Laserfiche WebLink
Novembar 29, 1979 <br />Page 2 <br />~ Mr. Beneo~i, of Olympia Consttuction Company, etaled that he would <br />give h1e ~'ull cooperation to the Ci~y in order to work this out, <br />but he coui~ find no way e~ound having two curb cuCs. <br />Chairperaon Haake aekad Mr. Senson where hw aould qet the extra <br />parki.ng epacea required by code. Pir. 8enean replied that there ie <br />eight Eeet Eor ad~ition o£f-etreet parking beeide the driveway on <br />the north side of the property. Thie area could be paved and would <br />aacommodaEe four care (parked parallel) wi~h no problem. <br />Commiesian Member Burmeiater said ehe felt that too much conEuaion <br />would bs created by parallel parking along the side o: the driveway. <br />Chairperaon Haake added that the tha spacFS would have to be ,iaeh <br />merkad. Commieaion Member Bur~aiater askad i£ therc was roum Eor <br />additional parking behind the building. <br />Mr. Hensen replied there wae no pcseible way of creating additionai <br />parking apace behind th=. building withouti destroying the back yard. <br />Commiasion Member Quan asked 1E the garaqes could be move~ toqether, <br />eliminating the north driveway and expandiny the paved axea on the <br />aouth driveway. Mr. Heneon rep2ied that moving the buildinge uver <br />~~uld de~rive one oE the unita of back yard space entirely. He <br />drew a sketch of the proposad buildings, illustrating that if he <br />,~~ moved the north yarage ovar and. altered tha driveways, that tha <br />i north driaeway woul~ project past the oorner of the building about <br />'~+r~ 26°, completely depriving one unit of any back yard space and <br />tekinq away li2 aE the middle unit's back yas8. <br />Commiaeion Member Burmeiater aeked why thie oould not be claseified <br />ae a townhouse, thus removing the nezd for two required parking apacee. <br />Mr. Kampel Axplained that, according to Mounds View code, a townhouae <br />had to be comg~7.etely owner occupied, while in thia tr.iplex; two of <br />the units would moat likely be rented, and only oc~e would be owner <br />occupied. <br />Chairpersan Haake read the aection o~ the code pertaini.;ig to open <br />space reqv.irements. 625 equare feat of open spaca is required £or <br />each unit. Mr. Rampel atatad that there was more than enough open <br />epaca because of the large front yard. More parking could be put <br />in back of the building without violating open epace requirements. <br />Mr. Bensen repeated that additional parking in the back yard would <br />destroy the ueabler.ese of the back yard, the effectiveneaP of the <br />patio doors and the ealability of the entire prooerty. <br />Commiseiun MembAr Burmeister atated that according to chapter 40.05 <br />sub. C o£ the Mounds View Code, the garaqe aetbaek oP an R-3 unit <br />when abutting residentia.l proparty muat be 20 feet £rom th~ lot line. <br />Mr. Henaen repl3ed that hia property did not abutt reaidential <br />, property. Mr. Rampe2 e~ated there was a Eour plex to the south oE <br />',~ the property. Chairpereon Haake stnted that even an R-4 high riae <br />apartment buildinq would ba conoidered rQS.idehtial. <br />