Memo Feasibility Report- 1996 Residential St ReconstructionDate:
To:
From:
Subject:
JTG /rr
City of Hopkins
Memorandum
November 17, 1995
Honorable Mayor and City Council
James Gessele, Engineering Supt. J'Tzy
Council Report 95 -207
Feasibility Report - 1996 Residential Street
Reconstruction
Staff requested late changes in the feasibility report concerning
1996 street reconstruction projects. Report 95 -207 will not be
available for distribution until Monday, November 20. Reports
will be hand delivered by Monday afternoon. Staff regrets the
delay and extends apologies.
In the report staff recommends accepting the feasibility study
and ordering a public hearing for December 19.
November 17, 1995
Proposed Action
Overview
Supporting Documentation
Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
PETITION -- ORDINANCE ON OBSTRUCTING DRIVEWAYS
Council Report 95 -208
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to refer the proposed ordinance re-
quest on the blocking of driveways to the City Attorney's office for review and recommenda-
tion.
Adoption of this motion will refer the petition and the requested ordinance consideration to the
City Attorney's office for review and recommendation on the legal implications and options for
adoption of such a measure.
A dispute between the owners of 330 and 334 15th Avenue North over the desires of the own-
er at 334 15th Avenue North to place a fence between a common driveway access has been
taking place for a number of months. A fence permit has been requested by the resident at
334 15th Avenue North, and on the advice of the City Attorney that fence permit has not been
granted to date.
However, the request for a fence permit has brought to the attention of the neighborhood near
these properties the implications of placing a fence between driveways which historically have
been jointly used. The City currently has no ordinances which would restrict the placement of
a fence between adjoining driveways, and the dispute which currently exists is largely a civil
matter between two private property owners.
The attached petition is requesting that the City consider and adopt an ordinance which would
disallow a fence from being placed in a situation such as the one described.
Primary Issues to Consider
o Does the City currently have ordinances regarding this issue?
The City does not have any ordinances which apply to civil disputes such as the one
described. An analysis from the City Attorney's office would help determine whether or
not the City has the authority to pass an ordinance similar to the one requested in the
petition.
•
PETITION
We the undersigned feel that there should be a city ordinance that provides for an
easement clause between adjoining shared driveways. The need for this ordinance is
evident due to a recent dispute between the owners of 330 and 334 15th Avenue North.
Adjoining driveways should not be blocked by a fence, a parked car, or other various
obstacles that will cause a hardship to the owners of the adjoining or adjacent properties.
Not only does the obstruction affect the adjoining property owner it affects everyone on
the entire block. The possibility of an automobile accident is greatly increased when one
property owner must pull out into the alley blindly due to the adjoining property owner's
obstruction between the driveways. In no way would an ordinance disallowing a property
owner from obstructing entryway into an adjoining driveway be at any individual property
owner's detriment.
We feel this problem requires the immediate attention of the city council. Please act in the
best interest of the city of Hopkins. Thank you.
17
PRINT NAME
1 `l eevk, Q.(/' lie z
2 /,y� yv A-47,----.(7,,,, 3 / 74-A - v % C. ati
4 //r0 4R j,v /, r
5 Li() of-q /7 vO iO4,i
6 A/ , C,c: /
7 ; A ti k AA; 1,1,4.22-
8 51 t —NOkQ1-
10 Fre_ck jns(- ry i ra
11 Lem '
12 C f \�z,\ (bn CAS\CI0
• 13 A'Rg AiLCe 11,4
f 14 p 15 0A—-A_
16 F e d Mc, N/ m q I..
18 ; cW g 1. 5 TT plaso
19 g
201 iOAr,
21
A /Ca.
22 y i 1 I f 0- 5
23 &tr) / -C/ '// / — )77pm
25 ( .A.t�,A
26 S. Kea l�r
27 ,rmitli / /Belle' fr
28 1 1, 7 0,,4q 4Rkr►.eL -f
29 411;1/4 (ArYe
30 5 1(, \ae rv
PETITION
SIGNATURE ADDRESS
33 0 is lI . /1?
2,1n
3/ y 7 7t Nor.
r.
/
)6 °77 AJ;i- A(
eGat
3c /6 �v
F)63q / " oe
/1 1 »,A1
S l 4q 4l,
3 , ts7 ' f3u9 N c)
qL
a.
Tnli vN.
e
3 2 - / /S' Q I3 .
31q /
,1/5' (fin
-5:,)-7 /tit,
•
40
PRINT NAME
41
42 my g
43 ALre..4
44
45
46'
47
48
49
50
wrx
52 47_
53 C 7 PtiArE riikp
54 I t a r 4
55 (re
56 :,ft,ti-n) 0-P411/4)15
57 ALV/At , 41 .tit'
58
59 T2/14.- St4A
PETITION
SIGNATURE
/v-
dote' 6Z
tv E 2. <k_
14,6
Pao Dbroyetile-
.4 v
rif /1/4497s6e
4/9,ppit)c
t ea-4c)
Vrt,-,pr BLoy.
Cit U
60 C ha I
C?.1 P Z- 4-4AT
4c. 1 c // 441 'en
ADDRESS
,a71( L
7 / 31 er
3,1-16;
, 45 //- Ait • AI
PI-0 ) A
/-
E1/ /6 Alfa_