8.1 Driveway Standards
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
11/15/04
TIME
4:00P.M.
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO: 8 Department of Pu bl ic Works AGENDA:
ITEM
NO. 1 BY: Shawn O'Leary BY:
Page 1
ITEM:
Consider adoption of a comprehensive set of design standards for residential driveways to
supplement the Salina Code.
BACKGROUND:
Staff was approached by the Salina Homebuilders Association who indicated that they would like to
see if the residential driveway ordinance standards could be modified to better accommodate wider
driveways that are needed to serve 3-car garages. The Homebuilder's Association submitted a
formal request in writing, which is attached, requesting that the City give consideration to amending
Section 35-132 of the Salina City Code with regards to increasing the maximum width allowed for
residential driveways on lots with 75 ft. or more of street frontage in order to better accommodate
wider driveways needed for 3-car garages. In fact, the specific proposal requested in the letter is to
increase the maximum driveway width from the current 30 ft. to 36 feet wide. The current ordinance
is of concern to the homebuilders because they feel it does not allow for wide enough driveways to
accommodate the wider attached garages being constructed in Salina today. The maximum
permitted driveway width is calculated at the front property line providing a limitation to how wide the
curb opening for a driveway may be. Once past the property line onto the private property there are
no current restrictions on driveway paving width. The intent of the request was to improve and
provide better or easier access into and back out of 3-car garages. The current width restriction
forces a narrowing of the driveway widths beyond the property line within the right-of-way, resulting
in a somewhat practical difficulty in staying on the paved driveway when pulling in or backing out
from the 3-car garages.
Staff introduced this issue at the Planning Commission's August 17 meeting, by presenting some
photographs of homes with 3-car garages and 30 ft. wide driveway approaches. The goal at that
meeting was to obtain some feedback from the Planning Commission to assist in making a
recommendation on this issue.
CURRENT CODE PROVISIONS:
The ordinance provision which currently limits the width of driveways at the property line and curb is
not in the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations, it is in Chapter 35 Streets and Traffic. Sec.
35-132 states: The minimum width for a single car driveway shall be eight (8) feet and for a
two or more car driveway the width shall not exceed 30 feet at the property line. This code
section gives the City Engineer the authority to grant special exceptions to the 30 ft. width limitation
but that has usually been done in commercial and industrial settings to accommodate semis or other
large trucks.
Section 42-552(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that "No open off-street parking, driving or
maneuvering areas shall cover more than 60% of the total area of any front yard."
Unfortunately since no permit is required to do concrete work on private property this has been a
real challenge to enforce.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
11/15/04
TIME
4:00P.M.
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO: 8 Department of Pu bl ic Works AGENDA:
ITEM
NO. 1 BY: Shawn O'Leary BY:
Page 2
Staff Comments / Analysis
The city's driveway standards as they exist are intended to provide access to each residential
property while also helping to maintain reasonable controls or standards as to how those access
points (driveways) affect public streets and the other uses and purposes associated with the public
rights-of-way. These public or community purposes include the maintenance of attractive streets,
provision for adequate on-street parking, appropriate traffic controls by directing and limiting property
access points, providing for protected sidewalks for pedestrian safety, and protecting the aesthetics
of the residential streetscape from too much concrete in the front yard. Limiting the width and
amount of driveway paving at the property line and curb within residential neighborhoods plays an
important role in determining the character that a neighborhood has, protecting and assisting
pedestrian use and safety of the sidewalk by limiting conflict with vehicles using the driveways, and
providing for and maintaining room and protection for parallel on-street parking use of our streets
without blocking driveway access.
Streets and the associated public rights-of-way serve an important role within residential
neighborhoods, providing for both vehicular and pedestrian access, but also as an extension of the
public use space within each of our neighborhoods, where a balance between the individual private
uses and the common connecting public corridor uses must be maintained. Managing the various
uses and streetscape appearance of our rights-of-way is important, as they serve as the public
space for utilities, fire hydrants, street signs, sidewalks, mailboxes, etc.
