09-04-84 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9-4-84 PAGE 2 driveways, and these driveways do not meet the required five foot setback. Mr. Tobin further stated that the garage that was constructed last year is used only for storage. There is no electricity there and the point is that he will not be driving back and forth to this garage. Mr. Paul Boyer, 4140 Irvin Circle (adjacent property owner directly south of Mr. Boyer's property) urged the council to deny this request for the following reasons. The driveway, due to the way the fence posts and trees are positioned give the appearance to neighbors and guests that not only the driveway, but the commercial and domestic vehicles parked in the driveway are his. The dirt driveway is used on a regular basis and feels that having a service driveway near his property would lower the value of his home and make it hard, if not impossible to sell. When he purchased his lot, they were all one acre lots with no trees. He positioned his house to center it between the existing houses and driveways on his block. When Mr. Tobin built his garage at the specified ten feet over from the property line, Mr. Boyer was assured by the building official that Mr. Tobin's driveway would have to be the required five feet from the property line. Mr. Boyer further stated that at the time Mr. Tobin was planting his trees, he informed him that he was not allowing enough room for the driveway or the trees. Mr. Boyer presented some pictures of the driveway showing that it does look like the driveway belonged to the Boyer home rather than the Tobin home. Mr. Boyer further presented a letter from another adjacent neighbor (Chris and Kathy Berg, 8625 42nd St. N.) indicating they feel "That zoning ordinances as they stand exist for the common good and should not be varied from without exceptional reason to do so". (A copy of this letter is on file in the city office). The City Engineer asked Mr. Tobin what he did with the snow from the driveway, and Mr. Tobin responded that this driveway was not used in the winter time and there is no problem with snow removal. The public hearing was closed at 7:37 p.m. Fraser stated that as she understands this situation, it really is a good example of why the rule was made. Originally what Mr. Tobin was requesting sounded reasonable, yet after looking at the driveway she realizes that Mr. Tobin makes his home look fairly attractive at the expense of his neighbors. The setback rule is good and reasonable and sees no justification for varying the rule. Dunn stated he would not support the request. The landscaping could have been laid out better in the initial planning stage. If both neighbors agreed with Mr. Tobin's proposal, he could possibly go along with the request; but based on their objections he cannot go along with this request. Morgan concurs with Fraser and Dunn. There is plenty of land here and it should be utilized in such a way that it does not take advantage of the neighbors. Furthermore, there is no hardship here and no justification for a variance.