Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council October 13, 1986 <br />Regular Meeting Page Fourteen <br />Clerk /Administrator Pauley stated the common pro <br />vision for non conformance is that it can be <br />maintained, but once it is 50% destroyed, Code <br />takes over and it must be brought up to existing <br />Code. He added it is a common provision through- <br />out the State of Minnesota. <br />Motion /Second: Linke /Hankner to have Staff take <br />some time and get ahold of Blaine, Spring Lake <br />Park, Shoreview and surrounding communities in the <br />Metro area to find out what their feelings are and <br />how they address this issue, for driveways only. <br />5 ayes 0 nays <br />Clerk /Administrator Pauley stated he would place it <br />on the first agenda session in November for discussion. <br />Eric Hanson, 2228 Oakwood Drive, stated he had applied <br />for a permit to replace his driveway and was told he <br />could not do it, as it was, because of Code, and was <br />told he could use woodchips or gravel in the areas <br />that would not meet Code. He stated he would rather <br />replace the blacktop with concrete, and asked what <br />would prevent him from replacing one -third of the <br />driveway three different times. <br />Paul Fedor, 2288 Knoll Drive, stated everyone has a <br />weekend project, but it appears most of the problems <br />the City is experiencing is with fly -by -night <br />contractors, and asked if the Council has considered <br />a higher fine. He added he realizes variances are <br />hard to grant, but in this case, both parties were <br />taken by the contractor. <br />Attorney Meyers responded that it is the ultimate <br />responsibility of the property owner, and if <br />citations were going to be issued, they would have <br />to start issuing them to homeowners also, for not <br />insuring that a building permit was taken out by <br />their contractor. <br />Earl Marr, 2265 Lois Drive, stated he is a neighbor <br />of Mr. Gjerde's and he has no objection to the driveway <br />as it was put in. He also pointed out that Bob <br />Eigenheer was allowed to build 41/2' from the property <br />line many years ago, which must have required a variance <br />then. <br />Mr. Paul stated he feels the ordinances are out of <br />line with the people, and he has not heard any <br />constructive reasons why Code requires the driveway <br />to be 5' from the property line, and he asked why <br />the Government should say it has to be 5', and why <br />the people should have to pay a fee to replace something <br />on their own property. <br />Motion Carried <br />