|
_ -_ � -
<br />r y ,
<br />� , ,
<br />� � __��' ��I .. - � .== - _ I r-� �� E -�- ..� - - - - � -- --�-'i _ �,.
<br />' _".' _" . _ _________ ' ' _"__. . .. .._.__ .__-.' .. -_..� _ __ �- .._ .. �� _ F __ ".
<br />Mounds View Pl�tnning Commission November 17, 1999
<br />Regular Meeting Page 16
<br />or not the stated widths are appropriate, and the Commission is requested to discuss this, and possibly
<br />forward this ordinance to the City Council with a resolution at their next meeting.
<br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if the second column of the table is intended to reflect the maximum
<br />width of curb cuts. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. r
<br />Chairperson Peterson pointed out that this should be indicated, to cl
<br />permissible. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a goca;�..point. ;;
<br />Corrunissioner Stevenson inquired if the intention of the lan�uage in
<br />the R-1 Zoning District, is to allow twelve feet (12'), in at��'ition to
<br />of a triple wide garage. Planning Associate Ericson stai.�,�� ��:aic> w�
<br />fiv�
<br />widths are
<br />___ ___ _
<br />__
<br />_ _ _ __ __...
<br />__
<br />_
<br />Commissioner Miller pointed out this language speci�es p.;��� �r����� <., o,f the attached parking area,
<br />however, not the length. Planning Associate Ericson stated this �;���: „�t� ,c;i,. He explained the Code
<br />provides there are some limitations on the amount of gravel that ;� ��,�� r���� c��r�, �iowever, there are no
<br />restrictions in terms of an attached parking pad.
<br />Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding
<br />Silver Lake Road and Knollwood Drive. ,�;
<br />Plaiuung Associate Ericson expl�
<br />feet (40') wide, and with the
<br />driveways and two eighteen-fo
<br />Commi 9si����
<br />typically C'/ s��a
<br />feet betwe�n ���
<br />negotiate, wh
<br />would be more
<br />curb cuts i����E
<br />�ig,) _ �`��
<br />h;�
<br />. ��;.
<br />units located on
<br />h�t; the cur.b.:.::�uts of th�„units on Silver Lake Road are all forty
<br />3<;� < :�
<br />�t�on of r�t�e propert� "on Knollwood Drive, which has two
<br />') curb �:���, Yh� Qtk��i's are forty feet (40') as well.
<br />egland �t�r�r� ,� ���r��l�l tw� �.���- b�r�ge is twenty-two (22') wide; and a vehicle is
<br />��,�. vvide. �-t� �;��7���ir�cd i� t��� case oia driveway, where there is approximately two
<br />,�£;�, �?�d �� ca� ��; �;�:����;� ��� the driveway, the narrow curb cut would be difficult to
<br />����;��?�����as; i,a i��7�;�,, ��,�L �i"the garage. He advised that a forty-foot (40') curb cut
<br />p�'c��.��fb1� ';�� s���i:cc� .���e 6 ofthe ordinance, pertaining to zero-lot line subdivision
<br />� rJivp.� d�:g, ;'rir�u�d be amended to reflect twenty feet (20'), rather than eighteen feet
<br />eterson pointed C��at the eighteen-foot (18') requirement is also indicated on Page 4 of the
<br />c� in Subd. 1. �''
<br />�,; _;,
<br />, .;:,:�
<br />'%�%�,t���E�� t���,�;r� ������nd commented that the forty-foot (40') curb cuts already exist within the City,
<br />���r� �i �q ,. <<y �.c�P �� v�c�i�ld allow the resident to back straight out of the garage. He added that the wider
<br />cur� ���� +�vuu►d be helpful for snow removal purposes, and would present a much better design.
<br />Commissioner Johnson stated he agreed. He pointed out that a wider curb cut would benefit those
<br />residents with boats and recreatiqnal vehicles, as well.
<br />
|