11-03-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 PlanningAssociate Ericson stated this is a safetyconsideration, to minimize back to back driveways. • Y He explained that two vehicles might simultaneously back out of the garage, and cross paths without seeing each other. Commissioner Hegland commented that the separation between the driveways was likely to create a problem in the wintertime, in terms of visibility, as the area between the driveways uld probably be utilized for snow storage. He stated he was unclear as to why the sepaaior.: s necessary, and inquired if there were any traffic reports of data available, which Indic,toinstances where problems had occurred with regard to safety. Int . PlanningAssociate Ericson stated staff was not aware of such:data, an. .there way`"`A available in terms of previous problems, however, hew : research this matter. y : < ° ..:.: : tea. Commissioner Laube stated he resides in a similar develop, the 9 years he has lived there, he has not heard of anyone havin aproblem in this re arxiiii>a'>;' ::;, Y g :. g .-........: a�:'`lf:ice',�i\:F Commissioner Kaden inquired if the units construct o i!ver Lake. oa provide any separation between the driveways. Planning Associate E soz ya Psed that at lest one unit does, however, some do not, and in fact, some of the driveways are sep;;t the zi rb cut is not. He explained that some of these units utilize a landscaping separation bet :te n the two driveways, which is approximately 5 feet wide. 41" "' ' " G ii a�A* Chair Peterson pointed out that the,. district should be a;s parate nsideration. He explained tMgt hat the five-foot separation requirement is necarywti R-1 hcoousing, simply to provide that the driveways of4eighboring protoo are not<in t ° l se a proximity to each other, however, it may not make`5 ..s ". require t t tsepration on R, ,properties. • itikilk Planning Ass .:. - ricson inn it d if the Commission would consider a width limitation to be appropriate. �. , ><tapmem Now"fila „4411111,1 9104.. Chair Pete on stated a i t i.:`.;ration would appear to make sense, however, he was unclear as to what t c a riveway separAkittpfement would accomplish. He added that the R-3 and R-4 districts pre : a number of diffe ei lk enarios, and these might be difficult to classify. .:�: iissioner Stevenson stated staff's recommendation of a 24-foot curb cut for the R-1 and R-5 ' Wit. . ��<�:� ruses was:aequate, with an adjustment in L. >xsubdivision 5b to a 32-foot maximum curb cut �:r :>:.;,;.,R-3yoa : He explained that in the case of single units, this indicates a 16-foot driveway p ryt riveways are back to back, however, if they allow one curb cut for both homes, it sho 'i; e3"2 feet, and the spacing requirement should be removed. He requested subdivision 5b indicate that a 32-foot curb cut shall be permissible for R-2, R-3, and R-4 uses, with the,explanation of this in subdivision 5e, indicating two curb cuts together, not to exceed 16 feet each, and the removal of the clause indicating the minimum separation footage. •