10-20-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Commissioner Laube inquired if this would present a problem for R-3 uses, in which there are two 24-foot garages, constructed side by side, in terms of attempting to narrow down the driveway surface into a single 32-foot curb cut. Commissioner Stevenson stated this would be preferable to allowing a 44-foot curb cut, which would be unreasonable, and would probably be unacceptable from the standpoint of the Director of Public Works. Planning Associate Ericson explained that higher density locations with multi-family units have driveways and some parking area, therefore, the surface expands upon entering the property. Commissioner Laube commented that some of these units are constructed very close to the curb, and attempting to narrow down the driveway within a 20-foot distance might result in a safety hazard, in terms of backing out of the garages. He pointed out the majority of these types of homes are purchased by elderly people. Planning Associate Ericson stated he understood this concern, however, the City does not anticipate a great deal of this type of development in the future, as there are only 2 or 3 high density parcels remaining in Mounds View. He explained that amending the Code to allow for the wider curb cuts would not result in a hardship for future developments, and would provide for greater flexibility. Commissioner Laube stated he was in favor of the wider curb cuts. Commissioner Hegland commented he could see no benefit from keeping the curb cuts narrow. He pointed out there were • already examples of the wider curb cuts within the City, which would not comply with the current ordinance, yet he has not heard any complaints in this regard. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would remove the last clause in subdivision 5e, relating to the spacing requirement between driveways, and change the curb cut width for medium and higher density uses to 32 feet. Chair Peterson inquired regarding the origin of Section 1121.09, Subdivision 5e. Planning Associate Ericson stated this section originated in the Zoning Code, under parking requirements for all zoning designations. Chair Peterson advised that any differences should be indicated in each section. Chair Peterson stated that Item 3, on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance indicates the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, and inquired if the R-2 district should be included in this, as there appears to be a need to separate the R-1 from the other districts. He noted that the requirement limiting the width to 35 feet is contained within Item C, 1-a, residential uses, which includes all of the districts, and replaces the requirement for the R-1 and R-2 districts. He pointed out, however, by striking this requirement in subdivision 5e, any restrictions on the R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O Zoning Districts will be removed. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the reason for this is that some higher density developments might have a parking lot that is 100 feet wide, and staff does not feel this requirement would be appropriate for these types of developments. He added, however, the R-2 Zoning District • and the 35-foot driveway width requirement was drafted prior to addressing subdivision 5e, and