Loading...
PL 03/06/1974 - 31168� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 6, 1974 CALL TO ORDER: PAGE 1 Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at.8:10 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Fitzpatrick, Members Absent: Blair Others Present: Darrel Clark, .. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: Lindblad, Harris, Drigans Community Development Adm. FEBRUARY 20, 1974 , MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning • �'C.ommission approve the minutes of the Februar� 20, 1974 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE '� MINUTES: FEBRUARY 20, 1974 � MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindb.Zad, that the P.Zanning Commission receive the minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & UtiZities Subcommittee of February 20, 1974. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STI�NDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 21, 1974 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission�receive the minut�s of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of February 21, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lindblad said a problem arose at the last meeting of this Subcommittee where a lending ac�ency asked for more parking than the code requires, and he wondered how much such a lending agency should dictate to the City. Where would you draw the line? Chairman Fit'zpatrick said they could discuss this later in the meeting. l. �OT1'EINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #74-02, BERKELEY PUMP COMPANY: To rezone Lots 1 and 2, Block 13, �'1 Spring Braok Park Addition, from R-1 (single family dwelling a areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas) to make zoning consistant with property lines at 181 Ely Street N.E. Public Hearing open. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 2 �'1 Mr. Clark said this item will have to be continued until April 17, 1974 because the petitioner doesn't have his plan ready yet for the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee. He said he thought the adjacent property owners should be renotified because the original hearing date was February 6, 1974. Mr. Lindblad asked if the petitioner was still asking for rezoning or was going along with a Special Use Permit. Mr. Clark said he didn't think the petitioner had �eceived an answer from the home office in California. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission continute the rezoning request, ZOA #74-02, BerkeZey Pump Company, to rezone Lots 1 and 2, B1ock 13, Spring Brook Park Addition, from R-1 (singZe family dwelling areas) to M-1 (.Zight i.ndustrial areas) to make �oning consistant with property lines at I81 E1� Street IV.E., until April 17, 1974, with the request that the adjacent property owners be renotified of this continuance. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carr.ied unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECI�L USE PERMIT, SP #74-01, 8Y G. RALPH SKINNER: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to construct a second accessory building, a shed to be used for storage, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, the same being 6217 Central Avenue N.E. ,� - Mr. G. Ralph Skinner was present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning ' Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #74-01, by G. Ralph Skinner. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Mr. Skinner said this accessory building will be used as a storage shed. It is 12 feet by 20 feet and is at the rear of my house and is not visible from the street. It will help me to keep my place a little neater. • Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Skinner to describe the building. Mr. Skinner said it was a frame building with a metal exterior of white baked-on enamel. It has one service door and a type of overhead door that opens to the North. Mr. Drigans.said this should not be used for the storage of vehicles. Mr. Skinner said it was not designed for that use. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked where this was positib.ned on the lot. Mr. Clark said it was about 10 feet from the South property line and about 300 feet from the back property line. This lot is 578 feet long. n Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Skinner when he already has a _ four car garage why he needs additional storage space. Mr. Skinner said he owns two cars and two trucks. � �`, Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 3 Mr. Thomas Brickner, 6245 Ben More Drive, said his property is back to back with Mr. Skinner's lot and said when he got notice of this hearing he couldn't see why Mr. Skinner needed more storage space when he had a four car garage either. He didn't want this shed used for anything of a commercial nature. Mr. Skinner said this building would be used for storing personal items, not for storing business equipment. Mr. Clark said this building is already up, and Mr. Skinner was, requested to petition for a Special Use Permit and a building permit. Mr. Brickner said he lives on Ben More Drive and there is a tempflrary cul-de-sac there now. He was wondering if this street went through if they would need any of Mr. Skinner's property for� additional right of way. Mr. Clark said that according to the street layout plan, if this street was extended, it would go along the East line and then along the South side of Mr. Skinner's property. