10-04-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 20, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Hegland stated each case is treated as a separate case and no precedence would be set. Commissioner Scotch asked Staff if they foresaw a future detriment to leaving the driveway. Planning Associate Heller replied the only issue would be where the property line is actually located and this is why Staff wanted to get away from the one foot setback. She mentioned property markers for most homes are long gone. Commissioner Hegland stated the asphalt is not a permanent surface and it would only last 10-15 years; it could be brought up to code at the time it needed to be replaced. He stated the Fords came to the City and thought they had done what they were asked to do. Commissioner Hegland stated he would be in favor of granting the variance. Acting Chair Miller stated the Commission could approve, deny or table the variance, and suggested tabling the decision until the October 4th meeting when the entire Commission was in attendance. Commissioner Scotch replied she agreed with Commissioner Hegland. She mentioned the property is well groomed, not hurting anyone, and the water run off is controlled. She stated it is in place, has not hindered anything, and the City could be at fault for not giving clear directions. Acting Chair Miller stated the neighbor’s fence hides the driveway and they do not see it. Commissioner Hegland stated the City had not required property surveys to define property lines and this is not in dispute. Commissioner Scotch stated the cost to remove a foot would be quite a bit. Acting Chair Miller looked at the property and stated she agreed with the request. Community Development Director Ericson stated there are no resolutions before the Planning Commission. He explained this is a case where there was not a clear cut recommendation Staff could make. He mentioned, as the Planning Commission is well aware, it must abide by the hardship criteria. Director Ericson stated the codes in the ordinance are there for a reason, but there are provisions for a variance and an opportunity for applicants like the Fords to come before the Commission. He indicated that perhaps the Commission should determine what the hardship is and be able to articulate it. He recommended the Commission continue the public hearing, since it had not been closed, at the October 4, 2006 meeting. He expressed if the Planning Commission wanted to approve this, they must have a clear cut hardship defined. He also recommended the Fords come back with a clearly stated hardship and present it to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Hegland argued the Fords did not create this problem and were under the impression they were following the rules.