Loading...
PL 04/04/1979 - 30507CITY OF FRIDLE�C '� pLAMNTNG CONJMISSION MEETING - �R� �,_ _�979 /"'1 � n, � CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Herris called the April 4, 1979, me�ting oP the Planning Co�iesion to order c�t 7:30 P.M. , ROLL CALL: I►�mbers Present: �•, Schn bel�(ar�rived'ar�7�:35�) ris, Me. S'ul�rbier� Mr. Langeafe:ld Members Absent: I3one ' .. ,.. � Other� Pre�ent; Mr. Bc�rdman� City Planner l. APPROVE PLANNING CONAqTSSI0IV MINIFI'ES: MARCH 21� 1979: MOTION by Mr. L�ngen�eld, seconded by Mr. 4quist to approve the A+f�rch 21� �979, minute� of the PZannin� Co�niseion. Mr. Lan�eni�ld stated that the laet par��raph on page 7 should stat� tha�t if' the intended use was not used� it would �hcn ha�ve to corae before the Co�naission and the Council. UPOPt A VOICE VOTE9 AT,L VOTIIVG AYE9 CHAIRMt�N HARRTS D�CLARED THE MINUTES APPROV�D � AS CORRECTID . 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. �79-01, BY ALLAN FEHN: Snlit off the Souther�].y 222 �eet oP Lot 23, �Auditc�r'� Subdivision No. 92, e�cep� the West 30 fee� of Lo� 23, and exc�pt the South 30 f�e� oP said. lot 23, into two building site�' �s follows: Pareel A. Th� South 110 feet of Lot 23' A.S. �92' wi�th �the exception�� and Parcel B. The South 222 ieet of Lot 23, A.S. �2� except iche South 110 fee�t and except the west 30 feet of said Lot 23� loc�t�d a'� the intersection oi Garrlena Avenue and Benjamin Street N.E. Mr. Boardman stated that pa�e 20 of the.agenda show�d the locatior� oi the lot. There wae an existing house located on what would be P�rcel B if the lot split was approved. The existin� lot right noca is quite a lar�e lot and even with the spiit you would have more that what is required for two single fami]gy lots in the area. The thing to be concerned about and should look at is that with the eplit off, the existing house ia presently facing Gardena� �nd although it meete the require�nts at this time, wi�h th� split off it would make the existin� house a non-conforming use �s far ae the s�tback �oes. If somethin� happened to that house9 it wou].d probably have to be rebuilt based on the code, and couldn't be rebuilt on that same foundation. The new house would have to meet the cade and face Ben3amin with a 35 foot setback instead of the 25 foot setback. Ano�ther thing to consider is that the house to the east of this property is se�back a coneiderable distance� approximately 70 feet. So a house built on this corner lot would atick out into the front yard ot' that house. 1�. Boardman stated he would imagine the location of the proposed house would be facing Benjamin. A].so, the pr�sent aewer and wa�er come off of Gardena, so they would have to have a new �rater tap off Benjamin. He believed sewer could still be served off Gardena. � � PLANNII� CONIMISSION MEETING� APRIL 4, 1979 - PAGE 2 '-1 Mr. Aarris stated thmt there appear�d to be a sewer clean out in there samteplace. Mr. Boardman atated�that there was Q sewer clean out in the middle of the lot� and � there Would have to be same changea in that. He understood that the sewer for the exiating house would have to be tapped off Benjamin. The new structure would use existing sewer from Gardena. Mr. Harris stated they would then have to cut off the line. . Mr. Boardman stated that wae correct� the �ewer would lzave to come off Benjamin for the existing structure� and also the water would have to come off �njamin for the existing structure. Mr. Iiarris noted they could make both taps at the same time. He asked what the size of the new lot would be. ' Mr. Baardman stated the new lot would be 80.0�+ x 133•25• Mr. Harris asked if the petitioner would like to make ar�y co�ents. Nir. Allan Fehn atated he had no commnente at this time. Mr. Boardman etated that the lots to the east were very deep lots� approa�imately 225 feet deep. � Mr. Harris aeked if there wa� just one s�ructure on lot 2�+. Mr. Bo�rdman stated that was correct, that it looked like lo�t 23 l�sd been split, and the northerly