My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-07-2004 WS
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
06-07-2004 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:23 PM
Creation date
8/8/2018 9:05:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
6/7/2004
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
6/7/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Item No: 3A <br />Meeting Date: June 7, 2004 <br />Type of Business: Worksession <br />Administrator Review : ____ <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To: Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From: James Ericson, Community Development Director <br />Item Title/Subject: Review of City Code Section 1104.01, Subd 4c(1)(a) <br />Pertaining to Driveway Setbacks in residential <br />Districts <br /> <br />Introduction: <br /> <br />Driveways in single-family and two-family residential zoning districts are permitted at five-foot <br />setbacks to the side lot lines. Section 1104.01, Subd 4c(1)(a) provides for an exception for <br />a one foot setback as long as the adjoining property owner or owners consent by signing a <br />statement to that effect. If the reduced setback would cause the driveway to be located in an <br />easement, the property owner would need to first obtain an encroachment permit from the <br />responsible authority, if such a permit is required. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />The intent of this provision is to allow for driveways closer to the property line in the R-1 and <br />R-2 zoning districts than what is ordinarily allowed if the neighbor agrees. While this allows <br />some flexibility for the property owner, the question that should be addressed is whether the <br />neighbor should have that authority. Staff does not support the current language allowing <br />the neighbor to control the outcome of a driveway location for a variety of reasons: <br /> <br />• The neighbor may be pressured or coerced into signing the consent form <br />• The neighbor may fear retaliation if they fail to consent <br />• The neighbor may consent, then move the next month, and the new neighbor <br />opposes the location so close to the property line <br />• Granting the neighbor “veto rights” may infringe on the subject property owner’s <br />rights to due process. <br /> <br />If the Council were to take the position that the neighbor consent requirement is <br />unacceptable, the Code should be amended to allow by right either a five-foot setback or <br />the one-foot setback. Staff would support elimination of the one-foot setback for the <br />following reasons: <br /> <br />• Researching easement locations is time consuming for staff <br />• Keeping the five foot setback allows for channeled drainage between homes <br />• Neighbors no longer put in the uncomfortable and inappropriate position of having <br />to say yes or no to a driveway <br />• Maintaining a five foot setback would ensure easement areas remain unimproved <br />• Reduced setbacks should be granted by variance
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.