03-02-1998 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• ' Item No. • Staff Report No. Meeting Date: March 2, 1998 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session;PH:Public Hearing; CA:Consent Agenda;CB:Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Vehicles Parked in Violation of City Code Date of Report: February 26, 1998 As a result of certain problem properties in the City and a reluctance within the community to correct nuisance code violations because of the widespread nature of the problem, I decided to drive each street in the City and take note of properties where there appeared to be vehicles parked off of driveways. This is the first time (as far as I am aware)that the City has undertaken a comprehensive and proactive approach to enforcing this regulation. My observations from this "windshield survey" revealed that as many as 240 properties in the City have vehicles parked in their yards. Because of previous enforcement practices and an ambiguous code reference, I did not include recreational vehicles, boats or trailers in this survey. • Because I made the observations from within my vehicle and there was still snow on the ground, it was possible that a property was identified in error as having a car parked in violation of the Code. Because of my limited time, it would not have been feasible or practical to verify property- by-property the accuracy of my survey results. Instead, I indicated in the letters sent out that if the property owner believed a mistake had been made that they were to call and let me know. The feedback from the letters has been heavy. Thus far, approximately 50 residents (about 20 percent of those sent letters) have responded, either by calling or by stopping in to City Hall. There have been many upset at being told that they may not park in their yard while others are happy to know that someone is enforcing the Codes. Some have voluntarily moved their vehicles while others are planning on doing so when the ground dries out. Still others have indicated that they will be improving their driveway or expanding it. Twelve of the respondents explained that they did have a gravel surface and were told that they were not in violation. For those properties, I made note of the presence of the gravel for future reference. The balance of the property owners I have had contact with are not planning to change their parking habits regardless. One of the issues that comes up when discussing the parking regulations with residents is the number of driveways in the City that are not improved. While the Code states that driveways are to be constructed of an improved surface, we have allowed those properties with unimproved drives to remain. As one can imagine, enforcement for these properties is problematic. • Because of the controversy that the mailout has generated and the amount of negative feedback received, we are reevaluating how we approach enforcement of this Code requirement. In light of this, staff would like some direction from Council with regard to this issue and the following questions: