Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council UNAPPROVED <br /> December 28, 1998 <br /> Page 12 <br /> by not requiring Mr. Tobias to move his front curb cut. Ericson said that was no the core issue <br /> that the Planning Commission was asked to consider by Council. Council asked the Planning <br /> Commission to consider repair versus reconstruction and the validity of the Ordinance. <br /> Koopmeiners said the issue was Mr. Tobias'violation of City Code by reinstalling a driveway <br /> that did not meet City Code. The contractor should be held responsible for his error, <br /> Koopmeiners said. <br /> Mayor McCarty said his oath of office requires him to enforce the Codes equally and <br /> evenhandedly. The Code states that two curb cuts are not allowed. The Code states that you, <br /> Mr. Tobias,have lost your nonconforming use status by the action that was taken in the <br /> reconstruction of the driveway. There is no way to get around what the Code says and what must <br /> be done, Mayor McCarty added. <br /> Gunn asked Mr. Tobias to confirm that he had agreed to abide by the City's one-curb- cut <br /> Ordinance when he first came in for his construction permit. Mr. Tobias stated that he had <br /> agreed to follow this requirement. The driveway was put in and the mistake was made, to his <br /> advantage, Mr. Tobias said. Mayor McCarty told Mr. Tobias that he had entered into a contract <br /> with the City by agreeing to abide by the City's Code requirements. According to the Planning <br /> Commission, you do not meet the criteria the City has established to issue a variance, Mayor <br /> McCarty said. <br /> David Janke said the City was not exercising common sense in denying Mr. Tobias' variance <br /> request. <br /> Dan Coughlin, 8468 Spring Lake Road, spoke in favor of tabling action on the variance request <br /> to give staff and Council the time needed to review the Ordinance pertaining to two-curb-cut <br /> properties. <br /> William Werner said the Planning Commission is unwilling to make a judgement and only <br /> wants to follow the Code to the letter. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn to postpone action on Resolution No. 5299,until the <br /> Council has an opportunity to look at the Code, and if it is offering the residents of Mounds View <br /> anything of value, and if it is in the best interest of the City to keep it on the books as it is <br /> written. <br /> City Attorney Long recommended "laying over the motion to a date certain" rather than tabling <br /> or postponing. <br />