Laserfiche WebLink
Item No: 5A <br />Meeting Date: October 4, 2006 <br />Type of Business: Public Hearing <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To: Mounds View Planning Commission <br />From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate <br />o setback from the <br /> <br />Introduction: <br /> Mitch & Alison Ford, are requesting a variance to permit a driveway with no <br />etback from the property line. The driveway was constructed in the spring of 2004 without a <br />rly 2004 in order to expand <br />e driveway to the new garage in the rear yard. From 2000 to September of 2004, the City <br />lanning Commission meeting, the Fords indicated that there has <br />lways been a gravel driveway next to the house that lead to the rear yard since Mitch’s <br />iance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be <br /> demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a <br /> <br /> <br />. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply <br />Item Title/Subject: CONTINUATION: Consideration of a Variance Request <br />to allow for a Driveway with n <br />Property Line at 8378 Groveland Road; Planning Case <br />VR2006-008 <br /> <br />The applicants, <br />s <br />permit, after a new detached garage was built behind the house. Staff became aware of the <br />driveway with no setback recently after receiving a complaint. The Ford’s were sent a letter <br />on July 25, 2006, indicating that a permit had not been obtained for the driveway <br />construction and that the driveway was in violation of City Code setback requirements. The <br />options given to them were to either cut back the driveway to bring it into compliance or <br />apply for a variance, along with applying for a zoning permit for the driveway construction. <br />Attached to that letter were planning and zoning applications. <br /> <br />The Fords met with staff and said the driveway was installed in ea <br />th <br />Code had allowed driveways to be set back one foot from property lines, if the owner <br />received a letter of agreement from the immediate neighbor. The Ford’s did get a letter from <br />their neighbor, Eric Severson, dated August 2003, but incorrectly installed the driveway with <br />no setback rather than the allowed one-foot setback. The Fords decided to apply for a <br />variance on August 18, 2006 since the driveway is already constructed and has been in <br />place for over two years. They have also now received a permit, after the fact, for the <br />driveway construction. <br /> <br />At the September 20th P <br />a <br />parents built the house in 1968. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />As with any var <br />a <br />literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State <br />statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application <br />and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in <br />Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship <br />exists when all of the criteria are met. A written statement was included with the application. <br />The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />a <br />Ford Variance Staff Report <br />Page 2