12-03-85 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1985 PAGE 3 double -stalled garage. A third vehicle which they would like to park in the northern area is currently parked in the driveway area they would normally use to turn their vehicles around to get back onto the street. Radio - The code sets forth six variables to Judge a hardship. One condition is geography which is a condition unique throughout this property and not created by the applicant. There is a hill where the driveway has to go over and has a very narrow lot where it enters into the street. There is a drainfield for the septic system upon which they cannot drive or park their vehicles which is set forth in the Developer's Agreement. Pictures were given to the City Council to show what a physical feat it is to back out of Johnston's driveway in the winter. Radio stated that all of the other neighbors have quite extensive parking and driveway areas and four out of the five neighbors would need a variance if they were to be constructed today. In essence, they are all non -conforming uses like the Johnston's and because of that they do not have to comply with the driveway and Parking restrictions. Pictures were presented showing the large Paved driveways and parking areas of the neighbors. It was noted that the code states that the maximum width of a driveway at street entrance is 24 feet. Radio advised that Dean Johnston is looking for a fair shake and is willing to work with the City on this matter. There is a way to eliminate one variance to the code which requires a 5 foot parking setback. They would work within the 5 foot setback on the top of the hill for parking purposes to meet this code provision and the only variance required is the 5 foot driveway to the parking area. Paul Wolff, Attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Dave Bonestroo, presented a letter written by him to the Council and a petition with signatures in support of denying the variance application for a second driveway within the 5 feet of the property line at the Johnston property. Wolff - We do not accept in any manner, way, shape or form a pre-existing legal non -conforming use for a number of reasons. Although your code was adopted in 1979, the zoning ordinance which was contained in that codification was in effect since 1974. Any argument that a pre-existing non -conforming use would be grandfathered into that ordinance requires that it be in existence prior to 1974 and continued without interruption. The question of occasional parking of a motor vehicle in the grass of an undeveloped lot while the owners are there for an occasional visit cannot be considered a pre-existing non -conforming use. Wolff advised that the Developer's Agreement indicates that all necessary variances were granted. It doesn't say that all Possible or endless variances of any kind were granted. There were no variances granted for an off-street parking area.