Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> • under control, and this appeared to be one of the goals in the language proposed by staff. He <br /> stated he was in favor of the proposal as staff has suggested, with an additional width of 10 or 12 <br /> feet. <br /> Commissioner Johnson noted that basing the requirement upon the percentage of impervious <br /> surface might indicate to some parties that they could create a very large parking area, and this <br /> might present a goal for them to request the maximum percentage. Commissioner Hegland stated <br /> the 35-foot requirement would not prevent this. He explained that many lots, if utilizing the 35 <br /> feet plus an additional 10 to 12 feet, would approach the maximum coverage anyway, as the City <br /> does not limit the length of the driveway. <br /> Commissioner Johnson inquired if this type of requirement would be limited to the width of the <br /> garage. Commissioner Hegland explained that a garage could be three stalls wide, or 35 feet, and <br /> with another 10 feet, the driveway would comprise over half of the frontage of the lot. <br /> Commissioner Miller stated she was in favor of 35 feet or the width of the garage, plus an <br /> additional 10 feet, whichever is greater. <br /> Chair Peterson stated for the parking of a boat or a vehicle on an infrequent basis, 10 feet would <br /> be sufficient, however, on a regular basis, it presents an access problem. Commissioner Laube <br /> added that if there is an eave on the garage, any good sized vehicle would present a problem as <br /> well. He explained that an eave would take up 12-18 inches, and a recreational vehicle, 10 feet <br /> wide, would have to park up to the eave in order to remain upon the blacktop, and this situation <br /> would require 12 feet. <br /> Chair Peterson stated he was comfortable with 35 feet or the width of the garage, plus 12 feet, <br /> whichever is greater. <br /> Commissioner Hegland asked if the Commission was to discuss a revision to the current curb cut <br /> requirement. <br /> Chair Peterson stated in relation to the other communities, the City's requirement regarding curb <br /> cuts was also on the restrictive side. <br /> Commissioner Miller asked Planning Associate Ericson if the matter of curb cuts had presented a <br /> problem in the past. Ericson explained that staff had seen a greater amount of requests for <br /> variance from the 22-foot curb cut, than they had for driveways in excess of 35 feet. <br /> Chair Peterson noted a previous case in which a driveway was installed, and after the fact, a <br /> request was made for a wider curb cut, however, no hardship could be found, and a portion of the <br /> asphalt had to be removed. He commented in other cases there actually was a need determined <br /> for a variance from the curb cut requirement. <br /> Planning Associate Ericson suggested staff could draft an ordinance that contemplates adding the <br />