09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 3 • Ericson stated the applicant has after the fact, installed the driveway. He stated that when the permit was applied for,the grading for the driveway had already been completed, and the applicant was not aware of the Code provision. He stated a retaining wall was installed along the side of the property line, and the driveway was to be located one foot from the north property line. He stated the neighboring property owner, Mr. Norbert Moe, has indicated through correspondence that he does not object to the driveway location in that close proximity to his property. Ericson stated the issue to be determined is whether or not there is sufficient hardship for the applicant, to warrant granting a variance. He stated regardless of the determination, the matter has brought to light another issue regarding whether or not the Code is appropriate in this situation. He stated it is currently standard practice that homes have three-car garages, and the City has been very clear in its desire to have all vehicles parked upon improved surfaces. He stated, in this regard, this proposal would be a positive improvement, however, it does not meet the Code requirement. Ericson stated one of the recommendations staff has brought to the Planning Commission is to direct staff to draft a resolution of approval of the variance, and indicate some form of hardship in this case. He stated another option would be to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial, based on the fact that no hardship can be found. He stated another option would be to table the present action, and review the Code requirement of 35 feet, and consider a Code Amendment enactment to allow for wider . driveways. He stated the Planning Commission may wish, based upon their discussion, to act upon the applicant's request, and regardless of the decision in this particular case, further review the Code in this regard. John Henning, 8359 Red Oak Drive, the applicant, stated he questioned why he was in violation of the City Code. He explained his driveway is wider than 35 feet, however, he did not realize this would constitute a violation. He stated his garage was 36 feet wide, which is a standard width for a three-car garage, and is not an oversized garage. He stated he made the driveway nine feet wider on the side. He referred to the site plan of his property, and explained that he had narrowed the driveway to 14 feet at the street, and therefore it was comprised of less square footage than if he had constructed it 35 feet in width to the street. Mr. Henning stated the Code indicates the restriction of the blacktop area in the yard, to limit the number of vehicles parked upon it, and to prevent an impact to the neighborhood and environment, due to excessive blacktop surface. He stated he had less blacktop surface than that which is allowed by the Code. He stated this was an attractive improvement, which does not deteriorate the neighborhood in any manner. He stated he did not believe he was in violation of the Code, however, if the Planning Commission determined otherwise, he would request a variance be granted. Mr. Henning stated the reason he had constructed his driveway to a 14 foot width at the street, was in consideration of three large trees at the front of his property, which he did not desire to lose. He • stated, if not for these trees, a 35-foot width to the street would have been very satisfactory to him. He stated this was not possible unless the trees were removed.