Laserfiche WebLink
;,;: <br />MOUNDS VIEW PLANNINO COMMiSSION REGULAR MEETING <br />Page 2 July 2,19tf0 <br />-------------------------°-...-------------° °-----------°-°-°--°-°^---------°. <br />Acf,ing officia1 Kampel informed khe Covwnisslon <br />p~ that Mr. 0'Conneli is requesting a driveway <br />' ~ varlance for a driveway prevlousty constructed <br />an May 74.. 14tJ. The gbrage and tot line set- <br />back is 6'. The newty constrUcted b'lacktop <br />drlveway is presently 2' from the property 71ne. <br />The minimum setback requirement of 5' could be <br />met 1P the driveway were lined up with the east <br />Pnd of the garage, Ali other set6ack require- <br />menCs are met, Staff is recortmending deniat uf <br />this variance request indicating that approval <br />of this driveway installation (which is against <br />code reg~!lations; would entice others to aiso <br />apply for variances after the fact, <br />Mr. 0'Connell reparted to the Camnission that <br />his oriyinal driveway was cemented, Ne had the <br />cement tore out to replace it with blacktop. He <br />fiired a construction company to come in and do <br />the ,~ob for him. He asked them to fill in the <br />area where the previous driveway had been. P,t <br />thnt time, Mr. 0'Connell explained, he assumed <br />the construction canpany was aware of any <br />exieting codes which would prevent him from <br />doing su. However, recent7y when the Building <br />,^ Inspectar came out to his home, he indicated <br />'~ that Mr. 0'Connell had two options: 1) Rip <br />~~ out the new driveway where it extendecl over <br />the setback Pequirements, or 2) Apply for a <br />variance Pequest to see if this requirement <br />could be walvered. The construction company <br />had not 9ndicated this potentiai probtem to him <br />at the time of the drivewey installation. <br />The Comnission i~dicated that according to the <br />strict interpretation oF the code, a variance <br />could not be awarded to Mr. 0'Connell. There <br />is no apparent physical circumstance that Con- <br />stitutes a(non-monetary) hardship. The pre- <br />vious driveway existed under non-confm•min4 use <br />(it was constructed before currently existing <br />cades) and that redevelopment of structures today <br />require adherence ta present codes, Tne cude's <br />9ntent is to avoid ancroachment upon other <br />property owners and it keeps dissension to a <br />minimum by following a strict interpretation <br />and enforcement. Chairperson Mountin noted that <br />iP requests for variances are granted, it eventually <br />begins ta ¢reaken the 7aw. The resu]t is a nnn- <br />enforceable code. The function of the Planning <br />Coemissiun is to enfnrce the code requirements of <br />a 5' setback aiid ignorance of existing cades is <br />~~ not a defendable p1ea. <br />6. VIlRIANCE REQVEST FROM <br />RONALD 0'CONNELL, <br />2296 TERRACE DRIVE <br />CASE 68-80 <br />" <br />, <br />t <br />, , ,. , <br />