The above noted goals could be compromised if driveways become too wide and dominant within
the residential streetscape. Staff believes that we can still balance these important goals and move
toward a better accommodation of the functional vehicular access to 3-car garage homes. The
homebuilders would like to be able to construct driveways 36 feet wide from the home or garage
straight out to the curb on lots equal to or larger than 75 feet in width. The balancing question
becomes one of determining how much lot frontage should be allowed to be paved without
negatively impacting the streetscape and other goals mentioned above.
There are a number of possible ways to amend our driveway ordinance provisions to provide some
additional functionality to accommodate wider drives but protect the goals. Staffs recommended
approach for considering any change to the current ordinance provisions would be to keep it simple
both to understand and administer by our engineering inspectors, maintaining flexibility, but allowing
no more than the additional width that can be justified. Our current ordinance limits residential
driveway widths onto public streets to no wider than 30 feet regardless of lot width. This is based
partially on the recognition of the impact that wider driveways can have on the availability of on-
street parki ng.
Staff surveyed other Kansas communities to determine their residential driveway standards. A
summary of those findings is attached. Salina appears to be consistent with or more relaxed in its
standards than other cities. There does not appear to be any identifiable trend toward wider
driveway standards in other communities.
CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR CITY COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
11/15/04
TIME
4:00P.M.
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO: 8 Department of Pu bl ic Works AGENDA:
ITEM
NO. 1 BY: Shawn O'Leary BY:
Page 3
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Staff presented a report on its findings at the Planning Commission's September 21 meeting.
Following presentation of the staff report and comments from representatives of the Homebuilders
Association, the Commission requested that a comprehensive set of residential driveway standards
be prepared that would address townhome and cul-de-sac driveways in addition to 3 car garages.
A draft set of standards was prepared for review by the Homebuilders Association and the Planning
Commission and a public hearing on staff's proposal was held on October 19, 2004. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend adoption of a set of
residential driveway standards to serve as a supplement to Sec. 35-132 of the Salina Code. The
design standards recommended by the Planning Commission are attached. Some of the widths
recommended by the Planning Commission vary from those recommended by staff in its proposal.
FISCAL NOTE:
RECOMMENDATION:
After receiving comments from any interested members of the public, the City Commission may:
1. Adopt the proposed residential driveway standards as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
2. Adopt the proposed standards with certain revisions, additions or deletions.
3. Table this item to allow additional information to be provided by staff.
4. Return this item to the Planning Commission to allow major revisions to the proposed standards
to be considered.
5. Decline to approve any changes and allow current driveway standards in Sec. 35-132 of the
Salina Code to remain in place.
Encl: Letter from Homebuilders Association
Current Ordinance
Summary of Other Community Standards
Draft of Proposed Standards
Excerpt of PC Minutes 10/19/04
Res. #04-6130
Cc: Daryl Bixby
Mike Flory
Salina Homebuilders Association
HOME ~NAH8
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
OF SALINA, INC.
~
..... ~
June 11, 2004
Shawn O'Leary, City Engineer
City of Salina
300 West Ash
Salina, KS 67401
Dear Shawn;
Because of the increasing del11and for garages accommodating three or more vehicles, there has been for
some tÏ1ne a need to adjust the maxÍ1num approach width to allow access to these larger garages. Current
City regulations limit the width at the beginning of the flair on the approach to thirty feet. Many
driveways are up to thirty-six feet wide requiring a taper or an unsightly offset to match up with the
narrower approach. Buyers/owners of these properties are continually questioning this offset, accusing
the builder of cutting comers in their construction methods.
We understand the concerns regarding on street parking and would propose limiting this revised
approach width to lots with street frontage of seventy-five feet or more. This would allow on street
parking for one vehicle with expanded capabilities for off street (driveway) parking. The additional six
feet of curbing under current regulations still would not allow on street parking for more than one
vehicle.
The Home Builders Association recoml11ends and requests that existing City of Salina regulations be
changed to allow maximum approach widths up to thirty-six feet on lots with street frontage of at least
seventy-five feet. We would be happy to meet with any appropriate authorities to discuss this request.
"{'hank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Home Builders Assn. of Salina, Inc.
Oc:V-
Michael Flory
Vice-President
2125 E. Crawford Place. Salina, Kansas 67401-3719
Phone: 785-823-1457 . Fax: 785-823-9113 . E-Mail: marilyn@salinahba.com
Current Ordinance
Sec. 35-132. Width of driveway approaches.
No drivewa'l approach shall be less than eight (8) feet nor more than thirty (30) feet in
width at the outside walk line; provided, that the city engineer shall be empowered to grant
special exceptions to the above and foregoing limitations. The granting or denial of such special
consent by the city engineer shall be predicated upon the calculated additional hazard to the
general public as a consequence of allowing such exception in each particular case.
(Code 1966, § 32-156)
Homebuilder's Association Proposal
Residential driveway approaches serving lots with 75 ft. or more of street frontage may be
constructed up to 36 ft. wide measured at the front property line.
Driveway Width as a % of Lot Width
L t W'dth
M .
O'
W'dth
% f L t W'dth
0 I axlmum nveway I 00 0 I
50 ft. 30 ft. 60%
60 ft. 30 ft. 50 %
75 ft. 30 ft. 400/0
75 ft. 36 ft. (proposed) 48 %
----- ------------ - - - ---- -- _L!-
12"
Properly
line
--------------------------------------
4 H Concrete
1/2 - Expansron JoInt
4" Concrete
41 Sidewalk
41 Sidewalk
6.x6--10/fO WIre Wesh
Diminish Curb to
Driveway Grade at
this point
s' WIN.
30' WAX..
r
\S'..
,
6'~
611 Reinforced
Concrete
1/2" Expansion Joint
21-6"
A
Replace Gutter Section
~~J-91J
6" Reinforced Concrete
Curb
SECTION
A-A
" Saw existing curb &: gutter section or construct
T to an existing construction joint in the curb &:
guHer section..
* Slope of 1/4" per ft.(Min) ;s measured from
top of curb to inside sidewalk line..
STANDARD DRIVEWAY
CURB & GUTTER
FOR
r
f
-
*
* I
(tJ . I
.
. x l()
c 0 ~
.-
¿ ¿ I
-
-
OJ a
tr)
..0
L
:J
U
'4-
0
E -Y -Y
:) - 0
E 0 0
$
.- m
c Q)
.- -0
2
.-
(f)
.
... 0:::
tr) ...
...
fV) ~ -
-
co
.
I c
- .-
l{):2:
.
. x
c 0
.-
2 ¿
- 1
...
CD a I
fV)
G~
-¡ *
...
...
C"J
~
-
-
to
I .
- 1
l.()
-
c
--
¿
...
C'\J
C'\J
1
I
.
c
-
¿
* 5.5' Minimum without written consent
from adjacent property owner
I-
W
Lu
g:
(f)
G1
NOTE: All driveway approaches shall be constructed
in accordance with City of Salina Engineering
Dept.. Standards.
'-
MULTIPLE DRIVEWAY APPROACHES
Fì 1- P - I
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
IN KANSAS COMMUNITIES
(Maximum Width at Front Property Line)
Salina = 30 ft.
*Total concrete area may not exceed 60% of front yard.
Olathe = 22 ft. 2 car garage / 32 ft. 3 car garage.
Overland Park = 30 ft. May not exceed 35 ft. at curb.
*Total concrete area may not exceed 350/0 of front yard.
Lenexa = 32 ft.
Leavenworth = 20 ft.
Lawrence = 26 ft.
Topeka = 20 ft.
Emporia = 20 ft. Have been allowing 24 ft. when there's room.
