09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 approved, he would rectify the situation, and would make the area into something else. He stated he would work with the Planning Commission to take care of the matter. He stated he agreed that he should not have commenced the project prior to its approval, however, he was pressed for time, and desired to complete the project. Commissioner Miller inquired, in light of the pad's location at the side of the garage, would it still be defined as a driveway. Ericson stated it would not be, but rather be called a parking area. He referred to the site plan, and explained if the driveway were to be measured in front of the garage, and there were no asphalt, gravel, or rock material from the garage over, and the only paved area to the side of the garage and back, it would be acceptable. He noted, however, the pad would then be accessed over grass at some point, and there was no way around not including that area as part of the width of the driveway. He stated he would not personally call that area a driveway. He stated it was more of a parking area, however, the Code does state "parking area and driveway can not exceed 35 feet." Commissioner Berke stated he did not believe the applicant should have proceeded with the project, when he was aware that it was not acceptable, however, the Commission is charged with the responsibility to see that the City grows and develops. He stated the applicant's house was very nice. • He stated there would be similar issues in regard to three-car garages in the future, and possibly, rather than utilizing a variance procedure to determine similar issues, they could amend the Code to encompass the square footage of two and three-car garages. Chairperson Peterson stated the examination of Code Amendments require the comparison of the requirements of neighboring communities. He stated he believed the two issues that generated the larger number of variances or requests, have been the issues of parking and garages. He stated they should continue to review the Code in regard to these matters, and as standards change, the requirements on occasion are increased to meet the standards. He inquired regarding the code requirements of surrounding communities. Ericson stated, in his understanding the city of Roseville does not have any width requirements, for of requirements, in this regard, and he was not certain at what level the City of Mounds View fits into that spectrum. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the city of Roseville based their driveway requirements upon the size of the lot. Community Development Director Jopke stated Roseville's code requirements were based on the width of the driveway at the right-of-way. He stated, beyond the right-of-way, and upon the private property there were no restrictions. He stated the present proposal would be allowed in the city of Roseville. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared there was an additional issue, in regard to the close proximity of the paved area to the lot line of the subject property. Ericson stated this was correct, however, the letter from the owner of the neighboring property satisfies this requirement. He explained further