part had the house on it. Mr. Fehn stated that actvally the south end had been split. I�r. Oquist noted that his house would then be facin� Ben3amin and wauld have a Ben3amin address. Ms. SchnabeZ asked if th� p�titioner had talked to the people to the east at 1623 Gardena� or if the City had heard an�ything from those people. Mr. Fehn etated he had talked to no-one about this. NIr. Bo�ardman stated that the City does not send out notifications on lot splits� so those people probably don't even know about it. N�. Boardman statcd that there was a coffinent in the file from Dick that they would need variance approval since e 1ot split does not require a public hearing. � � �"� � Mr. Hsrris said he thought they needed a vaYiance because they would be changing the frontage of the house. �° Mr. Boardman stated they had done this before �rith lot eplita, and if they approve � tbe lot split� they would be approving the vaxiance. j �-�. � i Mr. Harris stated that variances need notification. . .� PLANNING CON�lISSIO� MEETING, APRIL k, 1979 -^ PAGE 3 � Nt�. Schnabel ststed that what they were doing was grsndfathering in an exieting ,^1 dwelling in a non-conforming s�tback. Mr. A�rrie stated they would. be changing the front yard setback fr�n the required 35 �eet to 2�+.19 feet. Ms. Schnabel aske�cl if there was a gara�e on thie property. Mr. Fehn s-tated it was a tuck-under house. The entrance to the garage waa off Gardena. Ms. Schnabel asked haw he would enter it af'ter the lot split. Mr. Fehn atated he could either enter off Ben��ffiin and make a u-turn into $lne existin� gara�e, or he could build a gara�e in the back of the lot. , Mr. B�rdman a�ked Mx�. Fehn if he lived in the house presently and if he•did� was he plannin� on stayiug there. Mr. Fehn stated he did live in the house and planned on etayin� there. Mr. Basrdman asked if he planned on building on the other lot. ^ Nir. Fehn etated he did. Ms. Schnabel a�ked if he w�a plannia� on te�rin� down the exis�ing houee at ana► po3nt and buildin� a new hvuse there. Mr. Fehn st�ted he did not pl�n on tearing d�can the existin� house, that it was not very old . Mr. Boardman asked if the ��rage was on the east or west side oP the h�use. Mr. Fel�n s�ated the garage was on the west side of the house. He �tatc:d that he planned to bzaild a garage on the backside of the existing house and enter off Benjami.n. He would then close off the lower gar�ge complete7y. Mr. Storla asked if they had settled the question +Bf whether or not a variance waB needed. Mr. Aarris stated he questioned that h3mselP aad �tated they could recomm�xid approval of the lot �plit. Mr. Boardman stated that a q,uestion on platting had come up before the attorney �nd if they could make some decision on platting� that would require a public hearing. In effect, they would then be informin� the people of the variance. 1�. Aarris stated he would like to have the attorney's opinion on this� because if Council approved the lot split, it �ould sutomatically approve the variaaace. � � pLpNDTING COI�M�iISSION MEETING, APRIL �, 1979 ____- PAGE k Ms. Harrie etated that if the Camamission �ished, they could act on the lot split � with the stipulation tlnat they �et a recommendation from the ].egal staif oa whether they need a public hearing in this particular case. It would then be up to Council �� to either hold a public hearing as far as the variance gces� or send it back to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Langenfeld stated they should �et a le�al opinion no matter which way they go. Mr. Oquist etated that a vaxiance goes before the Boar� of Appeals� so they could recoffinend approval of the lot split and find out whether or not a variance would be requiredj and if it is, it would �o back anyway�,�to the Baard of Appeals. , Mr. Boardman stated the variance would not n�ed Council action because i� is a residen�ial area. l�c. Aarris stated t}�at if Council wanted to act on it they could� or if there was a diepute on the