My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-10-06 Planning Comm. Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
08-10-06 Planning Comm. Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2008 9:57:44 AM
Creation date
4/23/2008 9:49:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING CONINIISSION <br />JULY 13, 2006 <br />FENCE that is required for fence permits. The City's Building Official has <br />PERMITS & pointed out that the UBC exempts fences from building permit <br />DRIVEWAY requirements. While the City will still require a permit for the <br />STANDARDS construction of fences, that permit will be an administrative permit rather <br />than a fence permit. <br />The second issue relates to the creation of driveway standards for <br />residential driveways, and the Council's decision that permits will be <br />required for driveway construction. The City Planner reported that he <br />would like to review this issue in more detail with City staff relative to the <br />thresholds that would be established for when a permit is required and at <br />what point driveways have to be hard surfaced. The ordinance before the <br />Commission proposes that a driveway permit be required for new <br />construction, while City staff has indicated that the Council's direction <br />was permits would be required for new, replaced, altered, and expanded <br />driveways. Staff has also raised the issue of whether to require hard <br />surfacing at Che time of any other building permit application and/or <br />establishing a sunset provision for all gravel driveways. Therefore the <br />City Planner recommended that action be tabled until the August meeting <br />on the issues of fence permits and driveway standards. <br />Knudsen suggested that it may be difficult to enforce a sunset provision on <br />unpaved driveways. Duray agreed and felt this might be an economic <br />hardship for some property owners. <br />Knudsen felt that requiring the paving of a driveway in conjunction with <br />other types of building permit applications was similar to other upgrades <br />that the City might require as part of a building permit. The Planner <br />suggested that requiring paving of a driveway for new construction, when <br />a home is expanded, or a new garage constructed would not be <br />unreasonable. Knudsen agreed. <br />Barraclough pointed out the issue of second garages noting that in many <br />cases the property owner is not installing a driveway to access the second <br />garage. <br />After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to not <br />require a driveway to a second garage. It was noted that many times the <br />property owner does not need a driveway to the second garage as it is used <br />to store lawn equipment or a boat that is only used occasionally. <br />However, when a driveway is being installed, it must be hard surfaced. <br />It was also the consensus of the Commission that driveway surfacing <br />requirements should not be imposed if a building permit is being issued <br />for interior work or for minor improvements such as a roof or a sauna. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.