AF - 46794��
y
�?CT 1y ' 9�1 11 � 47 RHRf`IH G�I�`r' :'. '=TEFFE('di;EF'.
�ta�ut a w�N�Y
ROUWO J. 7N���R
CARYM b. YE
Virgil. Herrick
200 Co�n Rapids $lvd
Coon Rapids, Mri. 55443
re: Dr. Wayne Dahl
�?ear Mr. Herrick :
T,�A,R,��Y & THEILER
ATiORNEYS A71.AW
SUITH 6180
1300 (30DWnRD 37R�ET N.@.
MINNEAPOLlS, bi1NME30TA 55413
(612) 331-4500
(800? 700-4b01
Fl1X 331-7740
Septembex 29, I994
F.1
O( CAUnae�:
PATRICIA J. RYERSON'
�aeo Ucxnaed !n
NoAt1 Aak01a & WisCdtsln
Afte� �ur mast recent conversation on Monday I wanted to send you
a le�t�r setting farth my clients position regarding h��e neighbor�
���empt to avaid the city's building codes and its adverse a��ect
�pon his. prop�r�y values.
Y agx'ee wa:th the cities assessment rhat the driveway in dispute has
been in place �or many years. Y beiieve the previaus owner of my
clients property.did in fact g�.ve the prior owner of the adjacent
�roperty �ome land to utiliz� for a driveway. However, over the
yearr� the ro ert owners adjacent to my client have a.n:creased tkze
size af the d.rzvewav so tha� it encroac � on my clients an . en
an ow this occurred is not exactly known.
�Iy client dzscove�'ed the encroachment aver five years ago when he
xeviewed the m�tter �nrith me. I sent a letter to the neighbors
IHayfox�ds3 letting them know we would allow the use of �he prpperty
�s theix' dri�crew��y, but would not aaree t e uae was x�.ot open. and
�'1L7S�.7.J.� . ThaYp h78 nc�f- }�oon anti.� i_n� L'`Y adv�ra� pos�egsien �� il1�T
cl�.— e� n�s prap�rty and this is not an issu� at this time.
'S'h� areaJ. issue now involves th� Hayfard' s work on that portion of
the tariveway which is salely upon their o��:n praperty. Th� Hayfords
apparently have tarn ug part�ons of the dr�veway up with the
a.nterzta.on of resuriacing it completely. The driveway abuts my
clients prop�r�y Zine.
The Frid�ey city code, as I understand it, requires any change to
�xisting..stxuc�uxes in �xcess of 50g must be done in compliance
wit�h the.current cit� code, irre ardless of when the structure was
first buil� or the code requirements at t e ime i�was uil�—�
a�.so�� re � res � a a u s must e at east eet rom a
neighbors property� line..
612 7�U 1�?7
;. C?GT 1a ' q�l 11 � 48 BARf`IA C�UZY 'u STEFFENGEF'
F.�
The Hayfords drzv�way is right on the property line and not in
Conformance with the current city cod�. I am not sure �.f it wQUId
be in compliance with �.he city code � wh�n. it was orig�.na].ly bu�.lt
but z think that �.s a.rrelevant. My client believes that a correct
reading of the code would require the Hayfords to move their
dri.v'eway 3 feet �rom hia existing prpperty line for twQ important
r�ason� :
1. A d�i�crew�y i8 a�_sr.r,��r„rA �� iu]?a.r}1 i� governed by the C4C�@ .
It muat meet the codes requa.rements o� a 3£oot �et back
and cannot be buil� up to a property 1ine.
2. The euxxent construetion of the driveway is not
"maYntenance" �f an exist�.ng structure but the
"replacement° of an exYS�ing sk.ructure. Tt involves th�
rernoval of 50� of the tructure and �he r��urfacing of
100� o� t e nId area. This wor enta�.ls more than 50� of
aYea and sub��cts the work to the current ci�.y code. My
client talked'to the contraetor who sai.d the bid he gave
the �iayfords was �ox a new dxiveway. in performing �he woxk
the way i.� was done, the cast raas still the same as for a
whol� new dri�rewaY • _
Th� purpose of �he cade's xequirements is to ingure that a11
structuxes built in the past become conforming dver time as they
_ar�.repazred �r essentialiy xep�aced., If the Hayfords are ailowed
rr� re �:ace th�ix ald driveway with an essential y new one �. ey w� 1
av� ca.rcumv o e an � ci wi ave er etuate a non
� con orming use . Then in the future, the Fiayfards wili be a owe o
continue t� maintain the non conforming use which de�val.ues my
clien�,s praperty. For exampZe, if the part not repai�ed �hi.s time
should need rep�.ir in the future, it could be done at a iater date
ag�in cixcumventing �he city code.
� think it is r].ear the Hayfords have chosen to replace their
driveway. Th�� h��ve tried to do so�n a piecemeal �ash�.on to avozd
th� reg,uirement�� of the Gode. z think anyone would agree that a
riveway a.s n.at rep aced by cutting ou� 5d� of the m�terial ar�d
then resuriacing of tihe entire driveway over the old rnatex'ia�.. Xt
is no� n�rmal c�ana�.ructian pxacta.ce ar�d would not be allowed if
�c�per y zn.specte , was one o preserve a non conforming use to
a st�uct�xr� tha� clearly needed rzplacement.
Tt�e cit�r ��iould require the Hayford� to mflve thei.r new dzi.veway to
a location that canfarms with existinr� code requiremen�—The
Hayfords were well aware not only Q� �he code requix�emexzts but the
GY.)]F'.G�].Q11f3 to th��a.x� proposed plans because of contact .they have had
with the city and my c�.a.ent . Tk�e� chase to go ahead anyway, we
believe, to for�e the city to acquiesce in their attempt� ta avoid
the cade requirements.
M� client appreciatea the time you've taken fi�o review �h�.s matter.
It is o� great concern to him nQt anly becau�e it cauld.poten�ially
de�r�lue his property but also becauae it will result in a agran
612 78� 17?7
. � � �CT 29 ' 9=3 11 � a� BAf�NA �;I_�71' ;: STEFFENGE�
._ •-�
F' . �
�.
violation af the city's cade. Mare importantly, it is likaly to be
a sourc� o� future problerns uriless it is ful�.y �ddxessed
immediatel.y.
My client loaks forward to your opinion.
Xouzs truly,
�/� •
l��
Mark Karney
MAK/kIj
cc• Dr. Wayn� Dahl
C