10-12-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council October 11, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 34 City Administrator Whiting pointed out that the word "current," might be subject to • interpretation in the future. City Attorney Riggs stated it would be more appropriate to indicate a specific date. He requested Council Member Stigney clarify his concern. Council Member Stigney stated the purpose of this ordinance was to provide if a resident has a non-conforming driveway, they can rebuild it in that same form, and he had no problem in this regard. He explained, however, his concern is that if they were to "bootleg" the driveway in, without a permit, and everyone was aware of this, but utilized the language of the ordinance to allow them to keep the driveway. He stated he was simply suggesting language, which might prevent this from occurring. Planning Associate Ericson commented that previous ordinances with similar situations include language, which indicates "existing, non-conforming driveways, as of the date of the passing of this ordinance, (or a date specific}," which could ultimately be today's date. He noted, however, a problem exists in that a driveway may be constructed in a location where none previously existed, and the property owner may indicate it existed prior to the date indicated on the ordinance, which would make this a difficult situation to enforce. Council Member Stigney agreed, adding that if the driveway was not previously allowed without a permit, it should not be allowed to perpetuate. He explained by indicating the word "allowed," and indicating a date from this point forward, it would close the gap on this type of . occurrence. Council Member Quick commented that this might reward someone for not obtaining a permit. Council Member Stigney stated this was what he was attempting to avoid. Council Member Quick inquired if he was to install a driveway which meets the Code, but he did not obtain a permit. Council Member Stigney stated that it would not be allowed pursuant to the Code. Planning Associate Ericson stated a number of things occur that the City is not aware of, and people do not obtain building permits for. He stated staff attempts to resolve these issues by requiring a building permit after the fact. He advised this would always be an issue, and he did not believe the language of the ordinance would prevent it from occurring. Council Member Stigney suggested the word "permitted" might be more appropriate than the word "allowed, however, the language of the ordinance, as it is currently written, presents a problem. He explained that if a driveway was not previously permitted, this would imply that they did not obtain a permit for it, and it should not be allowed to proceed. Mayor Coughlin noted a motion would be required to extend the meeting at this time. MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Extend the Meeting for no More than One-half Hour. • Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried.