PL 09/11/1974 - 31173CITY OF FRIDLL�C
PLANNING COMMISSION NlEETING - SEPTENiBER 11, 1974 PAGE 1
� .
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:12 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Fitzpatrick, Harris, Lindblad
Members Absent: Blair, Drigans
Others Present: Darrel ClarY., Community Development Administrato:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 21, 1974
MOT�ON by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commis-
sion approve the minutes of the August 2l, 1974 meeting as written.
Upon a voice vote,.a11 vot�ng aye, the motion carried una�imousl.y.
RECEIVE BUILDIPdG STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SU�COMMITTEE MINUTES:
AUGUST 22. 1974
MOTION byLindv.Zad, seconded by Harr.is, that the Planning
Commission rece.ive the minutes of the August 22, 1974 meeting of
the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee. Upon a voice
vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanirr�ously.
� RECEIVE IIOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMI'I'TEE MINUTES: AUGUST 27, 1974
Mr. Harris said he had some questions on the sign va�iance
on the Menard Lumber sign. Air. Clark said th� recommendation of
the Board of 1�ppeals was in these minutes and this was changed
somewhat at the City Council meeting. Mr. Harris was shown a
letter that was written by Mr. Clark to th� company construc�ting
the sign and to M�nard's which explained the stipulations on the
sign.
MOTION by Narris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning
Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee
meeting of August 27, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
RECEIV� PARI{S & KECR�ATION COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: AUGU5T
26, 1974 .
Mr. Fitzpatrick said tha� included with these minutes is a
� lease agreement with the Target Store for some park area. Mr. Harris
questioned Mr. Clark as to what type of park equipment would be going
into this area. He said it looked like this lease ran from year to
year and could be termindted on short notice. Mr. Clark said he was
not too familiar with this proposal, but he would check with the Park
Director, Paul Brown, and get some answers before the next meeting.
�, • Mr. F'itzpatrick said he knew the City had been anxious i:o provide some
, parkland for this area of the City.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 11, 1974 Page 2
MOTION by Harris, seconded by LindbZad, that the Planning Commis�
sion.xeceive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission Sub-
� committee meeting of August 26, 1974, requesting clarification�of the
lease agreement with the Target Store on the use of the park 1and.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimoL�sly.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #74°
Q5, RICE CRE�K EST�TES SECOND ADDITION, BY EDWIN C. DROPPS,
D B/A PINETFE� BUILDERS: A replat of Lot 10, except the North
260 feet thereof; Auditor's�ubdivision No. 22, generally locatcd
North of 61st Avenue N.E. and C�est of Benjamin Street.
Mr. E�win Dropps was present.
• MOTION by Lindblad, seconded b� Harris, that the Planning
Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the
request for a preliminary p1at, P.S. #74-05, by Edwin Dropps. Upon
a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motiqn carried unanimouslyo
Mr. Clark said that when the P"lanning Commission reviewed the
preliminary plat for Rice Creek Estates, this portion known as'Rice
Creek Estates Second Addition, was all one plat. He said he believed
Mr. Dropps had some problems closing on �he portion that was Chies
property, sa he decided to just develop Phase I of the plat at that
�ime, and would come back with the second Phase at a later date, and
tha� is what he is presenting tonight. "
n Mr. Clark continued, that there are just a couple of differences
on this plat from the first time it was presented. On the first plat,
the cul-de-sac on 61st extended further �o the West, and the lots
that sould have been served by this are ri�w served by a cul-de-sac
' at the end of Rice Creek Drive. The balance of the plat looks pretty
much the same.
Mr. Dropps said that at the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities
Subcommittee meeting they requested a detailed topog of the grades on
the lots that are served by the cul-de-sac at the end of Rice C�eek
Drive, and with that cul-de-sac also. They were concerned that we
could build houses on these lots because of the elevations and grade
changes. Mr. Clark said the grade on the cul-de-sac is still a little
high and we would want to stipulate that the maximum slope would have
to be three to one. This would mean that there would be 13 vertical
feet where there would have to be some time of retaining wall.
Mr. Harris asked if the top soil could be held on a three to one
pitch. Mr. Clark said there was another house in this area with the
same soil conditions that has held a� that slope. This house is about
five years old, and there haven't been any problems.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said that just North of Lot l, Block 4, there is
an apparent continuation of a street. Mr. Clark said this street will
continu� onto what wi11 become Heather Hills 3rd Addition. Mr. Clark
said that Mike O'Bannon has seen this pla� before, and has approved
� • that location of the street for access �o his property.