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Skinner if this building has a concrete floor. Mr. Skinner said it has no floor'. It is on three large woaden skids. Mr. Clark said this building�will have to meet the code when the building permit is taken.out. Mr. Harris said it will have to be on something besides skids. Mr. Clark said that for this type of occupancy, it doesn't have to have a concrete floor, but because this request is for a Special Use Permit, you can make that a stipulation if that's what you want. Mr. Lindblad said the Planning Commission discussed this before, and he thought the code was going to be changed so that sheds would have to have a permanent foundation. Mr. Clark said they have some other revisions they were working on for the code, and all these changes would be requested at t�e same time. The Planning Commis��on would get these revisions. Mr. Harris asked the petitioner if there would be any utilities in this shed. Mr. Skinner said there would be no utilities. Mr. �kinner said he wanted a solid floor foundation on this shed also, but because he knew he needed a Special Use Permit and building permit, he thought if either of these were denied for any reason, if he kept the building on skids, he could sell it and haul it away with a truck. • Mr. Fitzpatrick said he has a coupTe of thoughts on this request. ^• �He said with all the storage on the property now, he was not convinced this shed was needed, but if it is already there and the neighbors were � not aware of it, then there can't be too much objection to it. . ''_1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 4 Mr. Brickner said he wasn't aware the building was already there. This is a heavily wooded lot and if the building looked good and was used strictly for storage, he had no objection. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission c.Iose the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-01, by G. Ralph 5kinner. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commissior. recommend to Council approvaZ of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-DI, by G. Ra1ph Skinner, per Fridle� City Code, Section 205.051, Z, A, to construct a second accessory building, a shed to be used for storage, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's 5ubdivision No. 22, the same being 6217 Central Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: (l) No business be conducted on this property. (2) A permanent foundation be attached to this building, Iocated ,in the approximate area. as show� on the plat map submitte� by• the petitioner. (3) Before this building is permanently Iocated, the petitioner check with the Engineering Department on the esfablished road �•-� patterns for this area. � Mr. Harris said we were actain approving something after the fact. Chairman Fitzpatrick said he felt this way too, but because it was such a large lot, there wasn't much to object to. Mr. Harris said he has no real.objection to this special use being granted, but it was still after the fact. � Mr. Skinner said that it ti?asn't his intention to appear to go over�the authority of the Council. He said that before he bought any material for this shed last October, he had checked with a girl in � the office and she told him he needed a Special Use Permit and building permit, but the Planning Commission wasn't meeting until March. He � said he wanted to have this building started before the weather got bad, so that was why he had it on skids. If he didn't get approval he could put it up for sale and move it. This building wasn't built to force approval from anyone from the City. He said the Building Inspector, Clarence Belisle had been out two or three time on this building. He said he has updated his home and built the garage, going through all the proper channels and building it to code, why would he try to flaunt the proper procedures for a small shed? He didn't want anyone to think that because this shed was already built, that he was trying to use any kind of lever on the City. � Mr. Clark said this building was up at least by January 4, 1974 when Mr. Belisle went out and looked at it. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the Planning Commission wasn't implying that Mr. Skinner's intention was to present an accomplished fact. I �lanning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 5 �'� do think there was a misunderstanding, but regardless of Mr. Skinner's intention, the results are the same. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.ly. 3. