Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 34 <br /> Council Member Stigney stated the purpose of this ordinance was to provide if a resident has a <br /> non-conforming driveway, they can rebuild it in that same form, and he had no problem in this <br /> regard. He explained, however, his concern is that if they were to "bootleg" the driveway in, <br /> without a permit, and everyone was aware of this, but utilized the language of the ordinance to <br /> allow them to keep the driveway. He stated he was simply suggesting language, which might <br /> prevent this from occurring. <br /> Planning Associate Ericson commented that previous ordinances with similar situations include <br /> language, which indicates "existing, non-conforming driveways, as of the date of the passing of <br /> this ordinance, (or a date specific)," which could ultimately be today's date. He noted, however, <br /> a problem exists in that a driveway may be constructed in a location where none previously <br /> existed, and the property owner may indicate it existed prior to the date indicated on the <br /> ordinance, which would make this a difficult situation to enforce. <br /> Council Member Stigney agreed, adding that if the driveway was not previously allowed <br /> without a permit, it should not be allowed to perpetuate. He explained by indicating the word <br /> "allowed," and indicating a date from this point forward, it would close the gap on this type of <br /> occurrence. <br /> Council Member Quick commented that this might reward someone for not obtaining a permit. <br /> Council Member Stigney stated this was what he was attempting to avoid. <br /> Council Member Quick inquired if he was to install a driveway which meets the Code, but he did <br /> not obtain a permit. Council Member Stigney stated that it would not be allowed pursuant to the <br /> Code. <br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated a number of things occur that the City is not aware of, and <br /> people do not obtain building permits for. He stated staff attempts to resolve these issues by <br /> requiring a building permit after the fact. He advised this would always be an issue, and he did <br /> not believe the language of the ordinance would prevent it from occurring. <br /> Council Member Stigney suggested the word "permitted" might be more appropriate than the <br /> word "allowed, however, the language of the ordinance, as it is currently written, presents a <br /> problem. He explained that if a driveway was not previously permitted, this would imply that <br /> they did not obtain a permit for it, and it should not be allowed to proceed. <br /> Mayor Coughlin noted a motion would be required to extend the meeting at this time. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Extend the Meeting for no More than One-half Hour. <br /> Ayes—5 Nays—0 Motion carried. <br /> City Attorney Riggs explained the addition of today's date, after the initial words "conform to <br /> the City Code as of..." would set a time frame that the Council could use for enforcement <br /> purposes. He stated, however, as Planning Associate Ericson has indicated, there will always be <br /> issues, and he did not think this could be addressed through the ordinance. He stated the date <br /> would be automatically set through the adoption of the ordinance, however, when the City Code <br /> is updated and codified in the future, the ordinances generally lose their "as adopted' dates <br />