�-
w„'3-
Planning Cammission Meeting - September 11, 1974 Page 3
Mr. O'Bannon, who was in the audience, said he was not satisfied
n with the location of this road. It seems to have been moved North.
He said he would lose a lot from his plat with the road in �his
location. It would leave him with a lot of about;18,000._square feet,
which would have to be one lot, because he could not get the minimum
width of 75 feet for the two lots even though they would meet the
square footage requirements for two lotse
^
�
Nlr. Dropps said this road was supposed to fit into an all-mver
plan for this area. Mr. Harris said that was his understanding of
the placenzent of this road also.
Mr. O'Bannon said that if this road could be swung South a lit�le
bit,�he could get his two lots. He showed the Commission a copy of
his proposed Heather Hi11s Third Addition so they could see the problem
he would have if this.road stayed as its present location. Mra Harris
said the road and Mr. 0'Bannan's plat were off about 20 feet. Mr..
O'Bannon said he would end up with a lot 130' x 140' which�would be
too narrow to make in�to two lots.
Mr. Clark said that if Mr. Dropps would bend the street seven feet
towards the back of Lot 1, Block 4, and Mr. O'Bannon would bend the
street about seven feet,on his plat, this would give then both their
lots, that would still meet the front footage reguirements. Both
parties agreed. Mr. Harris said that could be made one of the stipu-
lations of the approval of this plat.
Chairman Fitzpatrick said that most of the people in the audience
for this plat seemed to be the people from Ferndale who were concerned
about 61st Avenue. Those people were shown a copy of the plat, and
were satisfied.that 61st Avenue was not going to be extended.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Dropps if' there had been any negotiations
between th� Theilmann s and himself since the last meeting? Mro Dropps
said he hadn't talked to the Theilmanns at all since the last meetingo
He said his thoughts were that he get all the other problems worked out
on this plat first. At the last meeting there was discussion by himself
about coming ta an agreement on the q.quare footage valuation of the
property and that he would work with the Theilmann's on that basis.
He thought that what the City had used for a square footage valuation
on the property they purchased for the additional park land would be
a good figure -to start negotiations with. H� said they left a I5 foot
strip the Theilmann's need to plat their property, and he needs the
corner of Briardale Roado and once the square footage valuation had
been worked out,�he didn't think this should be too difficult to nego-
tiate.
Mr> Harris asked what kind of retaining walls they would be using
to maintain this three to one slop�. Mr. Dropps said he couldn't say
because �he topography map with the elevations was de�:ivered to the
City Hall and this was the first time he had seen it. Mr. Clark said
there werel3 vertical feet to make up, and this could be worked out
with a combi.natian oi terraces and retaining walls. Mr. Dropps said
the engineer had n�,cl:ed the worst spot on the plat to work on. Mr. Clar}
said this was correct. Mr. Dropps said the maximum would be 13 feet
��.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 11, 1974 Page 4
and this would taper down to 6 feet. Mr. Dropps said that what ever
^ was necessary to do on these lots, he would do, as f ar as the retaining
k�a11s were concerned. He thought the problem was mostly on Lots 3 and
4, Block 4, and he thought that both aesthetically and for safety it
would probably be better to have some terracing on these lots instead
of all retaining walls. �
Mr. Clark said there are some trees on this plat, on both the
West and South boundary, that will have to come out to develop this
pla�. There won°t be any trees left. He said he thought the members
of the Commission and the people in the audience should be aware of
this.
�Mr. Harris asked Mr. Dropps if he was still planning on having
underground utilities with this $2 a month charge for life. Mr.
Dropps said he did, and he thought he had received a letter from the
power company saying they were no longer making this charge. It would
b� a one time charge to the devPloper, but he would check on this againe
M�TION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning'Commissiol
close the Public Hearing on the request for a preZiminar� p1at, P.S.
#74-05, Rice Creek Estates Second Addition, by Edwin Dropps. Upon a
voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
NIr. Harris asked about the utilities down that street that goes
to Heather Hills. Mr. Clark said this had been checked by our Engineer-
� ing Department and Comstock &�Davis, and these grades will work. The
sewer and water will be stubbed in at the end of this streeto Al1 the
s-treets in this plat wi11 drain toward Benjamin and that's the same
direction the sewer will flow. Mr. Harris asked who was going to do
' the construction on the utilities. Mr. Dropps said the City will put
them in.
