12-16-1998 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 6 Ulrich made the comment that the City should consider completing the curb and gutter system in the business park in an effort to eliminate future parking and traffic problems. He asked that the staff report written in regard to this evening's meeting reflect this suggestion. Ericson said the report would reflect Ulrich's comments. Special Planning Case No. SP-066-98 [Public Meeting] Properties Involved: Corner Lots, Single-Family Residential Districts Consideration of an Amendment to Chapter 1121 of the Mounds View City Code(Off-Street Parking Requirements)Regarding Multiple Curb Cuts On Corner Lots within Single-Family Residential Districts. No public was present Peterson opened the public hearing. Riggs gave his report as follows: • City Attorney Riggs said, "The issue had come down to whether Mr. Tobias had done repair work or had done replacement outright of his driveway. The bottom line is that Mounds View's City Code doesn't cover the issue. Like many city codes, they don't cover everything. They are intended as a guideline. In Mr. Tobias' case, a nonconforming situation was destroyed by more than 50 percent, which should not have been rebuilt," Riggs stated. He added, Mr. Tobias' driveway is now in violation of the Code and would require a variance. "The idea of nonconformity is if it does not conform once it reaches the end of its useful life, that end period, its done. If you're replacing a driveway because you can't overlay it, that suggests it is to the point where it has amortized itself out, and that's the idea of a nonconforming statute, or ordinance, which the City has," Riggs said. Peterson said the last time the Commission was faced with this issue the same conclusion was drawn. The applicant was in violation of the Code. Obert said Tobias' driveway was a nonconforming use to begin with. Not only was the old asphalt removed and the base underneath, but the tree roots underneath the base were removed, Obert said. He said the homeowner had signed an agreement with the contractor that showed no driveway going out to Sherwood Road. The City's Codes are put in place to protect all of the City's residents. Granting of variances to skirt the Code should not be the norm, but the exception, Obert said. The Council's request to consider rewriting the code to accommodate a variance request would set an extremely dangerous precedent, he added. Ericson asked Riggs how other City's view driveway replacement. Should the City's Code reflect • that a driveway that is "there" can be maintained, and can be repaired, and that the repair may involve taking the driveway out and putting in new Class 5 and new asphalt? Does that constitute