09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • approved, he would rectify the situation, and would make the area into something else. He stated he would work with the Planning Commission to take care of the matter. He stated he agreed that he should not have commenced the project prior to its approval, however, he was pressed for time, and desired to complete the project. Commissioner Miller inquired,in light of the pad's location at the side of t'e* ara_ .e `would it still be defined as a driveway. Ericson stated it would not be, but rather log," parking area. He Q..�4:a Fl.:k ;...Cx �. referred to the site plan, and explained if the driveway wer < be measut of the garage and there were no asphalt, gravel, or rock material from thearage over,andoKig aved ar!oito the side of the garage and back, it would be acceptable. `noted, h.o ever, the4`` ould..;the be accessed over grass at some point, and there was no way :> and„ of including that'area as Part of the width of the driveway. He stated he would not perso all that area a driveway' ;Lie stated it was more of a parking area, however, the Code does state, > at ing area and driveway can not exceed 35 feet." ' -txt Commissioner Berke stated he did not believe thea c t should have:<'<:r c eded with the project, when he was aware that it was not acceptable:however, the Comfit ' ion is charged with the responsibility to see that the City grows and dovelop t He stated the`applicants was a very nice house. He stated there would be similar issues in.reg aar f o MAr garages in the future, and possibly, rather than utilizing a variance procedure to=letermi imilar issues, they could amend the Code to encompass the square footage* f two opff three-caa ` arages. OW Chairperson Peterson stated thea° :;amination of Code endments require the comparison of the re uirement f nei hborin com..'' unities. 'sate e believed the two issues that generated the q F�;.� g �:�.. t�:�M::;f < :� larger numberfvariances<:or r:._ :vests, have` '"e f 'issues of parking and garages. He stated they should c : t ....<ex:,.o review:v t >:t o in regard to these matters, and as standards change, the requiremen 'd::ion are tared}<,to meet the standards. He inquired regarding the code requirements ocomttie H ;.. . v :,i Ericson stale+, in his aider.stridng the city of Roseville does not have any width requirements, for d: - .1'1'and he believed ,also true of other communities. He stated there was a spectrum of r-4i arements, in this re ar nd he was not certain at what level the City of Mounds View fit into tha ectrum. :0: .ssioner Steven inquired if the city of Roseville based their driveway requirements upon the ,. ' : . •o. unity Development Director Jopke stated Roseville's code requirements were 1311**„ : ;kited in regard to the width of the driveway at the right-of-way. He stated, beyond the 'ial8t4ay, and upon the private property there were no restrictions. He stated the present proposal would be allowed in the city of Roseville. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared there was an additional issue, in regard to the close proximity of the paved area to the lot line of the subject property. Ericson stated this was correct, however, • the letter from the owner of the neighboring property satisfies this requirement. He explained further