12-15-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Driveway Report November 17, 2004 Page 2 At the November meeting on this subject, the Commission agreed in principle to the proposed changes as long as there were considerations provided to permit a property owner to make certain repairs and improvements without instigating a complete replacement. Two examples were raised which the proposed amendments will address: 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 proposed 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 reconstruction scenario or street improvement project would the driveway or curb cut need to be brought into compliance—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. The Council would either support staff’s decision or grant the appeal. If the Council sides with staff, the property owner could lastly apply for a variance (administrative variance if the driveway or curb cut had received previous City approval) to seek final permanent approval based on hardship. Summary: The current language pertaining to non-conforming curb cuts and driveways is confusing and difficult to administer. Allowing a nonconforming condition 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 feels the nonconformities should be corrected unless it would be impractical or cause undue hardship in the process. Please review the draft ordinance attached to Resolution 780-04. If the draft language is acceptable, the resolution can be approved and staff would then present the ordinance for City Council consideration. If minor changes are necessary, these can be incorporated into the attached resolution or draft ordinance. If modifications of a substantial nature remain necessary, staff will make the modifications and bring the resolution back for your consideration in January. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director