Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 13 <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas stated that if the garage is utilized to store more than one vehicle, it was <br />likely that the property owner would want an improved surface. Commissioner Johnson <br />agreed. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that they might initially utilize gravel, however, they <br />might improve the driveway in the future, if the need arises. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas stated an improved driveway might not be necessary if the structure is <br />being utilized for the seasonal storage of a vehicle and the issues related to appearance would not <br />be applicable, however, if there is a vehicle coming in and out of the structure on a daily basis, <br />the property owner would desire an improved surface. She added that it might take some time <br />after the construction of the garage before the property owner could do this. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated an improved surface would be more convenient from a snow <br />removal standpoint as well. Commissioner Thomas added that the very few situations that are <br />problematic could be addressed. Planning Associate Ericson stated there were more than a few <br />of these situations. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas inquired how the current Code addresses these issues, if they exist. <br />Planning Associate Ericson explained that the Code indicates that if you expand your garage, <br />you must have a driveway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas stated that if the current Code is not resolving the issues related to <br />properties that already have an unimproved driveway to the back, this would not be resolved in <br />this examination. Planning Associate Ericson advised that they could prevent these situations <br />from occurring in the future. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas inquired why they were attempting to resolve this issue in conjunction <br />with the consideration of sheds and garages. Planning Associate Ericson explained that <br />oftentimes, when there is a change, there are so many interconnected issues and different Codes <br />which reference specific Chapters that it is difficult to attempt to make one revision without <br />affecting everything else. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated the City Code requires that vehicles be parked on an improved <br />surface. He pointed out that if a property owner constructs a garage in the back yard, and enters <br />and exits that structure around another structure, the driveway would eventually become a rutted <br />path, at which point, the property owner would be liable for a ticket. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated he had concerns with regard to the potential for possible <br />abuse, such as an individual who decides to drag race through his back yard because he is not <br />required to have a driveway, and eventually the driveway is dirt. He indicated that for three <br />years he performed the function of going out to properties in response to complaints from <br />neighboring property owners that their neighbor has no regard for the appearance of his property <br />in that he parks indiscriminately, and has no defined driveway. He explained that from a code <br />enforcement standpoint, it is difficult to inform such an individual that he must be parked on the <br />driveway, when its exact location is unclear.