01-06-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 7 • 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 sai• -a' he Council's request to consider rewriting the code to accommodate a van . res " would set an extremely dangerous precedent, he added. Ericson asked Riggs how other City's view driveway repl.. ent. Sh. 3 °< Code refle that a driveway that is "there" can be maintained, and , i a repaire—s d ma involve taking the driveway out and putting in new Cl ar. d ne�d`". phalt? P. �. v.• itute removing the old driveway and putting in a new drivew /044 Ns t just simple mai" ."e and repair, Ericson asked. Miller said in the City's other Codes that apply to con. rsns th. gr-Zs eyed more than 50 percent, those situations have to be brought up to c..' Tobias' • . • :.is are nonconforming and you aren't bringing it up to ,•,1c4, 3_ it up tea'' Riggs said the easiest way to read the that T4."i s , ar a destruction and would cease the nonconformity at that point in e. Th- Y ies tseen used for comparison have • a little better definition of what a "d. ,s ':e and •,M ruction" , ggs said. Peterson recommended conside '8 'a e •;."- issue .4►urate of the driveway replacement issue. The Commis ion concurred Ulrich s. t hi situa on is how close his driveway is to the intersection and the sal es:e. f volve• ` - backing out of his driveway into heavy traffic conditions. Johnso• °W�t8 he wo'41 , '7' . favor of changing the ordinance because of the precedent it wouis of;er `-sidents to request variances because of some situation that is notal we• byyC•• .: :. terson'asked if there were setback requirements for a driveway to • -• - •• - ei er •ire ion o an m ersectton, • nc a•.e•. Brasttemle said it was hisopinion that the Council should decide on this variance request based on thy:••erits of the particuf case. If the City needs to revisit the Code, that should be done in a nor =: esearch oriental approach rather than making the Code change based on this one case. -,14.1`; ° ed in all of his years workingfor the Police Department he had never seen ,� F ,,. P an acctcdetl:` .,Involved a two-curb-cut lot. Peterson closed the public hearing. • Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to inform the City Council that after considering testimony at the public hearing, it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that Chapter 1121 of the