Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 20, 2021 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5. Planning Cases <br /> <br />A. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1139-21, Variance to reduce the side yard <br />setback for a Driveway at 5045 Red Oak Drive <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sevald stated the applicant replaced the driveway and <br />extensive landscaping in September 2021, such that the driveway has a 0’ side yard setback, <br />whereas a minimum of 5’ is required. Mr. Firkus applied for, and received a Zoning Permit <br />after-the-fact, pending approval of a Variance, or removal of the 5’ side yard encroachment. The <br />new driveway is two cars wide, whereas the previous driveway was one car wide. The new <br />driveway is similar to others on the west side of the block. There are seven homes (all identical) <br />with driveways onto Red Oak Drive. Of these seven, six have driveways with a 0’ setback <br />(including the applicant’s). All of these homes were built in 1956 with a single tuck under <br />garage. In researching driveway permit histories for each of these homes, one record was found. <br />In 2015, the City issued a permit for 5079 Red Oak Drive, allowing the existing driveway to be <br />replaced as-is with a 0’ side yard setback. Non-conforming uses may be continued, repaired, and <br />replaced, but cannot be expanded without a Variance. The situation with 5045 Red Oak is <br />different from the others, because they all have been non-conforming for many years and <br />allowed to continue, whereas the applicant’s driveway was conforming up until now, and cannot <br />be expanded without a Variance. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sevald explained in addition to the landscaping installed, a <br />shed was installed with a 1’ side yard setback. The applicant has been advised that approval of a <br />Variance for the shed would be unlikely, and has agreed to move the shed to be in compliance. It <br />was noted staff recommends approval. It is reasonable for single-family homes to have a two-car <br />wide driveway. This home and others on the west side of the street were constructed in 1956 <br />with a one-car wide driveway. Since this time, the other homes (except the applicant’s) have <br />expanded their driveways with a 0’ setback. It is reasonable for the applicant to do the same. <br />Changes in topography makes it impractical to expand towards the interior of the property. Staff <br />recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the variance as <br />requested. <br /> <br />Chair Rundle opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. <br /> <br />There being no comments from the public, Chair Rundle closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson explained the applicant was bringing his property into conformance with <br />the neighboring properties. He expressed concern with the fact the applicant was asking for <br />approval after already completing the work on his property. Steve Firkus, 5045 Red Oak Drive, <br />indicated this was all new territory for him. He reported once the City contacted him and told <br />him what to do, he applied for a permit because this would bring consistency and safety to this <br />property. He stated he was not aware he would need a variance, but has since been working with <br />staff through this process. <br />