Manhattan = 24 ft.
Wichita = 30 ft. Exceptions may be requested.
Hutchinson = 20 ft. May not exceed 30 ft. at curb.
Newton = 20 ft. Will allow drive to be width of garage doors.
Hays = 40 ft. at the curb.
OTHER COMMUNITIES
Lincoln, NE = 20 ft.
Longmont, Co = 30 ft.
Stillwater, Ok = 36 ft. for 3 car garage
MINUTES
SALINA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COMMISSION ROOM
NOVEMBER 2, 2004 4:00 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Britton, Krug, Ramage, Schneider, Simpson~ Weisel and
Yarnevich
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Funk and Ramage
DEPARTMENT STAFF:
Andrew, Burger, Fisher and Johnson
#1
Approval of the regular minutes of October 19~ 2004.
Minutes of the regular October 18, 2004 meeting approved as presented.
Mr. Britton suggested moving item #4 ahead of #3 as it deals with residential
subdivisions.
#2
Staff report on residential driveway standards.
Mr. Andrew presented the staff report, including photos of existing driveways
which is contained in the case file.
Mr. Johnson spoke about the items that were of concern to the Public Works
Department.
"
Mr. Britton stated you know in some houses if they are set back a ways,
obviously it is easier to put that approach in an engineering stance~ especially
people when they are backing out of theirJ out of the third car slot, you know a
lot of the houses are being brought up closer to the street now and on this one
the perspective is hard to get but it appears to be closer than some of the slides
that we have looked at and if we pull that back in and I don't know what the
dimensions are, if Dean knows what the dimensions of this one are or not~ as
the house is pulled back in on some of these lots, newer lots that are closer to
the street and that is squeezed in then that becomes a bigger issue~ at least in
my mind for easy ingress and egress out of your garage then if that house is
setback farther and I don't know if that is an Engineering issue or in fact a
Planning issue that Dean or Brad that either one of you have looked at because
getting in and out of the garage easily and safely is probably the bigger issue
and the closer that is and the tighter those radius have to be cut to meet a 28 ft.
or whatever standard it is going to be difficult.
Mr. Andrew asked are you referring to this area here?
Mr. Britton stated from there to the front of the garage.
Mr. Andrew asked from here up?
Mr. Britton stated yes, in other words that has to be angled. Because it gets
more and more difficult as the houses are pulled up closer to the street on
smaller lots.
Mr. Johnson stated it certainly does and I don't know that I would have an
answer for that necessarily, but it does require someone exiting say the third
garage on this picture to have to turn more quickly. The closer that house gets
to the front property line the more difficult that movement is. I think that is a
fact.
Mr. Britton asked that is what I am wondering, if we have taken that shorter lot
size, Dean J into consideration?
Salina Planning Commission
November 2, 2004
Page 2
Mr. Johnson stated I think it would be very difficult to, other than maybe on a
corner lot, to have a three car garage on say a 50 ft. lot. I don't know how you
would manage to do that with the exception of on a corner. So I don't know,
maybe that answers itself on some of the smaller lot issues. Now certainly a 75
ft. lot brought a lot closer to the street or to the property line certainly may have
those same challenges.
Mr. Andrew stated we recently had a text amendment in the R district which is a
single-family residential district that before we had a greater rear yard
requirement and a lesser front yard now in the R district the closest that any
part of the garage or house could be to the property line is 30 ft. and in most of
our districts it is 25 ft. So my guess is that this garage that you see in this
picture is right about the minimum, right at 25 ft. from the garage to the back of
the sidewalk. That is really necessary so that you can park a vehicle between
the garage door and the sidewalk without overhanging the sidewalk. You can't
really go less than that. The other thing that I see in this picture on some of our
cul-de-sacs or short segment streets we had gone to allowing a 50 ft. right-of-
way and 29 ft. of paving and that gives you less area between the curb and the
back of the sidewalk for the radius. There is only about 10ft. in there where in
a lot of our other developed areas you will see 13 1/2 ft. between the curb and
the back of the sidewalk which gives you a little more room for that radius and
the taper out front. But some of it depends on the house plan. On some of
these house plans the house is jutted out and the garage is set back and on
some of these plans the garage is at 25 ft. and the rest of the house is set back
farther, but that is not something that we necessarily looked at in our sliding
scale, but certainly it is something that should be taken into account is that on
garages with the closer setback the impact of the driveway and the backing
movement is closer to the street than if you had a garage set farther back.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked that one three car garage driveway, how wide was that?
