10-18-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission October 4, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated it was made from a copy the Fords had at the time of the variance application. Chair Stevenson stated he is not sure how in all fairness the Commission could approve something that is a total infringement on the neighboring property. He explained that whether or not verbal or written authorization was received, no one gave permission to pave up to ten inches over the property line. Ms. Carole Isakson, attorney with Kalina, Wills, Gisvold & Clark, 6160 Summit Drive, Suite 560, Minneapolis, addressed the commission on behalf of the Fords. She pointed out the Fords paved an existing driveway that had been there since 1988. She pointed out the neighbor sat on this for three years. She stated the driveway is not over the property line. She pointed out there is no survey of the Ford property. Commissioner Hegland stated if there is no survey from the Fords, there is no property line established and this is why there is a one-foot setback. Chair Stevenson stressed, for the Commission to grant a zero-setback, it would never do so without a survey. He insisted there was a one-foot requirement since driveways and fences are typically not exactly straight, and can meander back and forth. He emphasized the Commission would not approve it without an official survey showing the driveway was within their property boundary. He declared the Commission would not grant this variance without a survey. Chair Stevenson stated if the Fords want to do a survey and bring this back to the Commission that would be fine. Commissioner Zwirn asked Mr. Ford, at the time he covered the driveway with blacktop, if there was a fence along the property. Mr. Ford responded there was. Ms. Isakson pointed out the issue of Adverse Possession and a Doctrine of Practical Location where two properties have always treated a line as a line, even if a survey comes in and states the line was at some other location, the courts would treat it as the line. Commissioner Zwirn commented the survey is not the primary factor the Planning Commission had to deal with; if a line is an existing line and had been treated as a line, Minnesota has a philosophy it is the line and Mr. Ford has every right to treat it as such. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if someone else were to purchase the property, would he or she be a victim of the invisible agreement. Ms. Isakson replied they would not be a victim, it is not invisible and the Doctrine of Physical Location is generally a fence. Chair Stevenson asked why the Fords went ahead and blacktopped the driveway within one foot when City Code had never allowed it.