09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 • Chairperson Peterson stated, in terms of legalities, there was a Code issue present. Mr. Henning stated he was a Code Official for 15 years in the City of Minneapolis. He stated there is the letter of the Code, and then there is the Code. He stated he did not meet the letter of the Code, however, he actually did meet the definition of the Code. He stated he had less square feet, and has,impacted the environment less, by the manner in which he had constructed his driveway than he,,gruld have had he constructed a 35 foot wide rectangular driveway. He stated his driveway;was more attractive, it serves his purpose more satisfactorily, and he has left the tree. 4n his yax '` Commissioner Stevenson stated the applicant's design was.#06attractivePloneustatipwas did not e these types of issues comingmi before the Planning Co ssion, mer the fa is ;tstat the contractor, prior to performing the construction, has beforel im all:>of the City eatOIROments. He stated the 35-foot width requirement was in place at tht 4004 house was constrttcted, and the driveway was not "grandfathered" in. He stated he had a conffiAt inkconflict regard, and noted all designs might not be so attractive. . N. "k'Atir . cm Mr. Henningstated if he had left the nine-foot pad as:..4>> `r el surfacewould have been acceptable in terms of the Code, however, if he placed a: lato:: opi concrete` rface upon it, he was in violation of the Code. He stated he believed thet5lacktell a mn rou_ ent. He stated, according to the City Code, he would have been Ate to cox tra411§1t driveway to the street, and construct a 16-foot wide Y' section at some point, or a 40,141t driveway, and would not be in violation of the Code. He stated a .:ravel surface>would no: =he in violation, however, the blacktop 0 surface was, and he thought this di' ` ot mak- nse. >i Chairperson ':eterson re uest'=�':.clarificatio; "r#t drivewa width requirement at the street, as allowed " •de. Er i oso a 'd the Cb; e'Offtdes that driveways be no wider than 22 feet at the stree . :e ;:t. ;;, howev :::'pplicant was correct in that he could have brought the 35-foot drivewayalt he ro ` ; ,i'so Jong as it narrowed to 22 feet at the street right-of-way. He stated that the ;.d riveway.0aWpt uirement does take into consideration those areas with a�ViGoilY�+3�r�b:\�?�f` :h4;E;::fi:".�:_:.: gravel surface' l <;explain the City Code indicates a maximum 35-foot width, which requirementencompass t_ e driveway and parking areas, therefore, even if the present addition was grave .a •T. :r:E. wider than allowed-by-the-Co* -. ::'enning stated he agr -d this might be the case, if they defined this addition as a driveway, and i :'::: gravel, however, could call it a storage area, a patio area, and it would be acceptable. He r- a ed he did not eel he was in violation of the Code. He stated he had violated the letter of the •tI i.. -ve,: E:t e had not violated the actual definition of the Code. voltialeikAI Conte''° o -r Kaden inquired if the applicant was aware of the Code requirement prior to laying the blacktop on the pad. Mr. Henning stated he was. He explained that his reason for doing so was to maintain his placement upon the asphalt layer's list. He stated if had he not proceeded at that time, he would not have been able to install the blacktop until the following spring, and desired to start his lawn this fall. He stated he took the risk that the Planning Commission would not approve the project, and could hardly comprehend that it would not be approved. He stated if it was not 0