v$riance request Yrom the Co�uLas3oners� the Staff or the neighbors� it would go to Council. R'!r. Boardman stated that the �s� efPicient wey of hand].ing it would be to act on the lot split� sending it to Council with an action a� i� a vsriance was needed� they would talk to an attorney and then star't processin� it through the Appeala Cot�unis�aion. That way the Council could act on it conditioned upwn Appeal� Conm�ission� or they could hold it and act upon it themselees. � MOTION by Mr. Oquist� �econded by Ms.SuY�°bier� to reca�end to Council approval of �it Request� L.S. #'j9-01, by Allan Fehn: Split ofY the Southerly 222 feet of Lot 23� Auditor's Subdivision No. 90� except the k'est 30 feet of Lot 23� and except the South 30 Feet of said Lot 23� in-to two buildipg sites, as follows: Pareel A. The South 110 feet og Lot 23, A.S. �2, except the South 110 �eet with the exceptions9 and Parcel. B. The South 222 feet of Lot 23y A.S. #92, except the South 11.0 feet and except�est 30 feet of said Lot 23, lacated at the intersection of Gardena Avenue and Benjamin Street N.E.� contingent upon whether or not a variance is needed. U�N A VOICE VO'I'E� ALL VOTING AYE� CAAIRMAN AARRIS DECLARID THE MO'•PION CARRIED UNANIlKOt3�LY . 3. DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT COPY OF THE CONIPREFIENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Mr. Boardman stated th�t a special mee�3ng had been schedu].ed next week for the Planning Commi6sion to discuss this and also the other Comanissions would be discussing it. He stated that they were looking at policy dir�ction rather than the wording of the doc�nent. The discussion should be sbout whether or not they are going in the right direction. He would like to avoid nit-picking on the wordin�, etc. Mr. Oquist stated they should have the time to read the document before discussing it. � � � ,� �� PLANNING CON�IISSION N�TING� APRIL 4, 1979 ,`����� - PAGE 5 ^ Mr. Bo�rd.man stated that the ffieetin� where they gave,the initial presente�tion �1 gave eome direction and s�ne ideas ae to the background o� the policies. Mr. Langenfeld stated it was a fine presentation. Mr. Boardman stat�d this was an important document and needs consideration. They could go through it word for word and lose the d3rection of the policy. Mr. Storla aeked. what had motiv�ted this document. Mr. Boardman stated it was a regulation of th� State, and if the City doesn't do it� the Metropolitan Council �rill do it and char�e the City for it. Ms. Schnabel stated ehe would not be able to attend the epecial �eeting on next Wed.nesday and asked if she should send Pat Gabel. Mr. Boardman said eh� should do that. A�TION by Mr. La�ngenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oq,uist� to continue the discuesiog on the Comprehensive Development Pl.an. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECTsARED T� MOTIOPI CARRIID UIKANIMOUSLY. i�'� 3. PROPOSED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 205. ZOIVING: �� I�TION by I�Ir. Langenfeld� seconded by Ms. Schnabel to move this item to the end o� the a�enda. Th� Coamoissioners request�d that this item appe�r at the end of the agenda from now on. UPOId A VOICE VOTE, ALL yOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID UNADTIN�USLY . 4. RECEIVE ENERGY PROJECT COMMITTEE NffNiFrES: MARCH 14� �979: I�TION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel� to receive the Ener�y Project Committee minutes of N�rch 1�+, 1979. Mr. Harrie stated he had a copy of the minutes which contained more than the minut�s in the agenda book. Mr. Langenfeld stated that what Mr. Harris h�d was the intraduction and the draft. He stated �that was a revised introduction and draft because they were makin� a lot of canmients in regards to it and they Would try to finish it up the next time around. ,—� N1e. Schnabel asked if that �ras the "Draft Proposal - City of Fridley Policy". Mr. Langenfeld stated that was what they were ta].ging about. Ms. Schrssbel aeked if these were the goals and objectives of the Eaergy Project Com�ittee. pLpNNlNG CONB+9ISSION MEETING, APRIL 4, 19?9 _-_ ___ _ PAGE 6 .