CCP 11-27-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEK HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 1,2000 2 I requirements from a property line to a driveway, pemIitted parking locations on a property or a limitation to the number of curb cuts per propcrty. Also, State and County regulations for streets .. should be eonfilmed with these regulatory bodies at that timc and the code should not list their ,. requirements in the City's Ordinance, in the case that they have changed or arc incorrcct. Staff reecives numerous complaints regarding the number and location of vehicles on a property at one time, which may be addrcsscd by limiting the number of vehiclcs pernIitted outside of a garage, The proposed numbcr of a maximum of three cars on a driveway was a rcsult of the original Plmming Commission discussion and the proposed number has not changed from further rcsearch. Ms. Chaput rcviewed amendments to Section VI (F) #3 C, Construction StmIdards; and amendments and additions to Section VI (F) #3 C, Driveways. Ms. Chaput stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance, as outlined in the "Proposed Amendments" section of the staff memorandum, dated October 23, 2000. Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m, Commissioner Nelson asked for clarification with regard to the term "drives" in Section VI (F) #1 C, Construction Standards. Ms. Chaput stated that the section refers to driveways, Commissioner Nelson asked how the minimum driveway width for residential properties of 10 feet was dctermined. Ms, Chaput stated that the width of 10 feet was previously in the zoning code and is not proposed to bc changed, Commissioner Nelson suggested a width of 9 feet might be appropriate, e Commissioner Nelson askcd whether U-sbaped driveways would bc permitted with the proposed changes. Ms. Chaput stated that any existing u-shaped driveways are legally nonconforming wItiltbe property acecss is changed and approval is sought. She add cd that in a case where a physical hardship is evident, a variance could be granted. She noted the proposed limitation of onc access per property is for safety reasons, and due to the fact that the City does not currently limit thc number of accesses to a property. Ms. Chaput stated that she had not reviewed the possibility of a 9- foot driveway width mId could not make a rceommendation on that suggestion. rfthe Planning Commission wished, it would need to be further researched and should not be acted on at this time, Commissioner Sand stated that the driveway width of 10 feet has always been in the ordinance, adding he is unsure why that should be changed. Hc notcd that the approximate width of two cars is 10 feet and that width of 1 0 feet should not be decreased. Commissioner Sand stated that circular driveways might be appropriate on some properties, and a limit of one acccss might prevent a particular homeowner from placing his home on a circular drive which might be an attractive layout for the lot. Commissioner Sand statcd he would support a limit of no more thml two accesses per property. e Commissioner Sand asked, with regard to Scction VI (F) #1 C, Construction Standards - Curbs, whether that rcgulation applies only to single family homcs, He added that new subdivisions in