Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 05-11 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION May 11 , 1978 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . Roll Call : Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson, Book, Hawes and Theis. Also present were Director of Plan- ning and Inspection Blair Tremere, Director of Public Works James Merila and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Approve Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner 4-6-78 and 4-27-78 Book to approve the minutes of the April 6, 1978 meeting and submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki, Jacobson, Book and Hawes. Not voting: Commissioner Theis who was not present at that meeting. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the April 27, 1978 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Pierce Arrives: Commissioner Pierce arrived at 8:10 p.m. Application No. 78023 Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of (Brooklyn Center Industrial consideration was Application No. 78023 submitted by Park, Inca . Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Incorporated. The Secretary stated the Planning Commission had reviewed the application for Special Use Permit and Site and Building Plan approval for a bowling alley to be located on Freeway Boulevard, east of Shingle Creek Parkway, at its April 27, 1978. He continued that approval of the bowling establishment and restaurant had been recommended to the City Council , but that consideration of the proposed game room/recreational facility had been tabled pending further review. The Secretary stated the applicant had submitted a letter outlining the management policies of the recreational facility. He commented that, in previous applications for special use permits for recreational facilities, the applicant had proposed to occupy an existing tenant space, while this applicant would occupy a new building, and the recreational facility would be incidental to the primary use of the estab- lishment. He stated that the building was designed for better control of the recreational games facility. For example, he explained that the applicant had indicated that the games could be controlled by a master switch located at the main counter. Chairman Engdahl stated that the applicant's letter covered his concerns regarding the facility. He recognized Mr. Jim Madden, owner of the bowling alley, who explained that he intended to employ adult manage- ment personnel . He continued that the primary business of the establishment would be bowling, and therefore, it was to the advantage of the management to keep the electronic games under control so that the bowlers would not be disturbed. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , Mr. Madden stated that the site improvements would include bicycle racks. -1- 5-11-78 Following a brief discussion of the requirements of Recommend Approval of past approvals of recreational facilities, there was a Application No. 78023 motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner (B.C.I.P. Inc. ) Theis to recommend approval of a Special Use Permit under Application No. 78023 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Incorporated, relative to electronic and mechanical games, subject to the following conditions; 1 The Special Use Permit is issued to the owner as operator, and is nontransferable. 2. The use is subject to all applicable ordinances and regulations, including special licensing requirements, and violation thereof shall be.grounds for revocation of the permit. 3. House rules and hours of local curfew regulations shall be clearly posted in the establishment, and shall be rigorously enforced. 4. Provision shall be made for -a bicycle parking rack located in a manner approved by the Planning and Inspection Department. 5. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to review on an annual basis. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of consideration was Application. No. Application No. 78026 78026 submitted by Harvey Stevens. The Secretary (Harvey Stevens) explained the application was for a variance to build an addition to a nonconforming structure at 5334 Fremont _Avenue North. He showed a transparency of the general area and noted that the property was located in the R-2 (Two-Family Zoning District). The Secretary reviewed a transparency of a survey oil the applicant's property. He explained that the structure was noncomplying with regard to the front setback and that it was located approximately 31 feet from the front property line. He continued that the applicant proposed an addition which would be within the ordinance set�ack requirements. He continued that noncomplying structures were relatively common in the Southeast Neighborhood, and noted that the structures on the adjacent lots were also set back less than 63 feet. Chairman Engdahl questioned whether the structure would have to be brought up to code. The Secretary explained the Building Code provisions. Commissioners Pierce and Theis noted that the proposed addition was entirely within the setback requirements, and Commissioner Pierce commented that, since the proposed addition was located less than 10 feet from the property line, no openings would be permitted on that side. Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing had Public Hearing been scheduled and recognized the applicant. In re- sponse to questions from the Commissioners, the appli- cant stated that the addition was proposed for the side of the house because of the room layout of the house. He stated that the exterior finish would be white aluminum siding which would match that of the existing house. He stated the house was one -story and that the roof line of the addition would tie in with the existing roof line. He stated the shingles would match the shingles on the existing house. