Agenda Packets - 1998/12/28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No. f7F/ 1 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: December 28, 1998 Type of Business: CB • WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Resolution No. 5299, a Resolution Supporting the Action of the Planning Commission with Regard to Planning Commission Resolution 558-98, a Resolution Denying a Variance for Two Curb Cuts at 8111 Eastwood Road, Requested by Michael Tobias; Planning Case No 535-98 Date of Report: December 23, 1998 Background: On November 23, 1998, Michael Tobias appeared before the City Council to appeal Planning Commission Resolution 558-98, a resolution which denied Mr. Tobias' variance request to maintain two driveways at his home at 8111 Eastwood Road. At this meeting, the Council heard testimony from Mr. Tobias and was presented all of the background documentation pertaining to this case. The Council voted to postpone action on the appeal until the Planning Commission had an opportunity to discuss the merits of amending the Code to allow for multiple curb cuts on corner lots. Discussion: On December 16, 1998, after having published a meeting notice in the New Brighton Bulletin and after a news article appeared in the Focus which invited residents to come to the meeting, the Planning Commission proceeded to discuss the merits of amending the Code as directed by the Council. Also in attendance to provide input and answer questions were legal representative Scott Riggs, Public Works Director Mike Ulrich and Council Liaison Roger Koopmeiners. Dan Coughlin, the City's mayor-elect, had intended to be present for this discussion but was unable to attend. His comments in a letter dated 12/12/98 are attached. The City Attorney, whose written comments are also attached for reference, indicated that the idea of a non-conformity was that if by the end of a non-conforming use's viable lifespan it did not conform to the Codes, it would not be allowed to be rebuilt. This acts much like an amortization. If the driveway in question had gotten to a point of disrepair such that it had to be removed in order to maintain it, this would indicate it's useful life had ceased, as then did its non-conforming status.