|
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 9
<br /> • Commissioner Laube inquired if this would present a problem for R-3 uses, in which there are two
<br /> 24-foot garages, constructed side by side, in terms of attempting to narrow down the driveway
<br /> surface into a single 32-foot curb cut.
<br /> Commissioner Stevenson stated this would be preferable to allowing a 44-foot curb cut, which would
<br /> be unreasonable, and would probably be unacceptable from the standpointyof the Director of Public
<br /> Works. Planning Associate Ericson explained that higher density locationswith xmulti-family units
<br /> Ammaw
<br /> have driveways and some parking area, therefore, the surfaceAxpandsoamouering the property.
<br /> 1 let:t i <K. :
<br /> Commissioner Laube commented that some of these units ar constructed e Io :e t the curt),Aid
<br /> attempting to narrow down the driveway within a 20-foot_Fdistance fight result i a a ty zard,
<br /> in terms of backing out of the garages. He pointed ou =.maority of these types> 'homes are
<br /> purchased by elderly people.
<br /> he understood this concern ho e`r, t:.e Cit does not anticipate
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated ;;W...�;.,k_:;,,,::�, Y P
<br /> a great deal of this type of development in the future, as there arelt < r>:3 high density parcels
<br /> remaining in Mounds View. He explained that amending e Code for the wider curb cuts
<br /> would not result in a hardship for future developments, i would provide for greater flexibility.
<br /> Commissioner Laube stated he was in or of the wellg „cuts. Commissioner Hegland
<br /> a';
<br /> commented he could see no benefit frorleeping;,te curb cu:tsmna'row. He pointed out there were
<br /> already examples of the wider curb curblAifiWithin40 City, w ish would not comply with the current
<br /> ordinance, yet he has not heard any' dinplain Ili this regatrd.
<br /> aft ��'Y+�*"�e
<br /> Planning As oeiate Ericson.: tae ie would move the last clause in subdivision 5e, relating to the
<br /> ��Zts�: Fxx`..y;.,,. :»?:a<I. ?+`::� .:L.3:.cac�x;::,;.•x •
<br /> spacing uir ment betweendr veways, and change the curb cut width for medium and higher
<br /> densityi : eet .
<br /> Chair Peterson inquired e _aiding the tiiimirof Section 1121.09, Subdivision 5e. Planning Associate
<br /> Ericson stated state4LwasOgkittgipated\Atithe Zoning Code, under parking requirements for all zoning
<br /> designat{':"'s Chair P`et n adv:,,ised that any differences should be indicated in each section.
<br /> Chair+,��Peterson stated th `3, on Page 2 of the proposed ordinance indicates the R-1 and R-2
<br /> af'Av�iO
<br /> Zog Districts, and insured if the R-2 district should be included in this, as there appears to be a
<br /> end to separate the R ''from the other districts. He noted that the requirement limiting the plfeet is contac'within Item C, 1-a, residential uses, which includes all of the districts, and
<br /> the ;ieinent for the R-1 and R-2 districts. He pointed out, however, by striking this
<br /> r' ;.:,to eti subdivision 5e, any restrictions on the R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-O Zoning Districts will
<br /> bertha d.
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson explained that the reason for this is that some higher density
<br /> developments might have a parking lot that is 100 feet wide, and staff does not feel this requirement
<br /> would be appropriate for these types of developments. He added, however, the R-2 Zoning District
<br /> • and the 35-foot driveway width requirement was drafted prior to addressing subdivision 5e, and
<br />
|