Agenda Packets - 2005/01/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Driveway Report January 24, 2005 Page 2 As stated at the January 10th meeting of the City Council, the Planning Commission made it clear that considerations would need to be provided to permit a property owner to make certain repairs and limited improvements without instigating a complete replacement. Two examples were raised which proposed Ordinance 756 addresses: 1. A property owner with a partial concrete driveway wishes to extend or expand the concrete without having to improve the whole length of the driveway. 2. A property owner with a nonconforming driveway wishes to install a “Tee” or perpendicular extension without having to make the whole driveway conforming. In both of these examples, the property owner seeks to make partial improvements to the driveway. The attached amendments would allow for this, as the intent is to not preclude property owners from making improvements, but rather to encourage bringing the driveway or curb cut into compliance if possible. Only under a total driveway reconstruction scenario or street improvement project would the driveway or curb cut need to be brought into compliance—and only then if possible. If it is not possible to achieve compliance or to reduce the extent of the nonconformity, the Director of Public Works and/or the Director of Community Development may permit the nonconformity to remain unaltered. If the noncompliance can be corrected but the property owner disagrees, he or she may appeal the decision to the City Council, who would either rule in support of Staff’s decision or in favor of the resident. If the Council rules in favor of staff, the aggrieved property owner would have the right to apply for a variance to remedy the situation. Summary: The current language pertaining to non-conforming curb cuts and driveways is confusing and difficult to administer. Allowing some nonconforming conditions to persist without any regard for its justification makes little sense. The intent of the existing code was to allow nonconforming uses to remain so long as they were installed prior to a date certain five years ago and did not pose any hazard or danger. Staff and the Planning Commission feel the nonconformities should be corrected unless it would be impractical or cause undue hardship in the process. Ordinance 756, introduced and given first reading on January 10, 2005, is available for second reading and adoption this evening, January 24, 2005, upon conclusion of the duly noticed public hearing. No changes have been made to attached ordinance since it was given first reading on January 10. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Ordinance 756