11-17-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 Planning Associate Ericson stated a 40-foot curb cut would be as wide as many of the City streets, 111 and this wide a curb cut might not be necessary. He explained that it was unlikely that multiple vehicles would enter and exit at the same time. He added that some of the higher and medium density town homes are closer to the street, however, those on Knollwood Drive and Silver Lake Road are approximately 45 feet from the street, and the driveways could accommodate almos 3 vehicles. Commissioner Hegland inquired if each half of the twin home units was inc "duall $"•caned, separate pieces of property, with a zero lot line. Planning Associate J, son sta .e. i as correct. til:. \ A Commissioner Hegland pointed out they should have the:l. e opportem:., € e veway , � as single family dwellings. He commented this makes propert: more by definition, these are zero lot line properties, however, th,..`: e st parate entiti ; 0 PA:•. ay two different parties. Commissioner Kaden stated he was in favor of the 32-feP `c >' a indicatedhe agreed with staff, in that 40 feet was an excessive amount of paver ht. Hello. a e eople might desire to purchase this type of property, however, he would " `; .11y ratne'''tiz-tgeea home with a lesser amount of pavement. He added, from a safety st. 'e t per si e:k p. Id be sufficiently wide. Commissioner Stevenson pointed out that purpo„ o t` 32 32-foot curb cut in R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses was for one single property,, :�d not nssarilya~ adjoined properties. He stated he did not t see how the issue of twi ' i $es wa ;dressed i .this statement. • Chair Peterson stated there sho .e a dis:: #on m.d `etween the two types of R-2 usage, the zero lot line ations, and t . style dui ;�e , e n ssioner Stevenson agreed. He added that the issue e!` of line `'4 e. drivew: :4'- er, should be specifically addressed. Planning Ass ' ,1 on ad xi. o lot line subdivisions are addressed-in the Code, and have their own set o Pitrtmgents a tons. He stated he was uncertain if there was anything specifically re .-0.: e, .� ; widt a '. curb cuts, however, there may be, and if the requirements are chan_a s show fo $a icated in the R-2 section of the Zoning Code. He explained there is an e.'Jr-er> section pertag # 0o lot line subdivisions, and deed restrictions and covenants that are rayrired to be � in ut `v" "' p p � h the property. He advised this would be the appropriate place to ad eet e° s this issue, rathe 'an attempting to address it in the ordinance. 'AMA!ssioner Steve stated that at the widest,these properties are 20 feet, and inquired why they A .'. 'ear. 3 '-foot curb cut for a single property. Planning Associate Ericson explained there 3 a e- . V ome that is not zero lot line subdivided, and is one parcel. Commissioner Stevenson commented he was not aware of any apartment buildings in the R-3 or R-4 district that have a 32-foot curb cut. Planning Associate Ericson stated, at present, the widest curb cut allowed in these districts is 30 feet. •