|
„�i _ _ _ �. _u.;.�'
<br />_ , ._, _ -:
<br />Mounds View Planning Comm�ssion November 17, 1999
<br />Regular Meeting Page 15
<br />of a common or joint driveway servicing both units, the width of the curb cut shall not exceed thirty-
<br />two (32'). He explained this change was proposed, and received significant discussion at the previous
<br />meeting. He advised that the width of the curb cut could be further discussed and specified during
<br />the meeting.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson explained the second change to the ordinance is the;.;`�t�c�ition of the
<br />minimum drive aisle width, as indicated on Page 5 of the ordinance. HP er����zned that after the fact,
<br />he felt the addition ofthis language might not be necessary, and �� fact, ,r�E�y b� ���� limiting, and may
<br />commit the City to a width they did not need or desire in ��u'iure c�E�vr;��������;x�g., I�e stated st�
<br />��
<br />proposes this language be removed, and requested the Cornmission dir��yi: ��}.�-� �� c��� �o. .
<br />. �. _
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the third change is to th�'
<br />it was indicated at the previous meeting, it might be more aI3�
<br />was defined by land use, and presented in a table format, ra
<br />width of the curb cuts was subject to further discussion ,!
<br />of Subd. Se. "��f, c,�;����r��cl that
<br />and clearer if the c�.is°'E� cut width
<br />;�,zrr�ply language. He noted the
<br />__ __
<br />Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commiss�on �ic�� a brief ov� x sr��;�%�� {y� �he table prepared by
<br />staff which indicates that Single Family Res�d�nts�tl �i�c1 i�.����nufactu� �rQ � p;�y;��e curb cut widths are
<br />twenty-four (24') feet, and the current Code al��u�s tw���������.�rci (?,>') ic���` Zero lot line subdivisions
<br />are currently allowed eighteen feet (18') anc� ifie appra,priai�; ��ri�11�. i�� ;rr� to be determined, however,
<br />this curb cut width would be the same�aS;�t appears�in the ]��;�, l�%���r���am Density type of zone.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated`;th�`iabl� fi,���er indica..E€�� thirty-two (32') feet for Medium and
<br />High Density Residential, Commet����l, Indu��� R�1,'��1d th� P�' and CRP Zoning Districts. He advised
<br />that currentl� ihere are no �:€,� 1� e;��t width� �i.���+.� zax� �I�e PF and CRP districts. He explained that
<br />there a.re ���iv��.ays in t��. ��'�� �i atrict, at c'n� ���r?��'"and City Hall, and although a curb cut width
<br />require���t�t�� ���Q��� ���;��: �e necc°�������, n;� ik�es� si.�uatroY►� can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there
<br />is no
<br />Planning Ass����� �'����
<br />, �> :
<br />Subd. Se of�he orc�i�����c
<br />.. ��<,
<br />"Single��amily uses sla
<br />indtc.�ted at the previou�
<br />re����� ir� more curb cuts
<br />i:��e�� ����:, additional lang
<br />�x���c����_a�1�d lots, wh��Y� r'
<br />._ �
<br />�l���x�n. _ �
<br />�,�>,��,���,st��;�� a��r���l��i� change is the addition of language to Section 1121.09,
<br />s�, ��a��Ia ���;ard to the zero lot line subdivided lots, which previously indicated
<br />��� ��s� €;�.x��ted to one curb cut access per property. As the Commission
<br />1-��.,�Ea����, �f that is not extended to the zero lot line subdivided lots, it could
<br />arzd much greater width than intended. Planning Associate Ericson advised
<br />�,t�:ge clarifies this provision, by indicating "Single family uses in zero lot line
<br />epresents the 50-foot section of land that would be limited to one curb cut,
<br />ation for variance from this restriction.” He pointed out there was also a
<br />of Page 6, which refers to Section 1107.03 for more information regarding
<br />divisions.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson explained that previous changes to the ordinance now appear in double
<br />underline, a.nd basically add language to clarify the zero lot line subdivision requirements so they are
<br />no longer ambiguous. He indicated from sta.�s perspective, the only matter left to resolve is whether
<br />
|