|
_'_ ' _
<br />r� -_= .�.�. _------ � _._-- ---r. ,>, - --- - _ . _. _- --
<br />-_______ _. _ .__�... � . . _ ' �� � :; - -.. _� _ ._. i .. . . . .�x�� "' _
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999
<br />Regular Meeting Page 18
<br />Commissioner Laube stated he would prefer to see thirty-six (36'), in that if there is a standard
<br />twenty-two foot (22') garage, with zero lot lines, and a four-foot separation, the driveway would be
<br />thirty-six feet (36') straight back from each garage door.
<br />Commissioner Hegland inquired if the proposed language would indicate a limit of
<br />for adjoined driveways, and if there is a four-foot separation between the drivewa�
<br />(20') curb cuts would be permitted.
<br />�,��
<br />:.>::<����,,,
<br />Commissioner Stevenson stated this sounded reasonable. �;;;;;�;;»��
<br />�:_�:<>,,
<br />,<<::<..�
<br />Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the draft language �iy�'FS��bd
<br />to be adequate. He advised they were attempting to pr�s� ;�,� ���
<br />amount of asphalt on small lot. He explained that many �3���ii.��, ��
<br />the garage, and through this language, single family homes v���� ��c�
<br />an additional twelve feet (12'). He advised that ifthis pro��s��Y� ��i��
<br />subdivisions, there could potentially be forty (40') feet df`drivew�
<br />no front yard. He noted the proposed language sp�,r,� ��;���� addre
<br />and no other use.
<br />�� <;
<br />Chairperson Peterson stated was a fi�
<br />had lived in, and there were shrubs, 1
<br />there was language in the right-of way
<br />the other resident to drive on you�- p�c��
<br />language to incorporate, and may �e
<br />Plannin�} ���3ca�i��� Eri�
<br />dwellin�� ����a� ��� �.. �:e
<br />adjoinij�� c�s���.r���x��y� �
<br />delete the mini�z��=.rx� ci�
<br />the twenty (20'�} ��at� i
<br />column of t�et'tabl� x-�fi
<br />had be� inadvertently
<br />r�`3 ,'
<br />be ap�i�opriate for this
<br />issioner c
<br />a�i.o�s be
<br />ix feet (36')
<br />twenty-foot
<br />. U�� the �.o�� ��� s's.�;,; <, ap�€�red
<br />a�rist the potenii�� ���"�g� ���zeessive
<br />��v�-; driveways �h�t ��-� as wide as
<br />��r;��;�irted to exparnc� ihis width by
<br />��; i t3����aed over to the zero lot line
<br />�y �ra �a,s3� �ide of the garage, and
<br />ss�� tka�; ��p,-�''lot line subdivisions,
<br />c�t:'separat�p� be�r�lT�;c.�< z�i� �i�;veways ofthe townhome he
<br />�.� i`
<br />�caping, �,�d mail ��, �;� ���' cf�ai area. He stated, however,
<br />rnamtenance agre��nent, which indicated they must allow
<br />, to cz-4ss the dn�e��vays. He explained this might be good
<br />�.:.
<br />dard i�ngua�� �'t�"r mortgage companies, as well.
<br />a,� st���� ���, i�ould r,����t�� ;.�te ma�cimum width for a driveway servicing one
<br />� Iv;.'��J�=�ra :,�����iv��lor� �o ��wenty feet (20'), with a maximum curb cut for
<br />ihi� �y ���e, a��� (�6') in both sections of the ordinance. He stated he would
<br />��; F���Ic �vic�'r.� Ii��ai���ion indicated on Page 5, and change the table to reflect
<br />�� ,���:>i,, �c�oi �:��g} �vidths. He stated he would also indicate that the second
<br />�<, t��:� ������irnum curb cut width. He explained that the R-O Zoning District
<br />x���:@E;�'i ����a,ri'the table, and suggested that a sixteen-foot (16') curb cut might
<br />requested the provision pertaining to adjoined driveways in the zero lot line
<br />in the table for clarification.
<br />�:����c��r��<;�da����,<lUliller inquired if the language in, Subd. e, on Page 6 of the ordinance would be
<br />afx���r��;�� '� ��ndicate a twenty-foot (20') maximum curb cut.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this subdivision addresses zero lot line subdivided lots, as well as
<br />typical R-21ots, and it would be logical to make this consistent.
<br />
|