MOTION by Narris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commissior.
recommend to Council approval of the preliminary p1at, P.S. #74-05,
Rice Creek Estates Second Addition, by Edwin C. Dropps, d/b/a Finetree
Builders, a replat of Lot 10, except the North 260 feet thereof; Audi-
tor`s Subdivision No. 22, generally located North of 61st Avenue N.E.
and West of Benjamin Street, with the following stipulations:
1. P�titioner should endeavor to negotiate for street right-of-way
from the Theilmann's for the extension of Briardale Road.
2. Subject to negotir�tion with the City for additional park Zand.
3. Pravide underground utilities. .
4. One tree planted per lot, 2" minimum diameter.
5. Grades to be worked out with the City Enqineering Depar�ment.
6. Lots that have grade difficulties with a three to one slope
after the grade is established, be sodded within one year of
completion and retaining we11s be worked ovt with the City.
7. Woodside Court be temporarily dead-ended on the East and West
side of the Theilmann property 1ine.
8. All Lots must meet minimum lot size and have minimum front
� • footage and depth.
9. The street that gives access to Heathar Hi11s 3rd Addition be
sw�ng seven feet South between Lot 1, B�ock 4, and Lot 12,
I3.Iock. 1 . '
��
�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 11, 1974 Page 5
UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REQUEST: ZOA #74-04,
BY HENRY Fo MUHICH: To rezone Lots 11-21, and Lots 28-37, Block 4,
Spring Brook Park Addition, from M-1 (light industrial areas) to
R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to allow the moving in of a
single family dwelling on Lots 31 and 32, Block 4, Spring Brook
Park Addition, genez•ally located between 79th Way N.E. and Long-
fellow Street; and Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks.
Mr. Hank Muhich was present.
MOTION by Lindblad,
waive the reading of the
#74-04, by Henry h9uhich.
carried unanimously.
seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commiss.ior
Pub.Zic Hearing notice on rezoning request, ZOA
Upon a voice voie, a11 voting aye, the motion
Mr. Clark said that about half of Block 4 is zoned R-1 and
R-3. On the portion of this block tliat is.zoned M-1, there are
single family homes on the occupied lots.
Mr. Muhich said he had contacted all the owners of the property
in this block, and with the exception of Nlr. Leonard Benson, 154
Longfellow Street, they were all in favor of their property being re-
zoned to R-l. �
Mr. Benson said the reason he objected to this zezoning was
^ because he has to look at industrial development across the street
so he didn't mind having industrial development next doore As his
garage was in the M-1 zoning, and as he was in the construction business,
� he thought that at some time, he would like to have a cabinet shop in
his garage, which he couldn`t do if his property was rezoned to R-1.
�
Mr. Harris said that he knew Mr. Muhich had done a lot of work
on this request, but as this involved a lot of property owners, he
would�like to see a petition from �these other owners asking for this
zoning change, before the Planning Commission made any recommendation
on this requesto
Chairman Fitzpatrick said it had usually been the policy of the
Planning Commission not to make a decision on a rezoning request when
they were two members short, as they were at this meeting.
Mr. Muhich said he was certain he could get everyone's signature
on a petition favoring this request with the exception of Mre Benson.
Mr. Benson asked if he could get up a petition against this rezoning?
Chairman I'itzpatrick said that anyone can bring in a petition on any
proposal, for or against.
Mr. Harris said the reason he woula like to see a petition from
the affected property owners was so tha� at some future date, one of
these owners couldn't say that their property had been rezoned without
their knowledge ar consent.
Mr. }3enson asked if he was right in assuming that as his property
was presently zoned M-1 that he could have a cabinet shop in his garage
�`�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 11, 1974 Page 6
if he so desired. Mr. Fitzpatrick said there was a question in
his mind whether this would be automatic or if he may have to
�...� seek some type of approval. Mr. Clark said he would have to check
on this further, but he could probably have a cabinet shop in'his
garage under the present zoning, but not under R-1 zoning. Mr.
Benson said the reason he bought this property was because of �he
M-1 zoning and that was why he was opposed to any zoning change.
Mr. Clark said that if the rest of the Block was zoned R-1,
it could have an effect on the resale value of your house, and
also if your house was damaged by fire or wind or by other means,
more than 50%, you would not be allowed to rebuild, when this property
was zoned M-1. There are pros and cons to this zoning also.
.Chairman Fitzpatrick said he wasn't sure this was in the presen�
zoning code, but the Planning Commission was presently going through
the Code, clarifying some things that needed clarification; and
putting in the Code some things that were City policy at the presen�
time. .
Mr. Benson asked that if all the property on this block was
developed as R-1, would there have to be some type of barrier because
of the railroad �racks. He said he worried about his children and
the tracks now. .
Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Planning Commission could put
some type of stipulation on the r�zoning request, if they so desired,
but they shouldn't expect the railroad to do this because they were
� there firsto Mr. Muhich said that it seemed that in practice, the
industrial screens from the homeowner, not the homeowner screening
from industrial, unless they choose to do soe You couldn't expect
� the owners of the property next to �he railroad �racks to provide
a barrier that would benefit the rest of the homeowners in this
area, uriless they want to do it. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the Planning
Commission can put any stipulation we feel would be needed in
� considereing this rezoningo ..
��'1
Mr. Harris said that i£ there was some noise abatement on this
property, it would enhance the value of the praperty.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark how long this property had been zoned
M-1. Mr. Clark said the original zoning map, 1956. Mr. Harris asked
if there were residential homes on some of this property then. Mr.
Clark said that there was. They allowed R-1 to be built in any zoning
until 1969. Since that time, it has not been City policy to allow
single family homes to be built on commerical or industrial zoned
property.
Mr. Benson said Mr. Muhich should just rezone his own property,
and leave the rest of the block alone. Mr. Muhich said the other
property owners who have R-1 dwellings on this block, with the exception
of Mr. Benson, wanted the property rezoned also, becaus� they didn't
want any industrial next door to them.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 11, 1974 Page 7
Mr. Harris said he wauld just as soon keep the Public Hearing
^ open and continue this request until Mr. Muhich decides what he�
wants to do, get tip a petition or just ask�for rezoning of his own
property.
MOTION by Harris, seconded by LindbZad, that the Planning Commission
continue the request for rezoning, ZOA #74-04, by Henry F. Muhich, to
rezone Lots 11-21, and Lots 28-37, B1ock 4, Sprinq Brook Park Addition,
from M-1 (light industrial areas) to R-1 (single family dwelling areas)
to a11ow the moving in of a single family dwelling on Lots 31 and 32,
B1ock 4, Spring Brook Park Addition, until September 25, 1974. Upon a
voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously,
Chairman Harris adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
.
7
� Z ��
Dorothy E nson, Secretary
�
�
y
--��� ---- ----
-- ----- �-/�-_ _-- � y ��- --_—__ - ------ ---------- -- -
---- --- -
----- -- --- _______- _---
---
--- -- �
--------
----- ---- _ _-- - --- - - — --- -
-- -- - - __ ,
__ _----- --
- ----_ ----- - -- __-- �
- ------- -
-- ----- ------ - ,
-----
- - --- -- -
-- --------- _ __ ---- -
_
_ 1 � _ /�I%r � f L-..�-�/��C/- �---------- --- — -- ,� � o �- - --- - c _ '�?-�� 1 — . _`J_?- � -5--
-r
� - � s - ------- -- -- ---__ � �' -�' �- -----_ ---
---_ ___ ���-�-�-� - --- ----- - _ -- __ - -----___� --
. -- ,
3. �.�;Y,, Q � _____
_ --____ --!� � �_s_►5��.�.,�.!�.._� �--_�f_____�_ ___h��. ._ __
_-- - -- —
-- __ _ __
- -
. _ _ __ _--- --- -�S o _� � _ — - -- i�� --- — - --- _ _ _ -
--- __ - - ���
� --- __ t
- --- - �`� _ -
.� :
� ` -- _ _ /-S�/ __�i�-__ ���-�-� --'=, � - -- - ----- -- -------
-��- --�.��a_ � - - � - ---�— � ---- _- -
(o /�S14 ' ... _
---- - - -- --- - - -
- - - - -------
�,� _ `�`��
� �_ �
"') � a �► ��1/ �„�riv �,�,�.r _ _----- - -----------------
, - --
�---- _---- - - -
_ --- --- __ _ —_... --
- -- -- _ --- --- - ---- --
------------- -
- — _--- -� _ ---- --------- _ ---
i
� - ---- - ---- _--- -_ ---
__ - -- -- - -- ---- - -- --- -- -
� ---
---- -- -- -- - __ - - _
-- - -- - ------ -
---- - - ----- - -- -
F-----_ ______---. __ - --
_ _ _--- -------___ _ --___- -- ----- -
__ _- _ __ ._ __ _ ____-- ------- _ __ ____ __._
______ --- -------___ ------- ---... --__-----_-- -__ ___--- ---
-- -_ _ __ _ __
c,_
_ _ __-- -__ --- -----
k-----_. ___
-- -- -_ . -- _. __..__
-- ---- - _--- -- _ . --- _ ____ - ------ ---- -
�� ------------- -
_ _ --- -- -- ------ -----
_._ ____ _ ----
___---- ____ _------
•-3---- ----- - ._ _ _ ._