Laserfiche WebLink
i ., <br />, _ <br />---- � � : - . _ <br />i : � --- ,_.__-` - ,a� r _ t <br />- - ------ _ _ _ - - - --: `. :_: �. =.._ -� .>: <br />_ - _ <br />�t . <br />� <br />Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 <br />rl Regular Meeting Page 14 <br />a <br />Corrunissioner Hegland stated his concern was that the City does not acc�uire any expenses due to the <br />holding pond or additional road, and he was otherwise in favor of this proposal. <br />Corrunissioner Stevenson inquired if the City would realize some savings, in terms of the platting of <br />the land. Mr. Cunningham indicated the survey costs and issues of the plat re�uired further <br />clarification however they would carry the plat over to City parcel. , �""'�'" <br />� , �t<;;,�: <br />Commissioner Johnson pointed out that to have a surveyor sirn���;y com� tp x���� �zte t-equires an initial <br />fee. Commissioner Hegland stated he would like to hav�; �;��s �natter �fh�����c� ir� the Plannir��,. <br />Commission's recommendation to the Council. �F :°' <br />�: <br />.�,���� <br /><f�: <br />Corrununity Development Director Jopke explained that ty��g�;�lly �hese issues are �lari.k"i�� %arAS� s��lled <br />out during the Planned Unit Development and Developa��aE��.�,'�'�view �rocesses. I�e i���ica�ec� staff <br />would prepare a resolution for consideration ofthis proposal, �>>a�( ij��in� it forward at the next meeting <br />of the Planning Commission. <br /><. , <br />7. Special Planning Case No. SP-07 <br />A. Discuss revisions to prc�posed O <br />Zoning Code related ta��iriveway� <br />Planning Associate Ericson sta <br />addresses c����l� cuts and driv�� <br />discussion� cs� �1�� propo��c�; c�� <br />for apprt��a ��.� �� ���ar, conr,�N� <br />discussion �4 ����� p��������a�,as rr��a�z;��� <br />this version oi' ����� �t-���a�c;�; <br />inconsistenci,�s. < <br />yun�auzt�l¢. �"����g �'�� ordinance amending the <br />dtfi� Qu�i��� ���R� �uts. <br />�is itern �v�� the c��t��;€ission of proposed Ordinance 642, which <br />idths. t�; s����;t�ie Planning Commission has had significant <br />ce, anc� lsc���i �#�ey can insure that what they are recommending <br />�a:� �oni�dsiY�� in any manner. He pointed out there was some <br />z�'��f��,zero lot line subdivisions, and the emphasis of presenting <br />3� �Y��immission is to address those issues, and resolve any <br />:s <br />, .;� ; <br />��`' '"" • <br />Planniu�� Associate Eric�€��� ���t�jned that the first change addresses the zero lot line subdivision <br />issue} tuith the addition of �,��r���.�� zY on Page 3 of the ordinance. He stated the entire section is new, <br />wxt�t �he exception of th� existing Code, and the addition of Subds. 3d and 3e define driveway and <br />z > l y: <br />c�rb rui widths for zero �6t�t line subdivisions. He explained that Subd. 3d indicates "The width of the <br />��'��7€���r�y servicin�, t��� dwelling unit would not exceed the width of that dwelling unit's garage. <br />�li�,¢� ����.r>�r�� ����� b� side driveways shall maintain a minimum four-foot (4') separation unless the <br />���� ���? �������t `�� owners have filed a right-of-way and maintenance agreement with Ramsey County <br />ac�c�� �,rh�b` c� �hc 1�y�ovisions of Section 1121.15 Subd. 2 of this Title pertaining to joint driveways." <br />He advised this language was already present in the Code, and must be in place to explicitly address <br />joint driveways. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated Subd. 3e defines the width of the curb cut, arad indicates "The <br />width of the curb cut servicing one dwelling unit shall not exceed eighteen feet (18'). In the event <br />