___.�._._-.. �1 Mr. Lan�enf eld stated they had a chart lietin� all the�items the Planning Commission had reco�¢nended they cover. As they went through it� they were relating '~� the draft to the chart to malte sure they had everything incorporated in the draft. The draft is the goals and objectivea of the City� not juat the Energy Project Committee. Mr. Aarris stated he felt they were right on schedule. NIs. Schnabel stated she was afraid they were �etting bogged. on in goals and objectives. I�. Langenfeld etated they had an introduction which would be preaented to this Conunission with the draft. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTTNG AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MOTION CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSLY . 5. RECEIVE THE PARKS AND RECREATION CONIMISSION MINil7.'ES: MARCH 14� 1979: MdTION by Ms.Suhrbier, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive �the March 1�+� 1979� minutes of the Parks and R�creation Co�nission. A�.Suhrbier st�ted that hope�u].ly, there would be tennis courts at North Park School. Thie was from the Darrell Farr money. Ms. Schnabel stated they were talking about edentually li�hting �those anci asked , � if the neighbors h�d ar�y say in that. � Ma. Suhrbier stated that she was not sure� but it was such a bi� area� the li�ht3ng probab7,y would not effect the neighbors. It would be on the order of Moore Lake and they would be timed. I�r. Iiarris noted that his �rlfe and mother-in-law had attended the Ladies Day Out and had enjoyed it very much. iJPaN A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CAAIRMAN AARRIS DECLARED THE Ma'I'ION CARRIID U�NANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE ENVIRONMEIVTAL QUALITY CONIMISSION MZNUTES: M�CH 20, 1979: N�TION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Mr. Oquist� to receive the March 20� 1979� minutes of the Environmental Quality Co�iseion. Mr. Langenfeld sta�ed that most of the discussion concerned items they w�ere awaitin� information on. He directed the attention of �he Ca�rtni.ssion to the bottom of page �+ snd asked 1�. Harris to read the two letters he had given him. N�. Hsrris read the letters as follows: The first letter wae dated March 22� 1.979 and reads ae follows: ^ �'^�, PLANIVING CONA9ISSION N�ETING� APRIL 4� 1979 - PA� 7 �, �,,;� Dee�r Jim: I hereby aubmit � resignation to the Environmental Quality Commissian. Because of �y other intereste and obligationB� I do not have time to serve on the commissian. I�m pleased to knoRa that I�larvin Hora wiehes to continue aud therefore there will be no problem in filling the vacancy I lee�ve. Sincerel,y yours, A9�cs. R. E. Nktcal� The second letter wa8 dated April l� ig79 and. read as follows: Dear Jim: L recently sent you a letter res3gnin� nar position on the Envirorimental Quality Commission. Subsequently r�r coun�ilm.�n, Dennis Schneider� point�d. out th�t � resignation and the f i�lin� of � position by Marvin Hora would create an imbalance on the co�ission as far as representation of the three ward.s is concerned - i.e., there �rould be three representa'�ives from Wr�rd 1, 2�'rols Ward 3, and none from Ward 2. He ask�d me to reconsid�x iqy res3gnation. I hawe agreed to st�gr on the Co�i.asion in order to continue th� representation of Ward 2. As you know, I h�see not been entire]tiy satisfied with �he accomplishments n of �he ca�is�ion nor o� the way our meeting ici�s have been spent. Let's work to�ether to �pe�d u� the time fbr procedural matters - amendin� minutes �, � and xeceivin� coa,munications - and spend more time on the matters that are oP re�l concern to the com�nission and to �he Ci��y. Our next meetin� is �pril 17. This is al�o �ihe ti.me for th� L�a�ue of Women Voters� annu�l meeting. Since I should like to attend �t leas-t p�rt o� the League�s n�eeting� would you consider delay3ng