10-25-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 33 1. Continued Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance. Planning Associate Ericson stated this ordinance, which has been before the Council on a number of occasions, adds language to the City Code which clarifies that existing non- conforming driveways would be allowed to remain, as long as there is not public safety hazard presented with these driveways. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the other change contemplated with this ordinance is an amendment to Chapter 902 as it relates to rights-of-way, which cleans up the Code in relation to the previous right-of-way ordinance that was passed. Planning Associate Ericson requested the Council's indulgence to set the public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized shed to be located at 8270 Eastwood Road. He explained the public hearing has been published in the newspaper, and notice has been sent out, however, the item was inadvertently omitted from the Consent Agenda. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Stigney. To Set the Public Hearing for Resolution No. 595-99, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an Oversized Shed Located at 8270 Eastwood Road, for the October 25, 1999, City Council Meeting. Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Waive the Reading and Approve Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 640, an Ordinance Amending Title 900, Chapter 902 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Relating to Driveways and Repealing Provisions of Chapter 902 Relating to Street Openings, as Amended, to Include the Date, October 11, 1999. Council Member Stigney stated, upon close examination of this matter, he wondered if a there might be a "loophole" in terms of providing that someone could install a driveway without a permit or the Code, and be able to keep it forever. He explained the language appears to indicate this, and the addition of two words may offer clarification. He suggested the addition of the word "current" in the language which indicates "Permanent-surfaced driveways which do not conform to the current City Code" and the word"allowed" in the language which indicates "may be rebuilt, constructed or replaced in the same manner, fashion and location as allowed before, unless the location of said driveway poses a significant public safety hazard." Council Member Stigney stated this closes the possibility of a resident installing in a driveway without a building permit, and being fully aware of it, however, would otherwise have license to proceed. Planning Associate Ericson stated this amendment to the language was acceptable from staff's perspective. City Administrator Whiting pointed out that the word "current," might be subject to interpretation in the future. City Attorney Riggs stated it would be more appropriate to indicate a specific date. He requested Council Member Stigney clarify his concern.