11-03-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 • Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there were many 30-foot curb cuts in the R-3 and R-4 districts, at present. He explained the zero lot line issue is a unique situation, and should be treated in that manner, otherwise, it could result in 32-foot wide curb cuts where they might not be desirable. Commissioner Kaden added it could even be misinterpreted, in the case of two properties, to allow 64 feet,by adding the number of feet on each side. He pointed out this is probably how the existing 40 foot-curb cuts came about. Planning Associate Ericson explained the only reason the curb cut was changed was to allow for the side by side cases. He inquired if the Commission desired to go back to the 30 foot-curb cut for R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not see any reason to go any wider than 30 feet, and was not aware of any R-3 or R-4 cases, which utilized the maximum 30 feet. Planning Associate Ericson explained that if the twin homes were on one parcel, they would be required to have a 30-foot wide curb cut, rather than a 40-foot curb cut, which in the case of the Silver Lake Road twin homes, currently exist. Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not desire to restrict that situation to 30 feet, in the case of adjoining properties with a dual driveway, however, he did not desire the 30-foot width in all R-3 and R-4 districts. He explained a single curb cut driveway into a multiple unit should not be allowed the same curb cut as a back to back driveway. He pointed out that the language generalizes all curb cuts • for R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts, however, there are situations such as the four-plex developments, where all the driveways are joined. Planning Associate Ericson advised that these types of developments would be addressed through the Planned Unit Development,which provides the flexibility to allow for these considerations. He stated staff was concerned with the 30-foot curb cut in the case of a side by side twin home with a two-car garage on each side, which is owned by one individual who rents the other side, who will then be restricted to the 30-foot curb cut. Commissioner Hegland commented that the issue would be with the property, and whether or not the property. Chair Peterson stated that Subdivision 5, Item b should be divided into separate areas, with R-1 zoning indicating 24 feet, "and the R-2 zoning separated into three subsections to reflect the different land use possibilities". He explained that in the R-2 district there would be a single family use where 32 feet would not be appropriate, and the current 30 feet might even be excessive, and two cases relating to whether or not the property is one parcel or subdivided as a zero-lot line development. He stated if this is not worded carefully, someone could interpret that 32 feet is permissible for R-2 uses, at 32 feet per property, resulting in a 64 foot width. Commissioner Hegland inquired how the situations of R-1 uses in the R-2 district came to exist. • Chair Peterson explained the zoning has been in place for many years, and at some point, someone