would enhance this area. The property•a�s it exists how could not be sold for residential. FHA will not approve a loan from the standpoint of finance, so it will lie vacant if it remains residential. This is an apartment area all the way from 53rd to 49th. It is not a spot zoning situation as it exists at the present time. Only the proposed apartments would be better now because, when the existing apartments were built in 1960 in this area, 44 units were the maximum, now there can be only 24 units. In addition, the building code, as you now have it, would make apartments substantially better than back in 1960. It will not block the street because of ample parking, and we will provide 40 parking spaces f�r 24 apartment units. You would not have an on street parking situation. As I understand, there is the possibility double bungalows would be allowed here. You would have to build two bedrooms at a fairly substantial cost and rental would not carry the burden. There would be chilaren and you would have to provide other services. This property has had some difficulty. I understand three zonings, com- mercial, multiple and then residential and now you would just be going back to what it was at one time. It seems to me the only logical, reasonable and economical use of this property is multiple. We do not want commercial or industrial and residential is not saleable so you have to go to multiple, This property needs to be developed. I think Carlson's sriould be considered as it is a hardship if it is left the way it is now. Member Ylinen asked Mr. Holm if they had some information from FHA that they do not approve, and was told that Bill Shaw tried to sell the property for xesidential and he indicated it is not acceptable. Kenneth Benson of Arvid Carlson & Son said that one of the parties opposing the rezoning the other night made the same statement. Ylinen stated there are single family dwellings further South on 3rd Street which also back up to University Avenue and are not new construction. Chairman Hughes said that previousZy it was mentioned that this property has held different zoning classifications. It was zoned for multiple at one time and rezoned to single family residential at the request of Carlson's. Could you give us some indication as to what the line of reasoning was at that time? ' Mr. Benson stated I believe we submi_tted this plat in 1962 and the reason for this was that, due to an error at the time the restrictive coven- ants were drawn and that the first platti.ng north of this particular property '^ was platted as an outlot. It would not permit the building of multiple /� . buildings on that site. We did go through extensive registration procedure in order to lift this covenant on this particular parcel. Mr. Holm added that in registration proceedings, generally the executor Plannin�; Commission Meeti_ng - June 22a 1967 � P�e 3 of title will require that the people in the area Ue made parties and they be served with a not-ice of the proceedings, and can make an appearance �� objecting to the removal oi registrations if they want te. Myhra, addressing Mr. Holm, said rega-�•ding the letter from the Summit Manor Committee and referring to the last par�.graph "but not more than 12 units", I wonder if you cannet arrive at some sort of comprqmise with ilYe; residents. You mentioned double bungalows. � 9 / ` Mr. Holm replied that my clients are interested only in mu].tiple, and now double bungalocas. I do not think it is practical here. Mr. Charles koot, President of Arvid Carlson & Son, gave the following resume of the area: There were t���o Outlots, No. 9 and No. 10. Outlot No. 9 is where the eight 11 unit apartments are naw. When we put restrictions in the subdivision that they were to be excepted from the covenants, Outlot No. 1G was inadvertently omitted. Subsequently, Evert Carlson came in and requested it be rezoned to residential because of th� restrictions in the covenants we put in. Re�i.stra�ion proceedings were brought for the purpose oi correct- ing that omission about 22 years ago. That registxation, limiting Outlot No. 10 to re.sidential use has been rem�ved from the title. Now we are con- fronted with a zoiiing situati.on. For some period of time we thought about developing it and bui_lding houses but ran i_nto a road blocic because we cou�d noL get F�� or GI financi�g nor much consideration on the part backed up agai.nst the High�aay. We can't get financing at all where they abut tlie Hi.ghway. I don't know what residents on 3rd Street are opposing ii:, but all thc lots have been sold directJ.y across the street in my time. I have never said to anyone that there would not be any rezoning. In two or three of the apartment buildings are some tanants that have more than one car. Most parki.ng space is 14. I don't believe there are over three people in one complex that have over one car. Chairman Hughes, referring to the letter received fr.om tne Surcunit Manor Committee, said the second xeason (opposing spot rezoning) is not at all valid. We have a situation of apartment usage both North and South and it does not seem to me that it is proper defini.tion of spot rezoning. The sort of thing we are considering here would not iall into that category, if any- thing, the present zoning of R-1 is spot zoning. Chaixman Hughes continued, referring to Item 1(residents Street were assured the area would not be rezoned), perhaps we aware of this than the average citizen. IL- is an assurance no on Third are more one can make. There are a couple of things that occur to me relavent for consideration of this request. 