11-03-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 • Planning Associate Ericson stated the width of driveways and curb cuts for twin homes and duplexes have presented an issue, in that the existing driveways, however they were approved, do not meet City Code requirements. He explained that a medium density residential dwelling ranging between two and six units, is currently allowed two curb cuts on the property, as long as they are spaced 40 feet apart, and each driveway is no more than 12 feet wide. He stated this appeared to be overly restrictive, and not in keeping with what has been approved. <_•, Atli,AP Planning Associate Ericson advised staff has attempted to address this is =:Subdivision 5e of the ordinance, which indicates the 12-foot drivewaywidth be hag ed to`'T1` i``fo a d the drivew ; ss`. g �:wy µh n surfaces be a minimum of 20 feet apart, rather than 40 feet He pointed oust<>t i pears to be::.less restrictive, however, in the case of a twin home with the side by side . ages, hew:s< ot: at how any separation of the driveways could be maintained. H' ::;lained that the intennt of the,:b nance appears to conflict with the market and current building` pl: ons. He indicated"'th'at a 20-foot gonme:separation might not be necessary, and a ten-foot separatcnght` e sufficient, adding that there were a number of driveways that currently have no separation at'a p one large curb cut. Planning Associate Ericson stated Subdivision 5f of>the "ro. osed ordinance ndicates Curb cuts in existence as of 10/11/99 that do not conform,:v t rttdv..ision may:<remain in existence unless deemed bythe director of Public Works to be. 'dan er`` >t>"ul.la safe ;< hazard. Notices to abandon a curb cut may be appealed in writing toff 'e City cOndlitilioWlginedCouncil," this language was taken from Ordinance 640, which was adopteby the RO Counci on October 11, and provides that as • long as a driveway is not a public nuance or `afety hazard; and its non-conforming status is not increased, it can be kept, replaced t' aintain ..04 PlanningAar Aiii AV Associate Ericson .; i ted out that therear it iilarities between the drivewayrequirements "sister in O di c�..6� and ClV"°� `»' �� He ex"''1'�i�'�d rt is a ordinance" to Ordinance 640 it ° pt p a.:.n.. 'L.'q.'<z: �y�,.:.....,*'v:.'..:x'�a nY�..: t.�Z{``.h�,.` kz".`v':: .;.:., takes int&401 e�non the changes that were made with that ordinance, and institutes those changes into the Zontg: ;;iso thatt ` tiQ consistent. He stated other changes considered by the proposed ordinanar4 housekpiature, to ensure that the Code is internally consistent with other Chapt ,° . A'rr •' : »�F:. Co 'oner Laube co c: c t at many twin homes are only separated by side by side garages, typically 22 feet wide, amus does not provide sufficient room for a 10-foot space between the Wil' 1 d • ays. He stated thisroblem is becoming more commonplace throughout the metropolitan area. e4 :added that the largersized garages in these developments tend to be deeper, rather than wider. Associate Cson advised that the Code should not be drafted in a manner that would create :: irz' 1> that< ,, perties can not meet, or result in a large number of non-conforming driveways, `t' a ::"�u ,j k' . d.is moving in that direction and the non-conforming driveways do exist. He pointed out tht hi indicates the Code does not reflect what is currently being constructed. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the intent of the separation of the driveways. 0