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #74-02, BERNARD URBICK: Split Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, into four building sites, located at 58th and Arthur Street N.E. Mr. Ken Sjodin, Mr. Urbick's realtor, was present to represent the petitioner. '� Mr. Clark�said this request had been before the Plats & Subdivisions- Streets & Utilities Subcommittee briefly, after their last meeting, and they agreed to the concept, but there was no agreement on whether " this should be handled as a lot split or a plat. � Mr. Clark continued that it has also gone to the Parks & Recreation Commission on March 4th in regard to the purchase of the most Southerly lot that is adjacent to a park. This is an 86 foot lot and the Commission would like between 86 to 90 feet to ad.d to our present park property. The A-Frame the City has acquired is just South of this lot next to a pond. With the acquisition of this land, it will make it possible to have a walking path all around the pond, which will be improved. ,� We met with Mr: Urbick and his real estate man today to talk about negotiating for the land. We have a basis for placing a valuation on � the land and although it is not clearly defined, it will cost the Park Department somewhere between $1500 and $2,000 for about a 90 foat lot. We arrived at this figure by using the front footage valu� the realtor. put on the property, subtracting the special assessments, subtracting the 30 foot dedication to the City for park land, and subtracting $1,000 it will cost for fill to make this a buildable site. Mr. Urbick has been very, very fair. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if this property for the park was across from Grace High School. Ni�. Clark said it was. He said�the City might need a 25 foot triangle off the next lot also. Mr. Clark said the petitioner does not want to plat because of the time factor. Platting would require Public Hearings by both the Planning Commission and Council and he would have to provide hard ° shell copies, etc. The descriptions covering the three remaining lots will not be difficult to place. We felt that because Mr. Urbick and his realtor have been so fair with,the City, if we can help him get division of his lot the easiest way, we should. Mr. Harris said that he was unaware that the City wished to � purchase a lot from the petitioner at the time the Plats & Subdivisions �' 'saw this lot split request. It was his feeling at that time that the property should be platted. As long as the City is considering pur- chasing one lot and there will be only three lots left, one of whi�h is already built upon, he had no objection to this being haridled as a lot .split. . ' . Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Pa e 6� �''"'� Mr. Clark said that by the City acquiring this lot, it would • be a real asset to the City and the Park Department because it would enabl-e the City to place a walkway around the pond. Mr. Clark said the way the cost was determined on this property was that the realtor set a cost of $85.00 per front footage wi�h the special assessments paid. We deducted $40 per front footage for specials (water, sewer and streets). Then we deducted $1,000 for fill, and 30 feet of the 90 feet for park dedication and our figure was $1,775. Mr. Harris said no money for the park fund or park dedication is necessary on a lot split. Mr. Clark said it would be if this property was platted. Although the petitioner is dividing this property with a lot split, he is willing to make the park dedication. Mr. Clark said there has been agreement between the City staff and the property owner, but the City Council has not agreed to this. MOTIDN by Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission . recommend to Council.approval of the request for a Zot split, L.S. #7�4-02,�by Bernard Urb�ck, to split Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, into four building sites Iocated at 58th and Arthur Street N.E. contingent upon an agreement with the City to provide park property. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �` 4. TREE ORDINANCE Mr. Clark said this ordinance has been passed down��o the Planning Commission by the Council. It is not required that the Planning Commission have a Public Hearing, but you may want to have one. We are somewha�. bound in by the number of days we have to react to this ordinance. Council has 65 days to react to this ordinance, which is May 8th. They have to adopt.an ordinance that is agreeable to the committee, or within 45 days after May 8th, there will have to be a referendum. If they adopt an ordinance that is not agreeable to the committee, it will still have to go to a referendum. This ordin�nce refers to all public land. . Mr. Fit.zpatrick sai.d he would like to get some input from the Environmental Quality Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission but because of the time element, there wasn't time for them to have � individual meetings, so maybe a joint meeting could be considered. � Mr. Drigans said it might make a cumbersome board to have so many committees conducting the hearing. He said he thought they could expect quite a turn-out for this hearing. ' Mr. Langenfeld, Chairman of the Environmental Quality Commission, felt if the members of the other committees were in the audience, it n .would accomplish the same tYiing. Mr. Clark said that as far as setting up a Public Hearing date, I don't think we have to have the required 14 days notice. This could be publici�zed in the paper and as geople are aware of this ordinance, they will be watching for any Public�Hearing. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 7 'r1 Mr. Drigans said the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission have a joint meeting on March 13th. Our regular scheduled Planning Commission meetings are March 20th and April 3rd. Mr. Clark said if we don't have too much scheduled for the 20th of March, we could set a Public Hearing for that date. After you got the input, you could make your recommendation by April 3rd, so Council would have time to react to your recommendation before April 15th, when they may want to hold a Public Hearing. Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission might want to have an informal meeting to talk over this ordinance before you have a Public Hearing. Mr. Drigans said there might be time after their special meeting on March 13th. Chairman Fitzpa�rick said he thought most of the members were quite familiar with this ordinance. He�asked Mr. Clark that if they decided to have the Public Hearing on March 20th how this would be publicized. Mr. Clark said he would call the Sun Newspaper and ask their help in publicizing this Hearing. � Mr. Harris asked Mr. Langenfeld if the Environmental Quality Commission would be me�ting before the 20th of March. Mr. Lanqenfeld said they would be meeting March 12th. Mr. Drigans said they could probably get copies of the minutes of this meeting before the Public Hearing. . �, Mr. Bill Nee, Councilman, said this ordinance seems to be for , park land but it will have an impact on street development. He said that it might be the Environmental.Quality Commission that negotiates with the sponsoring committee. - Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Nee if it would be more desirable to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation and the Environmental Quality Commission, or just have the members of these other two commissions in the audience. Mr. Nee said he couldn't see much difference. The Council sent this ordinance to the Planning Commission because they thought this was a reasonable way to collect input. Mr. Nee said there was discussion at one time of the Chairman of the Environmental Quality Commission being a member of the Planning Commission, and maybe he should be on the Planning Commission as an ex-officio member for this meeting. Mr. Harris said they would extend that invitation right now as long as Mr. Langenfeld was in the audience. Mr.. Langenfeld said he would be in the hospital at the time of this meeting, bu� he would ask his Vice Chairman to take his place. Chairman Fitzpat�ick asked Mrs. Leeann Sporre, 301 Ironton 5treet N.E., how she felt about the schedule of the Public Hearing. � Mrs. 5porre said she had no objection as long as it was publized so people were aware of the Hearing. She said Wednesday night was a bad night during Lent. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this is the n�ght that . people were used to have a Planning Commission meeting and when they had changed this night, they hadn't had toa much response. The Planning ,� � i�`, Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 1974 Page 8 Commission has a couple of other items they will have to take care of at this meeting, so this hearing wouldn't start until 8:30, so people could go to church and still make it to the meeting. Mrs. Sporre said she would like to know before the Hearing, any questions that the Planning Commission were going to ask so that research could be done on these questions, then they could have_.the answers at the time of the Hearing. 5he asked if they had any questions on woodland management. Mr. Fitzpatrick said �f any of the members of the�Planning Comm��Siori knew of any questions they might be asking at the Hearing, they should tell Mrs. Sporre, particularly questions that would have to be research- ed. . Mr. Harris asked if the sponsoring committee had contact with some one in the Department of Natural Resources, Forestry Division. `He said he hadn't gone through this ordinance point by point yet, but he though� someone from the Forestry Division should be invited to the meeting as far as woodland management is concerned. Mrs. Sporre said it might be.possible to get someone to come to the m�eting, but she would prefer to have specific questions researched rather than have one man's opinion given. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this was'a zea$onab��e request, but he didn't think the Planning Commission has had time to formulate specific questions. He said�there was one point that would be brought up at the Hearing. You might be prepared on why the committee is sponsoring this particular ordinance. You must have had certain objectives. Mrs. Sporre said they thought this was�a good law. She said other areas have passed laws to protect certain trees and she thought this was a way of protecting a valuable asset: Mr. Drigans said there was one thing he had a gue�tion on. That question was that we are considering having an armory in Fridley, and the possibility of the Y.M.C.A. being relocated. With this ordinance no building can be done on public land, that may require tree removal. � Mr. Clark said that when we look at this ordinance, I think we should consider the possibility of it covering all lands, whether Public or private, and provide means for a review process. Requests could go to the Environmental Quality Commission, Building Standards, Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Harris said what would be needed was an impact study. Mr. Nee said this ordinance should have some process for handling variances from it. I think the ordinance shows a lack of confidence in the City. If there is a way to clear land for streets, for instance, there should be a.process that protects the trees. The �concept for this ordinance came from Bloomington. He said we all know of instances in Minneapolis where a street was widened 10 feet and all the trees were removed from the boulevard. The question is whether the people would rather not have the street widened and save the trees. There should be some provision i� the ordinance for reasonable waivers? probably with an environmental impact statement Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 9 � and comments��from the Engineering Department. Mr. Lindblad asked Mrs. Sporre if she could tell him in a few words, the main point of this ordinance. � Mrs. Sporre said it was to prohibit the destruction of trees by woodland management and disease control on all public property. