Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 6 <br /> thirty-five feet, or the width of the garage plus and additional ten feet, whichever is greater." He III <br /> pointed out this would provide that residents with a single car garage can still have a 35-foot <br /> driveway, however, a three-stall garage can have a width of the garage, plus ten feet. He <br /> commented this appears to be very similar to what is allowed in other cities, with the exception <br /> that there would still be a limitation on the amount of driveway a resident could have, and it <br /> would not provide a blanket allowance on the width of the driveway. He explainedte City <br /> would prefer to strike a balance between that and a restrictive driveway Width. ,46ra <br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated if the Commission so des :.. tall :':. . r a.; ordinance that <br /> would reflect this type of change, or a similar change, in tent that flillt#01 ten-foot <br /> width is not sufficient. He noted this matter was open fa ; iscussion< i�aier: < ?:e e,..otherrI <br /> means to accomplish this consideration, they can be disaa ed as wed'' t �F � < ` <br /> IvIal <br /> Commissioner Laube commented that the ten-foot width : .' .•mmodate a semi-trailer. <br /> Commissioner Johnson noted, however, room would st i a re `'i, j i.open doors and walk <br /> around the vehicle, which, if eight feet wide, would r a a having 9 :< >:<:uf ng the curb or grass <br /> on the side of the driveway. He stated he would b: .of a twee = . t additional width. He <br /> added that being able to park a vehicle farther '.;,'':'4:(' > is ,wilding*ght be better from a fire <br /> and safety standpoint. <` ; <br /> Commissioner He land stated he waavor of .'' <br /> sie city ofd::.h• eview's requirement that theII/ <br /> impervious surface does not exceed:'::'`' ercen > vera a at a.,he lot, and did not see a need to be <br /> more specific than that. He come .ted that. City w ' ttempting to control the amount of <br /> ?C'Srn <br /> impervious surface and the curbwith the, l : :- e '#gip mctions. He noted that there are varied <br /> types of h iw ° <br /> 1� ithin the ,; E. :ity, and ; i . would be tied to the width of the garage <br /> :.. <br /> would .;> � ' stricti � PI; ld not s1V °any problems. <br /> Commissions 1.:0-.: •ted tha ,ey: ;: . to allowing lot coverage of 40 percent impervious <br /> surface would b -; a:_ .:ate= mpris :: . ;. rge lots, which could potentially pave half of their front <br /> yards. Co shone.,i. notediey could limit the amount of impervious surface. <br /> Commis'`:tier Johnsonj`'� ;'<...._ or 40percent impervious surface. <br /> .�� could indicate 12 feet, p <br /> wAso <br /> Pla .7, g Associate Ericst sated that a problem might exist for both residents and staff, in terms <br /> o _ < culating a 40 perc it impervious surface requirement. <br /> «; :> <br /> f,''•dded that this might also constitute a hardship for smaller lots, in that the <br /> FAr: , ,.x. ,re also considered impervious surface, and this would not leave very much <br /> af ` - of for the driveway. Ericson stated this could occur, and could.potentially result <br /> in a driveway that is smaller than that which is presently allowed by the Code. <br /> Commissioner Laube stated he was in favor of allowing the driveway to be the width of the <br /> garage, with additional footage to the side, which would provide uniformity. <br /> III <br />