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Rarig of 5340 Fremont Avenue North who spoke in favor of the application. 5-11-78 -2- Close Public Hearing Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commis- sioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed, unanimously. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the Secrets y explained that it was the policy of the Com- mission to review all applications for additions to noncomplying structures. Commissioners Hawes pointed out that the lot survey showed the addition to be approximately 28 feet in depth, and that to meet the 35 foot minimum setback it would hive to be somewhat less than 27 feet. Commis- sioner lierce questioned whether setting the addition back 35 feet interfered with the layout of the room. The applicant responded that it would not, but that locatin the addition flush with the front of the house w uld somewhat simplify the construction of the additioi . The Secretary explained that design con siderat ons alone were not legal bases for granting a variance. Recommend Approval of Motion y Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commis- Application No. 78026 sioner 11alecki to recommend approval of Application No.0, (Harvey Stevens) 78026 submitted by Harvey Stevens, finding that the noncomplying setback is consistent with other homes . in the mmediate, vicinity and with the existing set- backs o houses throughout the general area of the Southeast Neighborhood. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 . Exterior finish of the addition shall be compatible with 'that of the existing dwelling. 2. The structure shall be brought into code compliance as determined by the Building Official under the Building Code. The motion passed unanimously. -Application No. 78028 The next item of consideration was Application No. (Robert Grosshans) 78028 submitted by Robert Grosshans. The Secretary explain d the application was for a variance from Section 35-400 to permit a house addition which would encroaci into the rear yard at 6920 Lee Avenue North. The Sec etary showed a transparency of the general area, aid of a site plan of the applicant's property. He expl fined that-the subject property was of tri- angular shape and was unique in that, while it was the las lot on Lee Avenue, it was not a corner lot. He explained that this was due to the street config- uration in the area where Brooklyn Boulevard inter- sected he north-south and east-west streets at an angle. The Sec etary stated that the general area was one of the "pr blem areas" which would be reviewed in Compre- hensive Planning. He explained that the property adjacent to the applicant's on Brooklyn Boulevard was zoned C-1 and was presently contained single-family dwellin s and a two-family dwelling. He stated the houses vere rental property and that the properties were ap roximately 127 feet deep. He reviewed the ordinan a standards for development of C-1 property, which iricluded a 50 foot setback from a major thoroug fare, a 40 foot rear setback and a 35 foot front g eenstrip. He stated there would only be 37 feet to use for building and that it appeared that under s ch circumstances it may be difficult- to develop ° 04 uses. He stated the area would be reviewed in further detail with the Comprehensive Planning. -3 5-11-78 The Secretary next reviewed the applicant's site plan. He noted that the lot exceeded the ordinancL minimum standards for square footage, but that because,of its configuration, the proposed 16' x 18' addition would come within 17 feet of what initially appeared to be the legal "rear lot line. He stated that in 1975, the ordinance minimum rear setback was changed from 40 feet to 25 feet, and that the applicant sought a variance of approximately 8 feet. A discussion ensued relative to the location of the house on the property. The City Engineer commented that the house met the 40 foot rear yard setback in effect at the time it was built. He further explained the proposed addition would be approximately 17 feet from the "side" line, which is within ordinance standards, and approximately 21 feet from the "rear" property line, which would require a variance of approximately 4 feet. The Secretary referred to a letter submitted by the applicant which addressed the issues of hardship and uniqueness He stated the applicant had indicated that - with the proposed addition there would be a total build- ing ground coverage of 1 ,672 square feet on the lot. ` He continued that, since the lot area was 13,964 square feet, 88% of the lot area would be yard area. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant and noted that it seemed possible to build an addition the sane area as that proposed within ordinance setback standards: The applicant responded that a longer,` narrower addition would cover the bedroom windows. He reviewed floor plans of the house and proposed addition and showed that the configuration he had proposed was the only feasible alternative. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , he stated no windows were proposed for' ths east side of the addition. Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had be_n Public Hearing scheduled. No one spoke relating to the application. Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed- unanimously. A discussion ensued. Commissioner Malecki questioned what the effect of granting the variance would have cn the C-1 property line. along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary responded that'one effect of the variance would be to lessen the buffering area between the single family residence and the commercial area H2 stated the matter of the adjacent C-1 zoning had been reviewed in order to bring a "problem" area to the Commission's attention. He commented that the Commis- sion may eventually review the possibility of rezoning the entire block to a common zoning. He pointed out that the residential properties along Lee Avenue North, including the applicant's house, were well maintained, while the rental property on Brooklyn Boulevard could be characterized as deteriorating. Commisioner Pierce questioned whether the applicant would be willing to decrease the size of the addition in order to stay within the setback. The applicant responded that the 16 x ,18 ft. addition was necessary to accomplish his purpose. A brief discussion'followed regarding the possibilities of changing the design of the addition to meet the setback requirements. It was the general consensus that such design changes would be prohibitive. 