My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2012/07/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
Agenda Packets - 2012/07/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:07 PM
Creation date
6/26/2018 3:07:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/23/2012
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/23/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council June 11, 2012 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br />home and would be in need of additional parking available in his rear yard. Mr. Collins 1 <br />discussed the history of his property and requested the Council consider his appeal approving the 2 <br />second curb cut. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Council Member Mueller questioned if there would be any infiltration basins on this property. 5 <br />Planning Associate Heller stated there were no basins planned for this property. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Council Member Hull asked if the driveway were extended to the street, if Item 1B would be 8 <br />satisfied. Planning Associate Heller indicated this was the case. 9 <br /> 10 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 7957, 11 <br />Approving a Request for a Second Curb Cut at 5101 Brighton Lane. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Council Member Mueller commented she drove by the property and agreed that a second curb 14 <br />cut was warranted for this property to allow for use of the parking surface in the rear yard. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Council Member Stigney believed that City Code should be followed on this matter to create 17 <br />consistency in the City’s neighborhoods. He did not support the second access as it did not 18 <br />access a garage or accessory structure. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Council Member Hull questioned if the City was making a mistake by recommending approval 21 <br />of the second curb cut. Planning Associate Heller stated the Public Works Department did not 22 <br />see any safety issues. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Mayor Flaherty noted he drove by the property as well and did not see the second access point as 25 <br />a driveway. He questioned how often this area was used. Mr. Collins stated the second access 26 <br />area was used on occasion. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Mayor Flaherty asked if the previous owner had intended the concrete in the rear yard to be used 29 <br />as a driveway. Planning Associate Heller stated the concrete work was not originally intended to 30 <br />be a driveway and was therefore approved by City Staff. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Mayor Flaherty questioned if the driveway could be construed to be a driveway. Planning 33 <br />Associate Heller commented the concrete work could be used as a driveway or patio area. 34 <br />However, the driveway did not go all the way to the street and the property already had a primary 35 <br />driveway. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Council Member Gunn inquired when the extension of the rear concrete would be extended. Mr. 38 <br />Collins stated this could not be completed until after Phase III of the SUIP. He indicated the 39 <br />work would be completed yet this summer. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Mayor Flaherty commented the second curb cut would have to be paid for by the homeowner. 42 <br />Mr. Collins understood this and had made payment with the City. 43 <br /> 44
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.