09-15-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 1, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 6 that the City Code had been amended to allow the driveway up to one foot from the property line without the need for a variance. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the city of Roseville or any other communities had any restrictions in regard to the proximity of pavement to the lot line. Jopke stated the city of Roseville cUd, however, the problem in Roseville was that many of the driveways were developed prior to their current standard, a five-foot setback, which is the standard in many communities. katated that Roseville set up an administrative variance process in order to deal with this. stated this done at a time when Roseville was in the process of a major street reconstruction palocifigiox4Rd the policy decision was that the city would install the curb cuts to meet the ordinance standard,ockkaaridrty owner desired to maintain their existing situation, they would go through this administrative variance AN,:agr process. He stated variances were typically granted for sydaztgAtions. "1"4,49mmz: Jopke stated the city of Roseville had discussed amending their rode that time, however, the Council decided that the administrative variance process woultiptOrd'Op, record of where the driveways were located, and chose to pursue that g104$ instead. He there is a typical standard in regard to the distance of pavement tgottillijrattOd in Rosevirs case, there were many variances granted to allow pavement to be closer than ftegOik 4taK 401c,bzmay .1" NklIC:Tlar Chairperson Peterson inquired regarding"height#the retaining Wall located on the north side of the subject property. Mr. Henning stated it "gin to 24 itches in height. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared the retaining wallWld he necessary in light of the placement of the garage next to the lot line. Mr. Henning stated this was correct. lie the lot required a large amount of fill, and he didRalkplan to construct the parking area in light of its opportune location. He statedgtkeway ati0.6t:e04§,.six feet.qoaltitiot line, and at a curb further into the property he is onff,:i5DUi:Ae lot liIikt4**ed he attempted to meet the Code wherever he was able, and thought 141"titkway. VIM:11N* Isow0,4",, Ngaii,"%mv witiew "per Commission:FUlgootyd regarding the location of the curve in the driveway. Mr. Henning stated thi twenty feet driveway. Commissioner Miller stated she had driven past the ."1:Now,vmt, pre: - . cl-c-ommen r 7 - • .'te-nice. She-stated-she-particularly liked-the-way-the ,wignpor driv-,,'*was curved around the and that it gave the property character. Mr. Henning thanked Co issioner Miller for her comment. He stated he had attempted to do the best he could, which aught would be ageptable. Afir ISVP441,!; **stated so many lots in Mounds View are not only deep but also wide in certain aT41-zat9(60 -t- ation could come forward again in the future, particularly as homes and garages are" in_, arger. He stated, in light of this, further review of the City Code was merited. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated the garages are being upgraded to the larger sizes, and a very massive garage could be constructed along the front of a house, which instead of having a 30- foot driveway, if paved to the garage, could actually be 42 feet wide. He stated if a conditional use permit was issued for a 1,400 square foot garage, it could be 42 feet wide by approximately 30 feet deep. He stated if the 42 feet happened to be in the front of the structure, the homeowner might