5-11-78 -4- Comniss over Pierce noted that the lot shape was unique and no precedent would be set by granting the variance. Commissioner Theis stated that the exterior finish of the addition should be compatible with the existind dwelling. The applicant responded that it would be. Recommend Approval of Motion ty Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Application No. 78028 Book to recommend approval of Application No. 78028 (Robert Grosshans) submitted by Robert Grosshans, provided the exterior finish of the addition be compatible with the existing dwelling, for the following reasons: 1 . The lot is of unique shape due to area subdivision and street design factors. 2. The request is within the intent of the ordinance yard setback and variance standards 3. The lot area substantially exceeds the ordinance minimum area requirements for interior lots. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 78025 The next item of-consideration was Application No. (David Brandvold) 78025 submitted by David Brandvold. The Secretary introduced the item, stating the applicant sought approval of the preliminary plat for the area at 69th Avenue and Irving Avenue (extended). The Secretary showed transparencies of the area, and of the proposed plat. He stated the subdivision would create nine single-family lots from three existing un- platted parcels. He commented that when the Horbal Addition to the east had been platted, 30 feet had been dedicated for anticipated Irving Avenue. He stated that Irving Avenue was no longer proposed to go through to 69th Avenue. He explained that the proposed sub- division comprehends the extension of Irving Lane to the east, where it would curve to the north and connect with existing Irving Avenue North. The Secretary continued that a similar plat had been approved by the City Council under Application No. 75033. He stated the only change from that approved subdivision was a change in the width of the six lots south of Irving Lane. He noted that the earlier sub- division comprehended the two easterly lots south of Irving Lane as being "corner" lots, and therefore, indicated a 90 foot width. He stated that since it would be recommended that the Irving Avenue dedicated half-street be vacated, it would not be necessary to have 90 foot width lots. He continued that the appli- cant proposed a width of approximately 81 .5 feet for all six lots. He stated that permanent half streets are not permitted under the City's Subdivision Ordinance and with the approval of this plat, vacation of the street dedication would be recommended, in the future. Discussion ensued relative to the proposed subdivision.' Commissioner Pierce questioned whether the three parcels were under common ownership. The Secretary responded that the applicant owned all three parcels. Commission- er Pierce also questioned whether the City could retain. the 30 feet dedication as a pedestrian right-of-way. The Secretary answered that it could be retained as right-of-way or that easements for a pedestrian walkway ` could be required when the property reverted to the Horbal Addition. He pointed out that the R-4: property the east was currently substandard in width,..and that return of the roadway dedication would allow for an ordinance standard width. -5- 5-11-78 He also explained that, since the apartments on the R-5 property east of the proposed subdivision had been built before the current ordinance buffering requirements, the applicant should buffer the adjacent R-1 property by means of opaque screening to be installed after the houses are built and with input from the new homeowners. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , the Secretary stated that all the proposed lots would exceed the ordinance minimum standards in width and area. Com- missioner Pierce inquired whether public utilities were available. The City Engineer responded that they were. The City Engineer explained that dedication of a "sliver" of land on the lots along 69th Avenue should be required as a condition of approval in order to accommodate the future upgrading of County Road 130. He stated that land had been taken from the Earle Brown Apartment site and from the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inca property along 69th Avenue North. Chairman Fngdahl questioned whether -the dedication would t. affect the area of the lots. The Secretary responded that the lots would still meet ordinance standards. Commissioner Pierce inquired when the upgrading was to take place. The City Engineer responded that upgrading of County Road 130 was scheduled in the County's plans and was anticipated to take place before 1984. Commissioner Book stated he was concerned with providing a pedestrian path from the subdivision to 69th Avenue North He stated there were foot paths worn across the vacant property at present, and that he foresaw their continued use since using streets to reach the com- mercial area at 69th and Humboldt involved a much greater distance. The Secretary stated that approval of the plat would not affect the status of the street dedication and explained that only a vacation action by the City Council would revert the property to its previous owners. He explained it would be possible to require a pedestrian easement at the time of the vacation of the roadway. He noted that there was a walkway easement provided in a similar situation at 67th and Emerson Avenues to' the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. The City Engineer stated that since vacation actions ar^ not referred to the Planning Commission, notation of a need for provision of a pedestrian easement could be made with approval of the preliminary plat. