09-15-1999 - 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. :Ie 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 propert. iftaker Ericson stated the issue to be determined is whether or :not there cAtallabbardship for the applicant, to warrant granting a variance. He stated regardless of the deter" .'_"a ion,the matter.has brought to light another issue regarding whether or not the ode is appropriate t i aati�. He stated it is currently standard practice that homes have thr'�:—�.ar garages, and the' i en very clear in its desire to have all vehicles parked upon improv='"d's.>laces. He stated, in tlis£rgard, this proposal would be a positive improvement, however, it doi4r _et the Code requirement. Ericson stated one of the recommendations staff has brought to the>>Pla Commission is to direct staffto draft a resolution of approval of the variance i icate some :i hardship in this case. He stated another option would be to direct staff o >a i o ution of denial based on the fact that no hardshi can be found. He stated another option wo a '>ta�ble -present action, and review the Code requirement of 35 feet, and consider a Code Amendmentenactment to allow for wider driveway. He stated the Planning Commission maiwish, basedf `pon their discussion, to act upon the applicant's request, and regardless:othe deci ti in this particular case, further review the Code • in this regard. .:. John Hennin&8359 Red Q e,the ap"lice. >.t, tined he questioned why he was in violation of the City o *, -Ie exp explained; ' lriveway �; ter than 35 feet, however, he did not realize this would ca 0.. �� te> nviolation :O ated his ara e was 36 feet wide, which is a standard width for ": �' g g a three-car g. _>::,g ' is not a -3o r iz d,garage. He stated he made the driveway nine feet wider ': 4.__r`4::: n oand explained that he had narrowed the on the side. Ike ,, reto the scte<4pau of his property, p driveway to 1$4£1 t, andfttefore it was comprised of less square footage than if he had construct;int t 3 5 feet kla to the street. .0 Aitioa:Nr Mr.. " •nning stated the Obitiifidicates the restriction of the blacktop area in the yard, to limit the n 100 of vehicles parke. pon it, and to prevent an impact to the neighborhood and environment, • A6 excessive blackte:p%urface. He stated he had less blacktop surface than that which is allowed t Code. 110,e4,0"4 ed this was an attractive improvement, which does not deteriorate the p9„1:,.2,9,2,g1nA0,,iyiThanner. He stated he did not believe he was in violation of the Code, however, ift 3r... 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.