07-13-06 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 2006 TENCE Chat is required for fence permits. The City's Building Official has PERMITS & pointed out that the UBC exempts fences from building permit DRIVEWAY requirements. While the City will still require a permit for the STANDARDS construction offences, thaC permit will be an administrative permit rather than a fence permit. The second issue relates to the creation of driveway standards for residential driveways, and the Council's decision that permits will be required for driveway construction. The City Planner reported that he would like to review Chis issue in more detail with City staff relative to the thresholds that would be established for when a permit is required and at what point driveways have to be hard surfaced. The ordinance before the Commission proposes Chat a driveway permit be required for new construction, while City staff has indicated thaC the Council's direction was permits would be required for new, replaced, altered, and expanded driveways. Staff has also raised the issue of whether to require hard surfacing at the time of any ocher building permit application and/or establishing a sunseC provision for all gravel driveways. Therefore the City Planner recommended that action be tabled until Che August meeting on the issues of fence permits and driveway standards. Knudsen suggested Chat it may be difficult to enforce a sunset provision on unpaved driveways. Duray agreed and felt this might be an economic hardship for some property owners. Knudsen felt that requiring the paving of a driveway in conjunction with other types of building permit applications was similar to other upgrades that the City might require as part of a building permit. The Planner suggested that requiring paving of a driveway for new consh~uction, when a home is expanded, or a new garage constructed would not be unreasonable. Knudsen agreed. Barraclough pointed out the issue of second garages noting that in many cases the property owner is noC installing a driveway to access the second garage. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission Co not require a driveway to a second garage. It was noted that many times the property owner does not need a driveway to the second garage as it is used to store lawn equipment or a boat that is only used occasionally. However, when a driveway is being installed, it must be hard surfaced. It was also the consensus of the Commission that driveway surfacing requirements should not be imposed if a building permit is being issued for interior work or for minor improvements such as a roof or a sauna. 7