1. It would be desirable to know how many of the present home owners and residents on Third Street acquired their property during the time when this land was previously zoned multiple. 2. How many acquired their homes after the present apartments to the North and South were built. 3. Which of the residents along Third Street caere property owners and c•;exe served with notice of registration proceedings which lifted this cove��ant. Member Ylinen asked Mr. Root when the three homes south of the apartment � � 0 Planning Conunission Pleetin� - June 22, 1967 p��(} building on �Iorizon Drive were built. Mr. Root ans�oered 1964 and the other two followed that. In answer to the question "When �aere the apartments built?", Mr. Root said I think th� eight 11 units in 1961 and completed within a year; 305 53rd Avenue, a seven unit building,caas built about 1958; seyen units on.i Horizon were built in 1960; and the multiple dwelling on Horizon Drive in 1959 or 1960. Chairman Hughes commented that it appears all apartments were constructed before the first home was built. It is likeZy that the future condition of the highway will be a major inter-city th.oroughfare, and points in the direction of this tract being used properly for some type of multiple dwelling. It seems to me that with the direction the neighborhood has taken, mul.tiple units, apartments, it would make sense to continue that type of development rather than changing this type. Mr. Root s�ated that land costs are grotzibitive for double bungalows and Mr. Benson added that building costs considered, the amount of rent you would have to get is $200 a month, and he can't see getting that amourit. MemUer Ylinen stated there are at least three single family homes built within the last three years on Third Street. People go in there and invest their money. Somewhere aiong the line they must have been told the zoni_ng would be R-l. Mr. Chester Brozak, 5110 Third Street and Mr. Florian Novak, 5130 Third Street entered. Mr. Brozak said if you can't build houses on that land, wliy are thexe houses in the neighborhood? When we bui.lt, we were told this would always be residential. Chairman Hughes said there.is no person that can give any assurance that zoning once set will remain as such. People who own property have the right to request a rezoning and people who live in the neighborhood can object. Public hearings are for the people to give their opinions, but it is up to the Planning Commission and Council to decide yes or no. Mr. Holm said this is not spot rezoning as there are already multiples down the street on the East side. Chairman Hughes asked the members if they wished to continue the �.tem for further consideration or to vote on it this evening. Member Ylinen said that due to the fact that two members of the Planning Commission are absent, I am in favor of tabling this matter and also I concur with remarks about getting additional informarion about tlie various changes in the zoning in that particular area. It would be helpful before making a decision. %� MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by rlyhra, that the Planning Commission table the continued rezoning re4uest, ZOA ��67-04, S& S Investment Co., of Lots 1-6, Block 1, Carlson's Summit Manor Annex 2nd Addition to rezone from R-1 to R-3A, to the July 13, 1967 meeting and request Darrel Clark, Engineering Assistant, to get the following iniormation: How many of the present home Planning Conunission ?�leeting - June 22, 1967 � � Pagc 5 owners and residents on Third Street acquired their property during the time � when this land was previously zoned multiple; ho�a many acquired thein c�mes after the present apartme.nts to the Noxth and South were built; which of zhe residents along Third StreeL were property o�,mers and toere served with notice of registration proceedi�igs which lifted this covenant. Upon a voice vote, all vo�;ing aye, tlie motion carried unani.mously. . � .. . � Chaircnan Hughes said it seems the objection of these people in the neighborhood is that having apartments build in the remaining space would ' have an adverse effect on their area. The Commission has never really had access to an appraiser. My thinking is that the average person in the laan department could loolc at the area and say that it is just a matter of time, in his consideration, that the area on the West side of Third Street, woul.d be strong on multiple. It would be well to find out if a loan were indeed . impossible to get under the circumstances of this rezoning. It was decided that the members of the Planning Commission would meefi with a person familiar with loans on real estate on Tuesday, June 27th, at 6:00 o'clock P.M. iT�- 2. CONTINUED: PRUPOSED ZONING CODE: Continued fr.om June 8th meeting. The first item to be considered was Section 2. Definitions, Item 26, and the balance ef t'.ie Seci:i.an was reviewed. � ADJOUItNMF:NT : There being no further business, the meeting ti�as adjourned by Chairnian Hughes at 10:55 P,M. Respectfully submitted, Hazel 0'Brian P.ecording Se�cretary 0 