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