05/03/1999 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1998 42 square feet in area or a triangle 6 feet by 14 feet, a minimal impact on impervious surface. 5. Enforcement issues relating to pavement following occupancy. Concerns expressed in opposition to the following amendment: l. Increase in impervious surface thus affecting run-off into the storm sewers. 2. Aesthetics - sea of concrete in front of residential properties. 3. Snow storage on cul-de-sac properties. Staff has suggested an amendment that would provide for a maximum of 36 feet in width excepting cul-de-sac properties where the 26 feet requirement would remain. The cul-de-sac issue was raised due to both aesthetics and snow storage concerns and the amendment was reworded following that discussion. The Planning&Zoning Board held a public hearing on this issue at their September 9, 1998, meeting. Following a discussion, a motion was made to deny the ordinance amendment on a four(4)to three (3)vote. Mr. Don Dunn, 6885 Black Duck Drive, came forward and stated he had voted against the amendment at the Planning &Zoning meeting. He stated the amendment was rejected several times for insufficient data. The City Engineer was not in favor of the amendment. Mr. Brixius indicated no other City has a driveway width of 36 feet. On an R-1 lot the impervious surface allotment is 45%. On an R-1X lot the impervious service would be 40%. He stated it will not look good. He indicated he has a three (3) car driveway and has no problem with a 26' driveway width. He stated the amendment will cause a lot of other problems. He indicated he hopes the amendment is rejected. Council Member Bergeson noted he does not usually vote to over turn the Planning&Zoning Board's recommendations. Council Member Bergeson moved to adopt the FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 09 - 98, as presented. Council Member Dahl seconded the motion. Council Member Lyden stated this would be an avoidable issue if lots are an appropriate size. Mayor Sullivan stated she believes the wider driveways are aesthetically unappealing. She stated she is not in favor of the amendment. Mr. Powell stated the original Ordinance did not have the exclusion of cul-de-sacs. He indicated cul-de-sacs were his main concern. He stated he believes the decision at the Planning&Zoning Board meeting would have been different with the exclusion of cul-de-sacs. The enforcement issue is also a concern. A Certificate of Occupancy is typically issued before the driveway is done. It is an enforcement nightmare for the Building Department. 23