10-20-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Planning Associate Ericson stated this is a safety consideration, to minimize back to back driveways. He explained that two vehicles might simultaneously back out of the garage, and cross paths without seeing each other. Commissioner Hegland commented that the separation between the driveways was likely to create a problem in the wintertime, in terms of visibility, as the area between the driveways would probably be utilized for snow storage. He stated he was unclear as to why the separation was necessary, and inquired if there were any traffic reports of data available, which indicate specific instances where problems had occurred with regard to safety. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff was not aware of such data, and there was probably very little available in terms of previous problems, however, he would research this matter. Commissioner Laube stated he resides in a similar development, and during the 9 years he has lived there, he has not heard of anyone having a problem in this regard. Commissioner Kaden inquired if the units constructed on Silver Lake Road provide any separation between the driveways. Planning Associate Ericson advised that at least one unit does, however, some do not, and in fact, some of the driveways are separated, but the curb cut is not. He explained that some of these units utilize a landscaping separation between the two driveways, which is approximately 5 feet wide. • Chair Peterson pointed out that the R-1 district should be a separate consideration. He explained that the five-foot separation requirement is necessary with R-1 housing, simply to provide that the driveways of neighboring properties are not in too close a proximity to each other, however, it may not make sense to require the separation on R-2 properties. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission would consider a width limitation to be appropriate. Chair Peterson stated a width limitation would appear to make sense, however, he was unclear as to what the driveway separation requirement would accomplish. He added that the R-3 and R-4 districts present a number of different scenarios, and these might be difficult to classify. Commissioner Stevenson stated staff's recommendation of a 24-foot curb cut for the R-1 and R-5 residential uses was adequate, with an adjustment in subdivision 5b to a 32-foot maximum curb cut for R-2 and R-3 uses. He explained that in the case of single units, this indicates a 16-foot driveway per unit, if the driveways are back to back, however, if they allow one curb cut for both homes, it should be 32 feet, and the spacing requirement should be removed. He requested subdivision 5b indicate that a 32-foot curb cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3, and R-4 uses, with the explanation of this in subdivision 5e, indicating two curb cuts together, not to exceed 16 feet each, and the removal of the clause indicating the minimum separation footage. •