10-20-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Planning Associate Ericson stated the width of driveways and curb cuts for twin homes and duplexes have presented an issue, in that the existing driveways, however they were approved, do not meet City Code requirements. He explained that a medium density residential dwelling ranging between two and six units, is currently allowed two curb cuts on the property, as long as they are spaced 40 feet apart, and each driveway is no more than 12 feet wide. He stated this appeared to be overly restrictive, and not in keeping with what has been approved. Planning Associate Ericson advised staff has attempted to address this issue in Subdivision 5e of the ordinance, which indicates the 12-foot driveway width be changed to 16 feet, and the driveway surfaces be a minimum of 20 feet apart, rather than 40 feet. He pointed out this appears to be less restrictive, however, in the case of a twin home with the side by side garages, he was not certain how any separation of the driveways could be maintained. He explained that the intent of the ordinance appears to conflict with the market and current building applications. He indicated that a 20-foot separation might not be necessary, and a ten-foot separation might be sufficient, adding that there were a number of driveways that currently have no separation at all, and one large curb cut. Planning Associate Ericson stated Subdivision 5f of the proposed ordinance indicates"Curb cuts in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform with this subdivision may remain in existence unless deemed by the director of Public Works to be a danger or public safety hazard. Notices to abandon a curb cut may be appealed in writing to the City Council." He explained this language was taken from Ordinance 640, which was adopted by the City Council on October 11, and provides that as f long as a driveway is not a public nuisance or safety hazard, and its non-conforming status is not increased, it can be kept, replaced or maintained. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that there are similarities between the driveway requirements in Ordinance 642 and Chapter 900. He explained it is a"sister ordinance" to Ordinance 640, as it takes into consideration the changes that were made with that ordinance, and institutes those changes into the Zoning Code, so that the two are consistent. He stated other changes considered by the proposed ordinance are of a housekeeping nature,to ensure that the Code is internally consistent with other Chapters. Commissioner Law e commente• t at many twin omes are on y separa es By si.e •y si•e garages, typically 22 feet wide, and this does not provide sufficient room for a 10-foot space between the driveways. He stated this problem is becoming more commonplace throughout the metropolitan area. He added that the larger sized garages in these developments tend to be deeper, rather than wider. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the Code should not be drafted in a manner that would create a hardship that properties can not meet, or result in a large number of non-conforming driveways, although the trend is moving in that direction and the non-conforming driveways do exist. He pointed out that this indicates the Code does not reflect what is currently being constructed. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the intent of the separation of the driveways. •