Laserfiche WebLink
uf. .APPRovrD <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> December 28, 1998 <br /> Page 11 <br /> recommendation from the Planning Commission,who is statutorily charged with doing these <br /> things for us. and they have sent a recommendation to us. And to put staff on the line here, <br /> asking their opinion as to whether its good or not, I don't think is appropriate." Mayor McCarty <br /> asked for a motion on Resolution 5299. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to approve Resolution No. 5299, A Resolution <br /> Addressing the Appeal of Planning commission Resolution No. 558-98, a Resolution Denying a <br /> Variance Request for Two Curb Cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road,Requested by Michael Tobias. <br /> Discussion: Stigney stated the Ordinance that is currently on the books is not accomplishing <br /> anything for the residents of the City. "If there is not a valid reason for it,maybe it's not a good <br /> Ordinance", Stigney suggested. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/ to table action on Resolution No. 5299, to give staff and <br /> Council the time it needs to determine if the Ordinance is beneficial to the residents of Mounds <br /> View. <br /> The motion failed due to a lack of a second. <br /> Rob Marty, 2626 Louisa Avenue, spoke in favor of reviewing the Ordinance. <br /> City Attorney Long stated the removal of the original driveway at the Tobias residence <br /> constituted a destruction of the original structure,thus being more than 50 percent of the market <br /> value,thus the property looses its nonconforming use status and must be rebuilt to current Code <br /> requirements. <br /> Michael Tobias, 8111 Eastwood Road, stated the Planning Commission's findings were <br /> inaccurate or false. He also stated the City Attorney's findings that removal of the driveway <br /> exceeded the "50 percent of fair market value" could not be proved. He defined "fair market <br /> value" as, "That price that a willing seller and a willing buyer will pay for an item, and not the <br /> item's actual cost." Mr. Tobias said he was asking the Council to consider a new resolution <br /> allowing for the continued use of two driveways at his property. <br /> Ericson stated that when Mr. Tobias originally applied for a variance staff made the applicant <br /> aware of the fact that the City did not allow two curb cuts for single-family residences. At that <br /> time Mr. Tobias agreed to eliminate one of the curb cuts. Mr. Tobias' contractor installed the <br /> new driveway in violation of City Code. This is the issue that was looked at by the Planning <br /> Commission. <br /> Stigney stated the Planning Commission granted approval of the nonconforming configuration <br />