Mr. Johnson stated I assume it was 30 ft.
Mr. Andrew stated all of the ones in these pictures are 30 ft.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated ok.
Mr. Johnson stated and what you couldn't see from the picture that we were
looking at before was probably the taper on the side, I assume because of the
angle that the picture was taken at. I think there was probably an angle there
back to a wider width behind the sidewalk but you can't hardly tell from that
photograph.
-'
Mr. Andrew stated along that left edge there is a taper where the driveway
widens out from the approach.
Mr. Britton stated if there are no more questions of staff, Daryl and Mike would
you want to make some comments?
Daryl Bixby, 1519 Briargate, I think with the widths and so forth I don't think we
have any problems but one thing that I do see is you have a range 61 ft. to 75
ft. And then you have greater than 75 ft. I think it should read 61 ft. to 74 ft.
because when we came in with 75 ft. lots, a lot of your platted lots are 75 ft.
You know they cut them off at 75 ft. or they jump to 80 ft., 78 ft. or 80 ft. and I
wonder if we could change that 75 ft. on the 61 ft. to 75 ft. to 74 ft. and then say
75 ft. and greater. That would be the only question we have because there are
a lot of 75 ft. lots and we are looking at the three car garages and that was I
think our biggest thing that way and we are talking about driveway approaches
we are not talking about cutting driveways down to these sizes are we?
Mr. Andrew stated no this is the driveway opening. That is a whole separate
matter. On private property there is no limit on the width of the driveway.
Salina Planning Commission
November 2, 2004
Page 3
Mr. Bixby stated that is the only question that we saw. The percentages and so
forth and I don't think, or I think that the proposal is fair in trying to
accommodate the driveway approaches.
Mr. Simpson asked is the 28 ft.? If you want the 61 ft. to 74 ft. range 28 ft.
would be sufficient?
Mr. Bixby stated we have in there and I don't quite get the 28 ft. to 30 ft. I think
that is probably if you have a 74ft. lot you would be looking more at the 30 ft.
That is the way that I take it, a percentage there.
Mr. Andrew stated what we are saying there is our suggestion was 28 ft. we put
the 30 ft. there because that is another option to just allow that once you get
over 60 ft. to allow the full 30 ft. width. So that is there as an option.
Mr. Bixby stated so if you had say a 74 ft. lot, then you could possibly go 30 ft.
You couldn't go into the bigger driveways, say 32 ft. to 36 ft. driveway if you
were 74ft. or less is the way I am taking that.
Mr. Simpson stated right.
Mr. Andrew stated yes and we kind of left it for the Commission's, guidance
whether 36 ft. should be the maximum or 32 ft. should be the maximum on the
three car garage and whether 32 ft. would accommodate that. In our research
we couldn't find any community, we had some communities that did allow up to
32 ft., but we couldn't find anyone that allowed up to 36 ft. so we just laid those
out there as options. If you have a three car garage 32 ft. is one possible
increase and 36 ft. is another and then again using the width of the garage
which is not an approach that we would recommend.
Mr. Bixby stated right and I think that is where we are coming in is the size of
the garage 32 ft., 34 ft., 36 ft. I know that would be an easy way to do it but it
would turn into probably a lot of paperwork.
Mr. Andrew stated it would be a lot harder for the Public Works people.