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we are faced at this point with either adoption of this ordinance or referendum or apparently before any adoption, fu�ther negotiations with the sponsoring.committee, which I don't fully understand. If 4,000 people have signed this petition, can the committee negotiate for changes in this ordinance? Mr.. Drigans said he thought the intention of the Council was to have the•Planning Commission hold Public Hearings and the minutes would be available to them of citizen input. Mr. Drigans said Mr. Nee could correct him, but he didn't think it was the Council's intent for the Planning Commission to recommend anything, just to get citizen input. Mr. Drigans said this was just passed to the Planning Commission and I think the Council should tell us if they want a recommendation or just citizen input. � .,, .. � • . ... ' .:I•. � Chairman Fitzpatrick said he thinks the�Council is looking for our recommendation, and if our recommendation includes changes � in the ordinance, I h��ve some question as to how empowered the ` sponsoring committee is to negotiate these changes. Mr. Nee said � this is spelled o.ut in the Charter, but it does raise a moral question. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn't think the signers of the petition would object to us working out a reasonable.means of appeal, but if we can do that, what else can be do? Mr. Drigans said I have heard that the intent of the ordi�ance. was to stop the Council action on the North Park pr�posal. The sponsoring committee will have to be prepared to answer this question. Mrs. Sporre said that wasn°t the whole intent, but it was a strong reason for many people who signed the petition. Mrs. Sporre said the.y have done a lot of research, on this and even if and when this site was used for a golf course, and they did try to save as many trees as possible, the �se of heavy equipment to eonstruct the fairways, would disturb the oak trees left. It would change the wind rose and oaks are very unpredictable. We were told the first �year that it would look quite good, but in a short time, the trees that were left would start to die. Mr. Drigans said it would be impossible to tell how many trees would be affected until the fairways were laid 'out. Mrs.: Sporre said the impact of using this property as a golf course couldn't actually l,.,1 be evaluated until it was all�completed, and then it would be too late. Mr. Langenfeld said the City has proposed hiring a naturalist. He would have a great deal to do with this ordinance. Mr. Harris said as this ordinance calls for woodland management, � � Planning Commission Meeting- March 6, 1974 Page 10 he thought there should be a provision on what type of trees should be propagated and what type of trees that were undesirable. Mr. Nee said that's why it says woodland management in this ordinance. Mr. Harris said that was why he would like to se� someone from the Forestry Service at the Public Hearing. He said that some trees grow better in Fridley than others, and some trees hold back the development of more desirable trees. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this provision in the ordinance is rather an inclusive one and it doesn't say who will do the woodland manage- ment. Mr. Nee said this would be a continuing program. Mr. Harris said if the Qity is going to have a program, they will have to hire a naturalist, if they aren'.t going to have a naturalist, they will still have to have someone responsible for the pra�ram. Mr. Nee said that if the City did not have a naturalist, the City could come up with a program that would probabl� not be so well founded. . Mr. Harris said he thought this ordinance should be considered on�its merits rather than just be tied in with North Park. Mr. Drigans said that he thought it would be impossible to separate the two at the Public Hearing. Mr. Harris said he would like some input at the Public Hearing from someone with a.background of forest management. There was discussion on whether the audience might get �too large to be accommodated at this Hearing. The Planning Commission asked Mr. Clark to check and see if there was an alternate meeting place available. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Herris, that the Planning Commission set the Publie Hearing on the Tree Ordinance for March 20, 1974 at 8:30 P.M. Upon a voice vote, aII voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5.- REVIEW�OF FINAL PLAT, RICE CREEK ESTATES, P.S. #74-01, BY GOODCO, INC. AND PINE TREE BUILDERS: Being a replat of Part of Lots 9 and 10, Auditor's Subdivisian No. 22, located between Rice Creek Road and 61st Avenue N.E., and West of Benjamixi Street N.E. Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission plat after it had the street grades, cross the problems with the neighbors worked out. had asked to see this sections and•some of He said this did go to the Parks & Recreation Commission on ^ .Niarch 4th and they definitely wanted to purchase park land in this area. The park land is in about the same areas as it was on the plat you gave preliminar� approval on February 20, 1974. If the petitioner has to move the cul-de-sac entirely on his property and loses what are now Lots 12 and 13 as buildable site�( the park department recommends the purchase of the balance of these lots also. � � Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 11 � Mr. Clark continued that this plat �smdifferent in that Woodside Court dead-ends on the East side and instead of starting on the West side of the Theilmann parcel, this area is now served by a cul-de-sac. This would give the petitioner one more lot, but will give the Theilmann's 7 lots instead of 8. Mr. Clark said this plat would require some right of way for the cul-de-sac on 61st Avenue and the affected property owner at 1541 Ferndale told me before the meeting that he has not been contacted by the petitioner. Mr. Harris said he couldn't go along with this plat. He said ' the reason the Planning Commission had approved the preliminary plat was to give the petitianer some direction and we gave him eleven stipulations. This plat,doesn't follow these stipulations. Stipulation 7 and 11 are the only stipulations that are ariswered and that is on the grades being established and the final plat coming back to the Planning Commission. � . Mr. Theilmann said he gave up less land with this plat, but he would be left with 7 lots instead of 8 and he didn't like this plat at all. He said he had no objection to the preliminary.plat presented to the Planning Commission on February 20th. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the owner of 1541 Ferndale was in the .�udience. Mr. Charles Rice said he was the owner. Mr. Fitzpatrick � asked the property owner if he would negotiate for the additional righ� of way �eeded for the cul-de-sac on 61st Avenue. Mr. Rice said he would not. Mr.. Clark said the present right of way went up to the East property line of Mr. Rice's property. Mr. Drigans said this was why he objected to approval of the preliminary plat at the February 20th meeting. There were too many unanswered questions. Now the petitioner has a dif.ferent plat than � what we made our recommendation on. I'm ready to have them start all • over.at the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcbmmittee level. Mr. Clark said if the Planning Commission didn't like this plat, they could�recommend the plat presented at the February 20th meeting. Mr. Theilmann said when he bought his property twenty years ago he always felt he could plat this property into eight lots. After paying taxes on it for all this time, he certainly couldn't agree to seven odd-sized lots. He said he knew he would have to purchase some land set aside by the petitioner to make his lots meet the front footage requirements, but he was willing to do that. Mr. Harris said that stipulation 9 specifically states that Woodside Court be temporarily dead-ended on the East and West side n of the Theilmann property line. Mr. Lindblad said he couldn't see why the cul-de-sac couldn't be on Lots 11 and 12 and if Lot 13 were redrawn, Lot 13 could be a buildable site. Then.the peitioner wouldn't need the 25' right of way from the property owner at 1541 Ferndale. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 12 � Mr. Harris said that if h� was looking at this plat correctly, the section D-D or Lot 10 was going to need a variance on the front setback of 10 feet. Mr. Harris asked if there were any unbuildable lots. Mr. Clark said no. Mr. Drigans said the lots are numbered differ�ntly than on the preliminary plat we approved. Mr. Harris said there was no way that he could recommend this plat. Mr. Clark said why don't you think about doing it this way, reaffirm your approval of the plat presented at the February 2Oth meeting, and say that the plat that was presented tonight was unacceptable because of the big change West of the Theilmann parcel and that.as far as you're concerned the 61st Avenue cul-de-sac be moved Easterly so that the bubble portion of the turn-around lies on Lots 11 and 12 on this plat and that the park deparment purchase the remainder of these two lots, making Lot 13 buildable. Mr. Drigans asked how many lots were on the plan presented tonight. Mr. Clark said 42. Mr. Drigans said the petitioner had added another lot and�isolated the Theilmann parcel. M�TI.ON by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the PZanning Commission recommend to Council that they reaffirm their approval of the preliminarc ^, plat presented February 20, 1974 (called EXHIBIT A) with the grades of the plan presented March 6th (called EXHIBIT B) superinposed on Exhibit A, P.S. #74-01, Rice Creek Estafes, by Gocdco, Inc.; and Pine Tree Builders, being a replat of Parts of Lots 9 and I0, Auditor's 5ubdivision No.22, located between Rice Creek Road and 6lst Avenue N.E., and West of Benjamin 5treet N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. If sufficient right of way cannot be obtained from _the . South side of 61st Avenue, then the cuZ-de-sac be totally embodied on the plat on Lots .Z8 and Z9, Exhibit A, and redraw the 1ot Zzne of Lot 21, to make that a buildable site. 2. Subject to obtaininq street dedication from the Theilmann's for .the extensian of BriardaZe Road. 3. Wa.ikway be provided to park frorr� Be�ijamin in the vacinity of the South .iine of Lot 15. 