2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

� Mezzenga Access Issues October 17, 2001 Page 2 Option 4. Do not aldow access onto Greenfield Avenue and reject Options 1 and ,2 due to circulation and traffic considerations. This option would basically require that the catch basin be reconstructed because no other location for the driveway would be appropriate. And if the reconstruction is not possible as we have been told, option 5 would effectively prohibit access to Mr. Mezzenga's property. I don't believe the City has the righi to prohibit access to a property. �ption 5, Move the access onto Green�eldAvenue. This option wilI also result in the loss of two parking spots. If the entire alIowed setback is utilized, the access could only be 20 feet wide unless a third parking stall is Iost. If the driveway were located at the southeast corner of the lot, the access could be a standard 24-foot width and only result in two spots being lost because a driveway can be five feet from a property Iine. The obvious drawback to that would be that the driveway would be that close to the adjoining property. A variant of this option would be to take access from Greenfield, although at the minimum 50 feet from the corner, This is however ONLY possible if the parking lot could be shifted to the south by ten feet. The approved variance oniy allows for a 15-foot parking lot setback. The benefit of this variant is that whiie two parking spots would be lost on the east bank, an additional spot could be added on the west side (assuming an approved 5- foot setback) resulting in provision of 14 parking staIls. The other drawback ta this option is that the Planning Commission ha� indicated that access to Greenfield had been discussed and that it would not be apprapriate. T have reviewed the minutes of September 6, 2000, September 13, 2001, January 3, 2001 and January 17, 2001, and while they are :-: � very deta.iled, they do not indicate that any discussion had taken place prohibiting access from� -:l Greenfield Avenue. In fact, the only mention made about access was attributed to Commissioner Thomas, when she asked if they considered placing the ctub cut on Greenfield Avenue rather than County Road I. My response, as indicated in fihe minutes, was as follows: "The problem with placing the curb cut on Crreenfield Avenue is it redaces the amount of azea that can be used for parkir�g. If the buiIding is left in the same orientation there is just bazely enough room to squeeze the driveway back along the adjoining property and then into the parking lot which would eliminate two parking spaces so you lose either part of the parking Iot or part of the building." Other comments were raised at the meetirtgs raising concern about the safety of taking access on County Road I, the City's second most traveled roadway behind County Highway 10, and also because of how close the access would be to the Tom Thumb access. From an access management perspective, a driveway on Greenfield would be much more preferable, and Ramsey County has indicated that access from Greenfield would be their recommendation. Recommendation: Review and discuss the op�ions and provide direction to staff. C��i�,�Q °��'3��:. James Ericson, Community Development Director N:IDATAIGROUPSICOMDEV1Development Cases1De00-002 {Meaenga)1Me�enga Report - Oct 17, 2001.doc