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , the City Engineer stated that the cost of the street improvements would be the developer's responsibility. Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been Public Hearing scheduled and recognized the applicant. Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the applicant expected to develop the lots this year. The applicant responded in the affirmative and expressed his desire to have the plat showing 81 .5 foot width lots. It was noted no one spoke 'relating to the application. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Close Public Hearing Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion .passed unanimously. Commissioner Theis inquired whether any park dedication was required with this subdivision. The Secretary responded that, although the State allows municipalities to require park dedication with subdivision approvals, Brooklyn Center had not required such a dedication and had acquired park land through other means. - 5-11:-78 -6 In a brief discussion concerning the street configur- .ation of the subdivision, the City Engineer stated that Irving Lane would be a full width street and that a normal residential turning radius of 15 feet would be provided where it joins Irving Avenue. Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Application No. 78025 Malecki ,to recommend approval of Application No. 78025 (David Brandvold) submitted by David Brandvold subject to the following conditions: 1 . Final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The Subdivision agreement shall comprehend provision for opaque screening along the easterly portion of the subdivision adjacent 'to proposed Lot 1 , Block 2, which is con- sistent with ordinance requirements and is approved by the City. 4. Dedication of a sliver of land for the 69th Avenue right-of-way, as verified by the City Engineer, shall be indicated on the final plat. 5. Any future consideration by the City Council of vacation of proposed Irving Avenue should include the possibility of providing a pedestrian walkway easement from Irving Lane to 69th Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. Recess The Planning Commission recessed at 9:45 p.m. and resumed at 10:05 p.m. Application No. 77064 The next item of consideration was Application No. (Gene Hamilton) 77064 submitted by Gene Hamilton. The Secretary explained that the item was an appeal from the ad- ministrative ruling by the Building Official that a carport accessory structure erected without a permit and attached to the front of the house extending 20 feet into the front yard setback at 6230'Lee Avenue North cannot be permitted. The Secretary continued that the application had originally been considered at the November 10, 1977 meeting and was subsequently considered on December 8 and 15, 1977 and February 23, 1978. He explained the applicant's contention that the structure erected in the front yard was not a carport, but a "canopy" which is permitted, under Section 35-400, to encroach into any yard. The Secretary showed slides of the applicant's property and the structure erected thereon. Next he showed slides which had been taken throughout the City of various canopies, awnings and carports. The Secretary reviewed the application, and stated it was not a variance application to permit the carport in the front yard, but was an appeal from the admini- strative ruling that under the current ordinance, the structure would not be permitted. He stated that the current ordinance does not define "carports" or specifically regulate their location. He added that a carport is, however, defined by use and is an accessory structure; and therefore, is subject to the setback requirements for accessory structures. -7- 5-11-78 He continued that a carport is differentiated from a canopy. He stated that ordinances of other municipal- ities had been researched, and offered composite definitions for canopies and carports: A canopy is an accessory roof-like structure which covers a pedestrian walkway and is open on all sides except where it is attached to a building; a carport is an accessory roof-like structure located over, or designed to cover, an off-street parking space which is enclosed on not more than two sides. Chairman Engdahl stated that the decision before the Planning Commission .was whether the subject accessory structure could be permitted to encroach into the established front yard setback. The Secretary commented that the significance of the Planning Commission's determination was a precedent for interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance's standards and intent. Chairman Engdahl polled the Commissioners. Commissioner Pierce stated it was his opinion that the structure was not a canopy, but a carport, and as such violates the current setback standards. He stated he was not in favor of granting a variance because there was no uniqueness involved, and was in favor of 'upholding the Building Official 's ruling. He further stated that he felt the Commission should discuss the possibility of amending the Ordinance to permit such a structure to encroach into the front yard. Commissioner Book commented that there was no uniqueness involved, that the front setback requirement was 35 feet for any structure, that the carport is an accessory structure, and that he was in favor of upholding the Building Official 's ruling. He continued that he felt the issue of whether a carport could be' located: in the front setback should be further discussed. Commissioner Hawes stated that he had a yard, house, and