Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission August 7, 2019 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5. Planning Cases <br /> <br />A. Resolution 1105-19, Consideration of a Variance to allow a Second Driveway <br />at 2809 Bronson Drive (Planning Case VR2019-003) <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sevald stated the applicants, Jason and Deborah Lanz, own <br />the property at 2809 Bronson Drive, consisting of a single-family home and detached garage. <br />Mr. Lanz proposes to build a second garage and driveway, requiring a Variance for the second <br />driveway. The intent of keeping the first driveway is to allow a family member with mobility <br />challenges to park close to the door. It was noted a 2/3’s majority vote of the Commissioners (5 <br />of 7) is required to approve a Variance. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this <br />item on July 17th. After a 4-2 vote to approve the Variance failed, the Planning Commission <br />tabled this item to allow a n opportunity for the full Commission to comment. Staff does not <br />have a recommendation on this Planning Case. It is Staff’s opinion that there is nothing unique <br />about the property to warrant a second driveway. There may be unique circumstances related t o <br />the home’s residents to warrant a second driveway, but, this determination should be made by <br />the Planning Commission based on the applicant’s testimony. <br /> <br />Commissioner Monn asked how many feet were between the proposed garage and the property <br />line. Community Development Director Sevald explained there would be eight feet and noted <br />the minimum setback was five feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Monn questioned if the property had been recently surveyed. J ason Lanz, 2809 <br />Bronson Drive, reported he knew roughly where the stakes were for his property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Monn inquired if the applicant would be installing another concrete driveway. <br />Mr. Lanz indicated he was not proposing to install any concrete in the back yard. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked if the applicant had retho ught the plans to include the second driveway. <br />Mr. Lanz stated the only thoughts he had was to keep the original driveway in place and to have <br />a driveway run in front of his house to the second garage. He explained he was not interested in <br />placing a driveway through his rear yard. He indicated there was no easy solution in order to <br />meet the needs of his mother-in-law and the needs of his family. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson requested staff review the City requirements if the variance were approved for <br />the second driveway. Community Development Director Sevald explained the applicant would <br />be required to remove the second driveway entrance when the mother -in-law was no longer <br />living at the home while also placing $3,250 in escrow. In addition, the applicant would have to <br />construct the second driveway within one year. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson stated he was very conflicted with this request. He anticipated it would be <br />difficult for the City to enforce these requirements. He commented there may be other solutions <br />available to the applicant that would not require a variance. He indicated he did not want to set a <br />precedent if this request were approved. He stated at this time he would not be able to support <br />the variance for a second driveway.