|
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 9
<br /> • Commissioner Stevenson inquired if there were many 30-foot curb cuts in the R-3 and R-4 districts,
<br /> at present. He explained the zero lot line issue is a unique situation, and should be treated in that
<br /> manner, otherwise, it could result in 32-foot wide curb cuts where they might not be desirable.
<br /> Commissioner Kaden added it could even be misinterpreted, in the case of two properties, to allow
<br /> 64 feet,by adding the number of feet on each side. He pointed out this is probably ho the existing
<br /> 40 foot-curb cuts came about.
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson explained the only reason the curb 74,,t was dr17,4 was to allow for the
<br /> side by side cases. He inquired if the Commission desired to , le k to t .`` wt : . urb cut for R-
<br /> R-3 and R-4 uses.
<br /> Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not see any reaso . 'o an: 'der than 30 e : w ;as not
<br /> �:::: n`.
<br /> aware of any R-3 or R-4 cases, which utilized the maxi ; `0,Apet. Planning As oeiayoa Ericson
<br /> explained that if the twin homes were on one parcel, they w,`' ''> '�`*:e•uired to have a 30-foot wide
<br /> curb cut, rather than a 40-foot curb cut, which in the \i''• er Lake Road twin homes,
<br /> currently exist.
<br /> Commissioner Stevenson stated he did not de A,Th'0,q.,',51VrAff, hat situa o 30 feet, in the case of
<br /> adjoiningproperties with a dual driveway, ho , he ' e th- 0-foot width in all R-3 and
<br /> p p Y, � .. ,� _.�
<br /> R-4 districts. He explained a single curb c Grivewa nto se 't should not be allowed the
<br /> same curb cut as a back to back driveway e poin ¢'� out th. A-Ek anguage generalizes all curb cuts
<br /> • for R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts, ho _ _, there situati• °such as the four-plex developments,
<br /> where all the driveways are joine
<br /> PlanningAs . iate Ericson g >x. 444,.
<br /> -;��hat thew �-� 4_ �;z •elopments would be addressed through the
<br /> Planned ' lopme e.• &� ovides t r gs.,p:* q ty to allow for these considerations. He stated
<br /> staff was ;t6ts•. 'th th-..e i
<br /> az rb cut in the case of a side by side twin home with a two-car
<br /> garage on 41;etit ,, hich i '`� g . g .ne individual who rents the other side, who will then be
<br /> restricted to th= .orb cut.
<br /> Commiss'. eglani iY �Vdthat the issue would be with the property, and whether or not the
<br /> p 00 - . . . Iy-di :. o-separ-ate-pies-esof-pr-operty—not-with the ownership-of-the
<br /> pro.
<br /> E •y
<br /> Ayr
<br /> Peterson statedat Subdivision 5, Item b should be divided into separate areas, with R-1
<br /> . e :indicating 24 , and three cases for R-2 zoning. He explained that in the R-2 district there
<br /> • � i m ' '`Yly use where 32 feet would not be appropriate, and the current 30 feet might
<br /> e = , and two cases relating to whether or not the property is one parcel or two. He
<br /> sta - :jtsnot worded carefully, someone could interpret that 32 feet is permissible for R-2 uses,
<br /> at 32 feet per property, resulting in a 64 foot width.
<br /> Commissioner Hegland inquired how the situations of R-1 uses in the R-2 district came to exist.
<br /> • Chair Peterson explained the zoning has been in place for many years, and at some point, someone
<br />
|