09-01-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 7 desire to pave the driveway to the width of the garage. Commissioner Laube noted that were some lots in the City that could accommodate this. Chairperson Peterson stated, he was in favor of larger garages, as lot size permits, rather than storage sheds for the storage of items. He stated he believed garage space was better all around for this purpose. He stated however, he would not like to see more impervious surface than is necessary, and the problems with run off. He stated this could result in a view from the street of simply garages, with houses peeking out here and there. He stated he was also leaning toward reviewing the Code, and the requirements of surrounding communities regarding driveway widths, to see what was commonly done, and what would make sense. Commissioner Berke inquired how the applicant would be affected, should the Planning Commission desire to look into the Code. Ericson stated Mr. Henning could keep his driveway as it exists, for the time being. He stated staff would review the Code within the 120 day time line. He stated if more time was required, given the public hearings, research, and meetings with the Commission and the Council, the applicant could also sign a waiver that would allow him to waive his right to get a decision within that time frame. He stated if the Code was amended, and after the fact, made his driveway permissible, there would be no need for a variance, and the request would be voided. • Commissioner Miller stated she would like to proceed in this manner. She stated according to the Code there is no hardship that can be determined. Mr. Henning inquired regarding the definition of a hardship. Commissioner Stevenson stated an example would be an unusual lot size, which would restrict a property owner from improving his property. Commissioner Miller stated there were seven criteria that must be met for determining a hardship. Commissioner Kaden noted a recent request for variance, in which a family desired to construct an addition to the house closer to a lot line than what was allowed. He stated, due to the placement of the house on the smaller than normal lot, they would have had to construct a hallway between two bedrooms in order to access the deck or porch at the back of the house. He noted the house was also constructed in an unusual manner. He stated this was considered a hardship. Mr. Henning stated the only hardship he could think of would be the loss of his trees located in the front of his yard. Chairperson Peterson stated he also agreed that the applicant's design was attractive. He stated the question was, as more redevelopment occurs, what is a reasonable size for a driveway. Ericson stated if it was the consensus of the Commission, staff could research the matter, in terms of other cities' requirements, and provide information regarding the different ways a code amendment could be accomplished, if so desired. He stated the research might indicate that there is no need for a code amendment, in which case, the Commission could take action upon the current request. 4111 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Kaden, to Table the Request for a Variance to Allow a 44-foot Wide Driveway, and Direct Staff to Research Driveway Width Requirements Utilized by Other Cities, and