Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 <br /> Special Meeting Page 6 io <br /> Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Miller to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. <br /> 565-98, A Resolution Recommending Approval of an Alternate Site Plan (Development Review) <br /> for the Proposed Building N Development, Mounds View Business Park, as amend:=gf ' the <br /> previous motion. <br /> Ayes - 6 Nays - 0 Cj- moti <br /> Ulrich made the comment that the City should consider M `.pleting 4e urb Artsjigti .y st iti <br /> the business park in an effort to eliminate future parkin:. . . traffi,,,..roblems. �t'o. ' ,-he <br /> staff report written in regard to this evening's meeting r}.-, 4,3'r'uggestion. Erica t••. the <br /> report would reflect Ulrich's comments. <br /> Special Planning Case No. SP-066-98 [Publt, . ting] 4 �£ -. <br /> Properties Involved: Corner Lots, Single-FanuL . : s-+. ,1 District <br /> Consideration of an Amendment to Chapter '' o :��� s Vie ity Code (Off-Street <br /> Parking Requirements) Regarding Multip wurb C ..'''111.71 -0.2`f'. within Single-Family <br /> Residential Districts. <br /> • <br /> No public was present <br /> Peterson N. the publi -y " •. <br /> > <br /> Riggs gave' s e=, folio <br /> fW'h k b:: ya.. <br /> City Attorne g ;sa <br /> gts te iss411,;i=: come down to whether Mr. Tobias had done repair <br /> work or has 'i ne replac•= ... •utri: t of his driveway. The bottom line is that Mounds View's <br /> '. .. ..- .' . --‘ - ' <br /> inte . as a guideline. ; t' obias' case, a nonconforming situation was destroyed by more <br /> < <br /> thai 0 percent, which s, ul. not have been rebuilt," Riggs stated. He added, Mr. Tobias' <br /> driveway is now in violn of the Code and would require a variance. "The idea of <br /> 4.27 ormity is ifi td "` es not conform once it reaches the end of its useful life, that end period, <br /> Fon If out placing a driveway because you can't overlay it, that suggests it is to the <br /> p o , , 1 'amortized itself out, and that's the idea of a nonconforming statute, or <br /> aril ...1 ch the City has," Riggs said. <br /> Peterson said the last time the Commission was faced with this issue the same conclusion was <br /> drawn. The applicant was in violation of the Code. Obert said Tobias' driveway was a <br /> nonconforming use to begin with. Not only was the old asphalt removed and the base <br /> III <br /> underneath, but the tree roots underneath the base was removed, Obert said. He said the <br />