Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 2004 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated Council feels there are other issues that may justify going to a five- <br />foot setback and, if there are situations where less than five feet is needed, then it should go <br />through the variance process. He then said that the Commission discussed nonconforming <br />driveways that would be created and the Code indicates that if you have a driveway that was <br />approved at a certain setback by the City and the City changes the Code it becomes a legal <br />nonconforming use but another area in the Code indicates that any driveway that was legally <br />permitted prior to 1999 that is nonconforming may be allowed to remain and can be rebuilt and <br />reconstructed; so the intent is if it was a legally permitted driveway before 1999 it would have <br />that right but after 1999 it would not. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated there are some issues with the nonconforming status of driveways and <br />Staff would recommend looking at those issues separately. He then said that very few <br />nonconforming driveways would be created by this amendment. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that if the City granted approval of a permit to have a driveway one <br />foot from the property line and a true hardship exists then that would be justification for a <br />variance. He then indicated that there would also be the opportunity for an administrative <br />variance provided the neighbor does not object. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland indicated there are driveways in town that are unimproved and he is <br />concerned that this may encourage those property owners not to improve the driveway. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that Section 90202 of the Code discusses nonconforming driveways <br />but separates out the permanent and nonpermanent and only provides that protection to <br />permanent driveways so, if the driveway is dirt or gravel, then it could not be rebuilt or <br />expanded. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that permanent driveways that are nonconforming could remain. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland indicated he is concerned about setting up situations that would <br />encourage people not to improve a driveway. <br /> <br />Director Ericson suggested coming up with a program to assist property owners by providing an <br />incentive to improve the driveway such as entering into a contract for discount asphalt with one <br />of the local asphalt companies. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that in approximately 95% of cases where there is a nonconforming <br />driveway there is no reason that the driveway would have to be located 2 feet from the property <br />line. He further commented that he does not feel that this would affect more than a handful of <br />properties as most properties have sufficient room for a driveway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller indicated that this would eliminate the need to get permission from the <br />neighbor. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked Staff to read the reasons the Code is being changed.