the EQC staxetin� ti� until 8:15� Sincere�y yours� Connie Metcal�" Both letters were addressed to Mr. Langen�eld with copies to A9�yor Nee. The second letter had a eopy to Council�an Dennis Schiaeider. Mr. Iiarris stated thmt he was not aware that co�niesion members were being appointed according to Wards. Mr. Langenfeld �tsted he was quite upset with the situation. He felt Mr. Hora w�s well qualified. I�. Langenfeld questioned havin� six co�ission members. If Mr. Hora snd Mr. Wilson stay on� that would be six peaple. Mr. Harris asked if there wae a provision in the o�dinance for eix members. /"� Mr. Boardmsn stated he would look at the ordinance and let them know at the er�d � of the meeting. - pLANNING CONAZISSION MEETING, APRIL 4� 1979 __ - PAGE 8 r � Mr. Aarris stated he wa� more concerned about this businesa oY apportionm�ent. � Mr. Bo�rdman et�iced he wauld check the ordinance and they could discuss it at the end of the me�ting. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIIYG AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED T� MOTD�N CARRIED tTNA1VIM0iJSLY . 7, RECEIVE APPEAI,S COMMiISSION MINUI'ES: 1�tcx 27, _�979: A�TIOId by Ma. Schnabel seconde� by Mr. Oquist� to receive the March 27, 1979, m3.nutes of the Appeals Co�ission. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE I+�IO1V CARRIED Ui��USLY . Ch�irman Harris declared a recess �t 8:�5 P.M. and reconvened the �eeting at 9:00 �.M. 8. COI�FI'I1VtlED: PROPOSID CIiANGES I�1 CAAP�t 2A5 • ZOrTING: Mr. Harris stated they had made several recou�endations at the last meeting and would like to revie�r them wi�h l�r. Boardman. � 205.045 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS & SrRUCTURES - Pa�e i3, 2c: Nir. Oquist sta�ed th�,t Mr. Aarrie had q,uestioned the 3 ieet and wond.ered if it shouldn't be 15 feet. They felt �he Fire Depar�ment would require 15 feet. A4r. Boardman stated �that tlae Fire Departmen� did not require 15 Feet� ae long as they h�ve access along the outside of the bu.ild3ng. Mr. H�rris atated he r�membered they had diecusaed this sot� time a�o� and he though�t the buildings had �to be 15 feet apart or have a common wal].. Mr. Boardman stated he �aould check with the Fire Marshall. and if that was tbe case� they would eliminate this statement ml�to�ether. He stated that the on1.y other thing that could happen there would be tha� the Fire Marshall would require a fire frall. Page 13, #2D: Mr. Harris stated he was concerned about allowing a 2�+ foot accessory building in a residential area. He suggested they put a].imitation in R Districts. Mr, Boardman stated that under R-l� there was s height limit of 30 feet� �ahich would incl�e accessory buildings. � Mr. Harris stated they should me�ybe leave the 2�+ feet alone and m�ke a�tipulation � in R-]. to restrict it even iarther. pLANPIING CONII�II3SION MEETING, APRIL 4, 1979 - PAGE 9 r"1 ,,,� Mr. Boardman sug�eeted they change 2D to read as �ollowe: "In all diBtricts except R-1 and R-2 when an acces�ory buildin� exceede 15 feet in height� one (1) oot of addit3onal eetback is required for each three (3) feet of additional height to a h�ight limit o� 24 Peet. In all R-1 �nd R-2 Dietricts� an accessory building shall be limited to a hei�ht of 15 feet. The Commi�sioners concurred.. Page 13, #3: Mr. Harris stated they would like to add canopy and delete �o6f houses beceuse they don't have a definition for roof houses. . � Mr. Oquist stated that #3 on pa�e 13, and �+ on page 14 didn�t fit in with this section. This section deals with accessory sicructure�, and-�3 and ��+ de�].s with main structures. Ms. Schn�bel stated that #3 on pa�e 13 were all accessory structuree, for exampl�, windmills� fla� pales� etc. Mr. Storla stated that same of them did refer ta main buildings� such as dom�s which vrould be on top of the main struc�ture. ^ Mr. Boardman st��ed they felt they were accessory structures. �-•., Nis. Harris etated thc�y did vrant to add csnopies. Mr. L�ngenfeld stated his notes indicated. they