Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> under control, and this appeared to be one of thegoals in the language ro osed bystaff. He 111 <br /> pP proposed <br /> stated he was in favor of the proposal as staff has suggested, with an additional width of 10 or 12 <br /> feet. <br /> Commissioner Johnson noted that basing the requirement upon the percentage of impervious <br /> surface might indicate to some parties that they could create a very large parking ar,...and this <br /> might present a goal for them to request the maximum percentage. Comssion :i€ egland stated <br /> the 35-foot requirement would not prevent this. He explained that ma .. :; tilizing the 35 <br /> feet plus an additional 10 to 12 feet, would approach the m. `:tm co .: , ay, as the City <br /> does not limit the length of the driveway. j Y IF <br /> w Fit;. <br /> Commissioner Johnson inquired if this type of re uirem would 14;05-united tort` `. P>°: ; oi <br /> o <br /> ,rte. �` ,� <br /> garage. Commissioner Hegland explained that a garage I4hree stalls wide < >=` set, and <br /> with another 10 feet, the driveway would comprise over' ,i.. ,,frontage of the lot. <br /> Commissioner Miller stated she was in favor of 35 feet$, the o °: .garage, plus an <br /> additional 10 feet, whichever is greater. ; . , <br /> :f w.« <br /> Chair Peterson stated for the parking of a bo..<" e" x, <$ :.an infre ;Vent basis, 10 feet would <br /> be sufficient, however, on a regular basis, $resents :.'::: y : ljti. Commissioner Laube <br /> added that if there is an eave on the garage; any go.. sized.;>...: ^r�could present a problem as <br /> well. He explained that an eave wou ke up 14 8 inche;STI`+a recreational vehicle, 10 feet 1111 <br /> wide, would have to park up to the;;:-;_ t in onto remai 1pon the blacktop, and this situation <br /> would require 12 feet. <br /> Chair Pete 6% tated he , Nv <br /> ortable*LAW> ' ` or the width of the garage, plus 12 feet, <br /> whichever -r. , <br /> Commissions ' °,• : ,sked i'ily...<`•'�.,. ,'ssion was to discuss a revision to the current curb cut <br /> requirement. : l 6 <br /> 4ftwaapawqm, *, <br /> r:. <br /> Chair P .Zson stated i laiatio the other communities, the City's requirement regarding curb <br /> me <br /> cuts also on the rest .rde. <br /> C . ssioner° Miller a d Planning Associate Ericson if the matter of curb cuts had presented a <br /> t of <br /> ,m in the past. cson explained that staff had seen a greater amount of requests for <br /> from the. oot curb cut, than they had for driveways in excess of 35 feet. <br /> itesoKWg art oted a previous case in which a driveway was installed, and after the fact, a <br /> request was made for a wider curb cut, however, no hardship could be found, an a portion of the <br /> asphalt had to be removed. He commented in other cases there actually was a need determined <br /> for a variance from the curb cut requirement. <br /> Planning Associate Ericson suggested staff could draft an ordinance that contemplates adding the II <br />