Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Case #9: <br /> <br />Consider Driveway Paving Incentive <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski reviewed that City Council has expressed. a desire to initiate a <br />. discussion for an effort to. eliminate unpaved driveways within the City. The benefit of such a <br />goal would be; the elimination ot sediment migrating onto paved: city streets and into the storm <br />water drainage system. Secondary benefits would be improved neighborhood appearance and <br />higher property values. This case is intended to begin a discussion on what type of program and <br />incentives might be considered to. achieve this goal. . Mr. Jankowski stated the City of Coon <br />Rapids initiated. a similar effort several years ago by passing an ordinance . requiring all <br />driveways to be paved within a period of several years from the titne of adoption. In an effort to <br />facilitate compliance with the ordinance the city solicited interested parties and put together a <br />driveway paving project that assessed the full cost under the . chapter 429 process. Participating <br />parties. needed to sign a waiver of the public hearing required by the process and also agreed to <br />be responsible for turf restoration and landscaping issues. This project covered perhaps 25. % of <br />.. the unpaved driveways. in the city.. Coon Rapids has not. vigorously enforced the program and' is. <br />. currently considering unde~aking a second program at this time: <br /> <br />. City Engineer J~owski reviewed the following issues to be considered with this type of <br />program: <br />Incentives Offered - The discussion which. has initiated includes a monetary ~centive for <br />residents by having the city pick up a portion of the cost of the paving. Should the paving exceed <br />beyond the property line, generally 15 to 21 feet? A legal issue may ari~e as to whether city <br />funds can be used to fund improvements on private property. Perhaps Ramsey could pick up all <br />or a portion of the paving costs within the public right-of-way~ if this proves to be an impedhnent <br />to the program.' , <br />Scope of Required Paving -. This issue addresses what the length of the mandated paving should <br />be. A. few' drives in the City extend for over a quarter. mile. Perhaps the requ4'ed paving should <br />be limited to the first 50 to 100 feet from the paved city street. Alternately the length could be. <br />based upqn the grade of the driveway approach, as steeper driveways present a .~ignificantly <br />higher erosion potential. . <br />Mandatory pavin.g - Should an ordinance be adopted requiring paving or should. the program.be <br />. strictly voluntary with financial. incentives to achieve goals? If paved driveways are to be <br />required by ordinance, consideration should be given for hardship cases which can be <br />anticipated. The issue of secondary driveways might also be addressed. <br />Technical Issues - In some instances, particularly where properties are lower than the roadway, <br />the paving of driveways may result in aggravating drainage problems. This would be more of an <br />issue with smaller lots which are most often paved. The responsibilities for landscaping <br />restoration and other damage to private property should be clearly defined. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski advised the fuilding source'for a driveway paving program could come <br />from the Stormwater Utility Fund since there would be a benefit in reduced street sweeping and <br />increased stormwater quality. The amount of funding required is not known at this time. Prior to <br />undertaking such a program the potential cost of this overall program could be quantified by <br />. . undertaking an inventory of the numbers of unpaved driveways in the City. <br /> <br />The Committee and staff discussed the f9110wing in rel~tion to a driyeway paving program: <br /> <br />Public Works Committee I April 17, 2007 <br />Page IS of 18 <br />