My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1986/11/03
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
Agenda Packets - 1986/11/03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 2:40:04 PM
Creation date
4/1/2025 2:40:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/3/1986
Description
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
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
/ MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council <br />( FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Developmen <br />DATE: October 30, 1986 <br />SUBJECT: DRIVEWAY SURVEY DATED OCTOBER 23, 1986 <br />Attached please find the subject driveway survey. <br />This survey provides some very interesting information on how <br />other cities enforce their City Codes in regards to driveway <br />construction or replacement. Six of the seven cities surveyed <br />indicated that a permit or inspection is not required for <br />driveway construction or replacement. Only the City of Shoreview <br />requires a permit and inspection for driveway construction or <br />replacement. This could be one reason why we have trouble <br />enforcing our City Code in the area of driveway replacement. <br />The survey indicated Maw Brighton, Ardan Hills and St. Louis Park <br />have a zero setback distance for driveways. Six of the surveyed <br />cities have maximum driveway widths at the curb cut varying from <br />20 feet to 36 feet. Five of the seven surveying cities indicated <br />that if the driveway is destroyed to over 50% of its value, it <br />must be replaced to meet City Code. Approximately, half of the <br />cities surveyed indicated that woodchips or rock could be used <br />next to a driveway and that satisfies City Code requirements. <br />Six of the seven surveyed cities indicated that a property owner <br />can overlay a non -conforming driveway. <br />This survey does not indicate that most all cities approve the <br />installation of a driveway to new houses at the time the owner <br />applies for the building permit. All of the cities enforce this <br />area of their code. Once a new house and driveway are <br />constructed to City Code requirements and the owner receives an <br />occupancy permit, its easy for the owner to widen the driveway on <br />a weekend. This is very similar to the problem we have with <br />filling. Many people fill their yards a little at a time on <br />weekends and we do not know about it. <br />If this survey is accurate for the entire metropolitan area, one <br />could say that most cities to not enforce their City Code in the <br />area of driyeway construction or replacement. Does this mean <br />that we should not enforce our driveway construction <br />requirements: <br />Under present City Code, if an owner overlays a non -conforming <br />driveway and does not destroy the driveway to over 50 percent of <br />its value, we can not force the owner to bring the driveway into <br />conformance because the existing driveway was not destroyed. <br />We would loose in court. Sometimes the non -conforming driveway <br />is non -conforming because the property owner made weekend <br />additions. Property owners do not understand why they cannot <br />replace their existing driveway. <br />We request direction from City Council. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.