wanted to edd canopies to #3C an p��e 11�. Mr. Harris e,�reed. Ms. Schnabel stated that in regards to #3 on page 13, there were no hei�ht linai.tations and sh� felt there should be height limitations for such thin�s as windmills and Ham Radio Towers in residen�ial are�s. Mr. H�rris stated they had a note to rewrite this one. Ms. Suhrbier s�t�ted they should clariPy �ahether these eare for accessory buildings or principal buildings. N�. Bosrdman stated they ha� height limits lieted. in the regular sections. Mr. Oquist stated that a lot of those referred to the main buildinge. Mr. Boardman stated that in the ol.d cade these w�re under "Exceptions to Lot Require�nents/t . � ^ Ms. Schnabel aeked iY there was a he3ght limitation to that. �, Mr. Boardman stated there was not, but they set a limit �here if the etructure falls, it must fall within the property line� so it would not fall and damage � nei�hbors property. � PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING, APRIL 4, 1979 - PAGE 10 �_ � 2dr. Harris su�gested Mr. Boar3man look �t this section and see what he could do. i"� Mr. Boardman agreed. Page 14, �4: Mr. Aarris stated this referred to be�sement dwellings and d�dn't belon� in this � sectis�n. 1Kr. Boardman stated he was looking at deleting this. Ms. Schnabel stat�d that Appeals Covmmission had also suggested this be deleted. The Commissioners concurred. 205.046 REQUIRED YARD AIVD OPEN SPACE Page l�, #3�: Mr. Iiarris stated they wanted to insert canopies in here. Mr. Boardman su.g�ested they insert "canopies" s,iter the word "porches". The Co�nissioners concurred. � Mr. Storla st�ted th�t they had also requested that "required fron't yard" and "required rear yarat" and "required side yard" be changed to "required front setback"� � "required rear setback" and "required side setback". Mr. Boardman stated he had no problem with that. The Coz�nissioners agreed to make the change. Mr. Oquist stated 'chat they had also reco�ended they delete the words "parking or driveways". Mr. Boardman stated he h�d no problem with that. The Commissioners concurred. Page 1�+, #3D: Mr. Harris stated he was concerned that this allowed on a 12 foot balcor�y:_or fire escape. 1�. Boardman stated this meant � . that a fire eacape or balcony could not extend more than 12 feet into the required yard. It did not limit the size of the balcony, as lon� as the building was setback far enough. �7 i"'� PLANNING COMMISSION N�TING� AP�tIL 4� 1979 PAGE 11 �. � � � , Psge 15, i�3E: �� Mr. Aarris eicated they wanted this rewritten becauee it was too wordy. Mr. Boardman stated this meant that if some�thing was hi�her that 2 feet it had to be l� feet from the lot line. If it was less than 2 feet high� it could be on the p'roperty 1"ine, which means a driveway could be on the proper�y line. Mr. Harris stated it wa�s his understanding that a driveway had to be 18 inches fram the property line. Mr. Boardman stated tha�t a policy like that would eliminate common driveways. He stated �hat he had no problem with deleting this item. The Comm3.ssioners agreed to delete #3E. Pa�e 15� #3F: Nlr. Harris stated that they didn't haee a de�inition of "hedge". Nlr. Boardm�n su�gested they delete "or closely grown hed�e". The Commissioners concurr�d. �'1 Page 15, #5A: ^ Mr. BQa,rdman sug�e3ted thcy d�lete this. The Commissioners concurred. Page 15s �'SB: Mr. Harris st�at�d he had a problem with combining sidew�lks And! bikeways. Mr. Boardman stated. that if they wanted to separ��te bikeways and walkways� they would need �5 feet. Mr. Harris stated he taas conc�rned be�ause a]..