4. 5ubject to negotiation with the City for additional park 1and. 5. Provide underground utiZities. ° 6. One tree planted per lot. 2" miniic�um diameter. �• 7. Grades to be worked out with City Engineering Department. (complied with) 8. Lots that have grade difficulties with a three to one slope after the grade is established, be sodded within one year of compZetion. . .. � e � �'1 r� Planning Commission Meetin - March 6, 1974 Page 13 9. Woodside Co�rt be temporarily dead-ended on the East and West side of the Theilmann property line. 10. AZI lots must meet minimum lot size and ha ve minimum front footage and,depth. 11. After the grades have been established by the engineer's, the plat come back to the Planning Commission before Council approvaZ. (complied with) . UPON A VOICE VOTE, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Theilmann asked if the Commission was aware that his property was included in the legal description of this plat. �Mr. Clark said they were. This was included in case Mr. Theilmann would h�ve decided to plat at this time. Mr. Drigans said he wanted to bring it to the attention o� the City Council that the Planning Commission was approving the plat pr.esented to them on�February 20th and not the plat the petitioner prepared for this March 6th meeting. If there was any conflict at their Public Hearing on March llth, they should refer the plat back to the Planning Commission. 6. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #74-01, HENNING NELSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: To rezone Lots 1_and 2, Block 13, Riverwood Manor, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to R-3 (general multiple family dwelling areas) to allow construc�. tion of a 24.unit apartment complex to be located South of 71st Way N.E. and West of East River Road. Public Hearing closed. Mr. Clark said that because of the Public Hearing on the tree ordinance, he thought this item should be continued until April 17th. He said we have already continued it twi.ce�:at�.the.�petitioner's request, so if we have to continue it now, the petitioner will have to under- stand. Mr. Clark said the adjacent prcj�erty owners should be re- � notified on this item also. . • MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission continue until Apri1 17, 1974, the rezoning request, ZOA #74-01, by Henning Nelson Construction Company, to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Block 13, Riverwood Manor, from R-.I (single family. dwelling areas,) to R-1 (general mtaltip.Ze family dwelling areas) to a11ow construction of a 24 unit apartment complex to be located 5outh of 71st Way N.E. and West of East River Road and renotify the adjacent property owners of this continuance. Upon a voice•vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � � � 0 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1974 Page 14 7. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR ARMORY PROPOSAL: Mr. Drigans said this could be tentatively set for May 8th. Mr. Clark said all the civic groups should be notified of this hearing but that notice wouldn't be going out yet, so the Planning Commission can set a firm date at their Ap'ril 3rd meeting. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Commission set a tentative dafe of date for fhe Armory proposal. Upon the motion carried unanimousZy. 8. DISCUSSION Lindblad, that the Planning May 8, 1974 as the PubZic Hearing a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, Mr. Lindblad said he would like to discuss the problem of loan companies dictating to the City the requirements for parking or perhaps for other things. Where do we draw the line? Mr. Clark said where this question came up was on a building being built by Bryant-Franklin where they already had the financing secured. One building they have built that is in use has 130 parking stalls, of which 5 stalls are actually being used. When they requested an identical building that was going to�have a:1ow rate of employment, the staff felt why not have a parking lot for 30 cars or 50 cars. The space would still be there to increase the parking area if it was ever needed. The developer thought.this was a good idea and drew up his plans this way, and was going to request a variance. When the lending agency saw these plans, he said the developer had to provide the minimum parking. Mr. Harris said the lending agency is looking at it from the standpoint that if they ever got this building back, it would be much more marketable if it has the minimum parking. If a new owner needed all the parking and e�ren if the space were availab�e for it, this would�still be an additional expense for the buyer and would make it more difficult to sell. The lending agency always has to consider tlie resale of the building. Mr. Clark said our code calls for a minimum of 120 parking stalls on this property, and the lending agency said they wanted 132, so they were not infringing upon our minimum code. Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �, �� ��2�0�/ Dorothy Ev son, Secretary i ., �� y ; � I V � ���� � /i � �� / 7 f + /� ._. � � ��� � /�i ��� � C l � � JrQ� ��/!, �y� � y��. , . � ,� �� � � � ��� ,� C � . �' '=� ��------ ��C`C� � � � ,, ��33 ���.� - �,.� � �� __ hz,� ._���