10-20-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Commissioner Hegland advised that all the lots within the City are not the same. He stated that the City Code should not be restrictive, but should cover the goals of the Code, which is more important than attempting to indicate a specific criteria, which would require judging each situation on a case by case basis. He reiterated that the goals of the Code are impervious surface and curb cuts. He added most of the lots that are wide, are also deep, and would require extra impervious surface simply to reach the garage. Chair Peterson stated the City has a large variety of lots, and it would b- . ° to set a standard that would fit all of them. He stated he had concerns regar.i. 40 p-`' eervious surface lot coverage requirement, in terms of the larger lots. Co :� ssioner Jo . ,3.z `.„, ome of the larger lots could potentially have a half-acre of asphalt. Commissioner Hegland reiterated that a maximum limit :; :::. $- et, related to this lot size. He explained he would like to find a means that wo':` ::<A-,.nt each request from having to be judged on an individual basis. .'r Commissioner Miller stated this matter had come fo • primari - :`>}-: .arking is prohibited on City streets, and people require additional pa., $* _i',' She in. < ,,,istaff's proposal was to extend the additional 10 or 12-foot width a e _.Y: q` i, Se curb , and then reduce the entire width to 22 feet. Ericson explained If has al :.a •,, t<t` ;c e, in that a resident could have a 35-foot driveway to the propertyInc. howls:, , at -:• .g between the property line III ' y :> and the curb, the width of the drivew=,;y ust be.A;:';uced to° eet. He added that a resident could potentially install a 35-foot i grivewa` o the prta&ty line, however, it was unlikely that a resident would wish to do so, i t •-. t of th-, ' ditional.>e ^pense. ' Commissio0 'ller inq ;,:-0 -'�. rding th- .; <: 'idth of a driveway for a three-stall garage. Ericson ° : o ' :° woul. ..- : . nor 36 feet, :riding that most driveways taper toward the street. k £” Commissioner I '�;1 `' 6 A '�$ how • i : " - Planning Commission had considered variances for driveways,, .:,10.4.e ^-° wears. ricson stated this did not occur very often. Chair Peterson added t ', t was more moo. of driveways being too close to the property line, rather than the a < a ance for the act . 4: ^ of the driveway. C. i, .ssioner Miller c.1% . ented that a specific width, with additional width available, would be `to administrate n a requirement based upon the percentage of impervious surface upon a g ^ . ' `oted in some long established neighborhoods, the residents are not aware of the exact ovation of their property lines. He stated that calculating a requirement based upon the percentage of impervious surface of a lot would place quite a burden upon staff. He explained that the impervious surface includes the structures on the site, and there are other measurements ID that would be required in order to determine the size allowed for the driveway. He stated the reason for the current maximum 35-foot width requirement was to keep the impervious surface