�dy had been killed by a bicycle. Mr. Boardman stat�d that in some cases� iu order to }save both bikew�ys and �alkwqys� they had to combine them. Mr. Langenfeld stated that where the hazard is increased� they ehould eliminate that. Mr. Boardman stated that they �ould have a problem on Missiseippi Street. He suggested they change it to read "Sidewalk easemente sha11 be permitted at a width no greater than five (5) feet unless included with a bikewqy trail� at which time we would need an ei�ht (8) foot easement:' � Ms. Schnabel stated that he had said they xould need 15 feet for both. �"�> PLANNING CONIMISSION MEErPING, APRIL �� 1979 PAGE 12 � ' /'1 l�r. Boardman ststed that what they may have to look at at that point in time - would be a combination bike�walk within a boulevard area as well ae an 8 foat � easement. Tf they did that, they would haee about 16 f�et froma the curb to the end of the easement. . Mr. Oquist st�ted they needed 15 feet in order to separate the �two. Mr. B�rdman stated it waB a mat�ter of �hat they wanted to do� because they were looking at easemente froan private property. Mr. Harris stated. that vehicular traffic and pedestrian �r�ffic dces not mix. Mr. Boardman suggested they say sidewalk easements should be no greater that 5 foot and Where a sidewalk has a bikeway next to it, they would put in an 8 foot easement. They they could use the boulevard area �or a bike�aay and the easement area for a sidewalk. . The Commissioners concurred. 205.047 AUTOMOBILE PARKING Page 15� #1: Mr. Eaxrie felt it was too wordy. � Mr. Boardanan stat�d, that what they �rere se�,ying was �hat p�xki�ag was such a va�ue -- thir�, that �he�► were letting the developer come in and icell them w�t they need /'1 for parlcing as long as they provide space available for p�rking that �aill meet th� code requirement. Mr. Langenfeld stated that he felt it was still too xordy. Ms. Schn�abel su�ested they delete �he fir.st six words "In a case where it is" and insert the word "Whenp. The Commissioners concurred. Pa�e 16, �3D: Mr. Boardman stated that the Coannunity Develogment Co�i.saion and the Appeals Commiesion had recomzmended this be deleter�. 3`he Commissioners concurred. Page 16, #3F: Mr. Aarris asked why "carpenter shops" wer� included in this section. 1�. Boardman stated he had taken this from Brook�yn Center. � r"'`� � gLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING� APRIL �+, �979 � - PA� 13 Nfr. Boardman stated that inc].uded eimilar uses. He suggested they insert the worde "for e��hfB befor� the worda "five hundred" . The Comaaissioners concurred. Mr. Harris asked what the difference was between 3F, 3K and 3s. I+�. Boardman stated that some retail stores generated more tr�PFic than othera. Mr. Harris recoennended ichey change the word "Undertaking Establishmenta" to "Mortuary" in 3Y. The Co�i.ssioners concurred. The Commissioners requested that Mr. Boardman rework this whole sec�tion because there were several inconsistencies� for example be�ween 3K and 3Z. Ms. Schnabel suggested tk�ey look at established clientele fi�ures to se�t parking. Mr. Bomrdman stated thr,�t in some c�ses the use ch�nges if the business ie sold. He st��ed that parking was difficult �o put a handle on and stated he would rework this section. n 9. aT�x BusT�ss: /`1 Mr. Storl� s�tated tha't his term h�d expi��d the las� day of last month and w€�s ' asked to stay on b�caus� his Commission h�d not yet h�ld eiections. He stated th�t he had enjoyed serving on the Co�nnission �nd ge�tir� to �ow evex°yone. The Co�issioners thankc�d N�. Storla and said they would mi.ss him. Mr. l�rri� st��ed that NJr. Bo�rdman had checke8. the ord.inance regardin� memb�rs of coa�i.ssions, and the ordinance states that the number of cammission members allowed is �ive. He �ta�ed tha-t as Chairman he would likp �he minutes to show that �he Planning Commission has read the ordinance and diacovered that the ordinance requires iive members per co�nnission and perhaps if the Couricil wishes �o deviate from the�t they should consider am�nding the ord.inance. MOTIOId by Mr. T�n�enfeld, seconded by Ms. Schn�bel, to adj�urn the April 4, 1979, meeting of the Planning Coffinission. UPON A VOICE VOTE� AI.L VOTING AYE� CAAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MEETING ADJOIkZNID AT 10:30 P.M. Respectful]�y submitted: �^ !�%�/�• ":�!�;'J°'l.%���`- tl�y elton, ecordi�ecretary. � ��- / a