parking situation, but that, even though the appli- cant's neighbors might approve of his carport, it way not permitted by the current ordinance and he was in favor of upholding the Building Official 's ruling. Commissioner Theis questioned whether a canopy could extend to the property line. The Secretary responded - that it could extend to the property line, but not to the street. Commissioner Theis stated he did not fee] the structure was a canopy, and felt the Building Official was right in determining it was not permitted under the Ordinance. Commissioner Malecki stated she agreed with the Building Official that the use of the structure was a carport. She also commented that her own situation was similar to the applicant's, but that the structure was not permitted under the Ordinance. Commissioner Jacobson stated she was in favor of upholding the Building Official 's ruling. She stated that carports, canopies, and awnings should be defined in the Ordinance to clarify interpretation.. She stated that she had no objection to carports, but she did not feel they should be permitted to encroach into the front yard setback. Chairman Engdahl also stated he was in favor of upholding the Building Official 's ruling, and that he was not in favor of amending the Ordinance to permit' carports to encroach into the front yard. 5-11-78 -8 Chairman` Engdahl recognized the applicant. The appli- ;cant ,stated that .he agreed with the Building Official 's !requirement for a building permit. He explained that he had researched the Ordinance and since there was no mention of carports in the Ordinance, he felt the structure could be defined as a canopy. He stated he un erstood the current Ordinance restrictions, but ur ed the Commission to'.reconsider amending the Or inance. He stated that when he had come before the Co ission in December, he detected some feeling among th Commissioners that there would be merit in re- co sidering the Ordinance standards. He quoted from th minutes of the December 8 and 15 meetings to su port his contention. Th applicant reiterated his reasons for urging an Or inance amendment. He stated that lifestyles had ch nged since the 195)'s when the homes in his neighbor- hood had been built. He continued that in the 1950's single car families w re common, but that today it was. common to have more t an one car, and that particularly in a climate such as innesota 's, it was necessary to have protection forte cars. He stated that, after using the carport for the winter, he was convinced there was a safety fa for involved; that the car was frost-free in the morning and there was no visibility problem. He continued that, in addition to the safety factor, carports could enhanca the aesthetics of a neighbor- hood by breaking up tie "look-alike" appearance of the houses on the street. He stated the structure was useful and that it was harmi�ess. He noted that a ..petition had been submitted which was signed by all of his neighbors indicating their support of his appli- cation. He concluded by stating that the Ordinance could be .amended_. to allow carports-such as his to encroach in the front yard, but should clearly limit the size and location of carports to. prevent any type of hazardous situatio . An extensive discussi n ensued relative to the possi- bility of revising tha Ordinance. Chariman Engdahl stated that he felt t e issue was City-wide in scope. Commissioner Hawes su gested that there was some type of "uniqueness" in th applicant's situation in that he had a recessed dri eway and the carport was perhaps not obtrusive. He pointed out, however, that the rodinance standards have to apply to all similar properties in the City, and that the Commission should consider the impact of carports in other situations. The Secretary explain 2d to the applicant the steps involved in amending an Ordinance. He stated that, .if it was the Commission's intent to recommend an Ordinance change, the applicant would be permitted to retain the structure pending the outcome of the Ordinance amendment. Commissioner Book questioned whether the applicant could still seek a va iance. The Secretary responded that he could, but th it the Commission had indicated there was no uniqueness or hardship involved in the application, and that it would be the applicant's responsibility to pro a that a uniqueness and hardship existed. Motion to Recommend Denial Following further dis ussion there was a motion by of Application No. 77064 Commission Hawes seco ded by Commissioner Jacobson to (Gene Hamilton) recommend denial of A plication No. 77064 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton and to uphold the Building Official 's ruling that a carport accessory structure erected with- in the front yard set ack cannot be permitted. -9- 5-11-78 Commissioner Book stated the Commission should address the issue of amending the Ordinance to permit carports in the front yard setback. Chairman Engdahl polled the Commissioners. Commissioner Theis stated he was in favor of denying the appeal . He stated that carports in the front yard setback perhaps could be allowed by special permit only where it was determined by theCity to- be the only possibility for the homeowner. Commissioner Hawes was in favor of denying the appeal and stated he did not recommend amending the Ordinance. Commissioner Book stated he was in favor of amending the Ordinance. Commissioner Pierce stated he was in favor of denying the appeal , but felt that the issue of carports in the front yard warranted further careful review. Commissioner Malecki also favored denying the appeal and agreed with Commissioner Theis that perhaps carports in the front yard could be allowed only by special permit under specific carefully defined circumstances. Commissioner Jacobson was in favor of denying the appeal, . and stated that she was not in favor amending the Ordinance. Chairman Engdahl agreed, stating he, too, was opposed to amending the Ordinance. The Secretary stated the Commission could act on the appeal and direct the staff to prepare ordinance language to be reviewed at the study session regarding the encroachment of carports into the front yard. Chairman Engdahl stated he was ready for a vote on Vote on Application the appeal matter. Voting in favor: Chairman No. 77064 Engdahl , Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki , Hawes, and (Gene Hamilton) Pierce Voting against: Commissioner Book. Not voting: Commissioner Theis. The motion passed. Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Action Directing Book to direct the staff to prepare amendatory ordi- Draft Ordinance nance language as discussed for review at the study; Amendments meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of consideration was Application No. . , Application No. 78029 78029 submitted by Meadow Corporation. The Secretary _ (Meadow Corporation) stated the applicant site, and building plan approval for the third phase of "The Ponds Planned Residentiil Development near 73rd and Unity Avenues North. He said the item was presented for informational purposes at this time.The Secretary showed a transparency of the site showing the 8 proposed phases of development. He stated that Phases l and 2 were currently under construction and consisted of two unit "condominium single family attached buildings'. He continued that the applicant proposed to develop Phases 7 and.8 as indicated on the Master Plan in the third construction phase. He con- tinued that standard townhouses of three or more at- tached units were comprehended for this phase. He stated that the applicant intended to rent the town- houses, but proposed to plat them individually for possible future sale. 5-11-78 10 - The Secretary explained that-a number -of revisions had t �n "made from the or ginally approved Master Plan in cl,'�ding a reduction o the total number of units from 114 to 112 units in P ases 7 and 8, and a reconfigur- ation of the private oadway. He stated the applicant would be submitting a proposed revision to the Master Plan as well as a proposed preliminary plat for this particular phase. He continued that the revision of the Master Plan comprehends adjustment of the phase lilnes ,since the proposed 112 units and related open space had been designed within the approved Phases 7 and 8, but did not re ui're :all of the land within those phases. The Commission review d the site plan. The City Engineer explained that one of the reasons for the re- configuration of the hase was due to poor soil con- ditions in the area. The Secretary stated hat the application was presented for the Commission's review and reaction to the design layout. He stated there was a concern with the pro- posed parking design, which was 2 open spaces per unit in front of each unit and which was directly adjacent to the required 15 ft. greenstrip resulting in paved driveway in lieu of most of the greenstrip and street boulevard. A discussion ensued r lative to the parking. Commis- si'oner Hawes question d why tandem spaces would not be permitted. The Secre ary pointed out that this would mean parking in the d iveway on the boulevard which is not permitted. Comnissioner Pierce pointed out that the proposed parking Jesign meant a loss of greenstrip since the boulevard ii front of each unit would be covered by the blackt p driveway. Commissioner Hawes commented that tenants would be forced to back out onto Unity Avenue, a publi street. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Duane Dietrich, who stated that there was conceptually little change between the proposed master plan and the approved Master Plan. He stated the major difference was in relocating nine units to the west side of Unity Avenue. He continued that the landscaping proposed for the revised Master Plan was the same as the original Master Plan, but that the plantings would be relocated to different areas. Table Application No. 78029 following further dis ussion regarding the site plan (Meadow Corporation) and the building elevations, there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes se onded by Commissioner Pierce to table Application No. 78029 submitted by Meadow Corporation until the next meeting when the applicant would provide an amended master plan and to permit the .applicant to work with staff in considering amendments to the parking provisions. Other Business: In other business, th Commission briefly reviewed a matter related to a proposed home at the northeast corner of 62nd and Ca den Avenues North, and specific- ally to the proposed attached garage locations. The Secretary explained t at the property is a corner lot and the layout propos d an attached garage on the 62nd Avenue side, 35 feet rom the property line. . He stated Section 35-! 30 states accessory buildings may not be erected within the side yard adjacent to the street of a corner to . He commented that the proposed garage was not "withi " the side yard, but that one interpretation of thi section is that accessory buildings should not a on the street side .of a corner lot - to assure drive ay locations as far from the intersection as possible. -11- 5-11-78 The Secretary reviewed the history of, this section and suggested that, with the adoption of yard setback re- cuirements over the years, this section was not needed. [fie did recommend that consideration be given to adopting, instead, minimum distance requirements for driveway r openings from intersections. ,. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed layout was within ordinance standards, and that a draft ordinance amendment.should be reviewed regarding the minimum distance between corner lot curb cuts and intersections. Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Adjournment Theis to adjourn the meeting. The-motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12.25 a.m. Chairma 5-11-78 -12P