Mr. Bixby stated right and that is kind of why we suggested 36 ft. But like I say I
don't know if there is any intention if you have a 32 ft. garage to make it 36 ft.
but like I say there is always somebody that is going to do something like that.
,.'
Mr. Johnson stated Dean correct me if I am wrong.
proposing is the 28 ft. on 61 ft. to 75 ft. Not a range.
I think what we are
Mr. Andrew stated right.
Mr. Johnson stated and we are proposing the 30 ft. on lots greater than 75 ft.
So we are proposing no change on the top end.
Mr. Andrew stated the items that are in parenthesis are just options that the
Commission could consider. The ones that aren't in parenthesis are our
suggestions or recommendations, So we are suggesting that for the less than
75 ft. lot that the maximum width be 28 ft.
Mr. Johnson stated I just thought it was important to clarify that because I heard
some speaking of ranges and if you want to dispute that, just understand what
we were recommending.
Mr. Andrew stated we are trying to stay away from ranges because we are also
trying the help the people that issue the driveway permits and who do the
inspections so that they have a number that they are measuring to an'd not a
range.
Mr. Bixby stated ok.
Salina Planning Commission
November 2, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Britton asked is there anything else you saw in there Daryl?
Mr. Bixby stated no, but Mike might have something
Mrs. Yarnevich asked in other words you remove that 30 ft. in parenthesis, or
would take that out of here?
Mr. Andrew stated we put that in there because it is the Homebuilders
Association can request that and you can recommend that. Weare just putting
that out there as an option. Our suggestion would be to keep it at 28 ft.
Mr. Bixby stated basically at 28 ft. now what you are saying is you would
shorten them is what you are saying.
Mr. Andrew stated today you could build a 30 ft. approach on a lot that is 65 ft.
wide and we are suggesting that that ought to be 28 ft. if we are trying to take
this approach of looking at the width of the lot as an indicator for allowable width
of d rivewa y.
Mr. Bixby stated that is not what we suggested you start with. We were looking
at the larger garages with the larger approaches and we are still, that is what
we are wanting to try to get.
Mr. Britton stated I was in Lawrence last weekend and drove through some of
the higher ends of Lawrence with 26 ft. cuts with four and five car garages in
those houses nowJ they were 26 ft. or 28 ft. wide at the maximum. But then
they really taper out. But four and five car garages.
Mr. Bixby stated like I say the main thing is that is the reason we came down is
that we are getting and I imagine that they possibly get the same comments as
the individuals are looking at us as though we are cheating them out of some
concrete and they don't understand why do you have to do that and like I say,
we don't understand why 6 ft. would make big off-street issue and that is the
reason we asked for it.
/
Mike Flory, 813 Fairdale. I just wanted to add one thing that is in process right
now, the National Building Codes have changed regarding garages and what
they call a garage return which is the sides or the distance from the garage door
to the side of the garage and the distance between the garage doors, so I think
that you are going to be looking at potentially some wider garages to meet the
changes in that codeJ so this is strictly a guess but I am guessing that some of
these cities are going to be relooking at their situations because garages are
going to have to get wider to meet the new code changes that are happening. I
also wanted to bring a drawing that illustrates this. I have three copies if you
could pass them around. The area that we are talking about is here. I think
from an aesthetic standpoint the fact that you can have as wide a driveway as
you like all we are talking about here is the curb cut. So you are not going to
reduce the amount of concrete significantly by restricting the driveways as they
have been restricted. As Daryl said our position, we don't have a problem with
the sizes up through the 60 ft. lot, but I think when we had 60 ft. the 30 ft.
standard is appropriate and what we are looking at and the reason that we
originally specified the minimum 75 ft. lot is because typically you won't see a
three car garage on anything smaller than that.
Mr. Britton asked are there any questions the Commissioners have for Mike or
Daryl?
Mrs. Yarnevich asked you may have answered this already but why do we want
to cut back to the 28 ft. when it is at 30 ft. now?
Mr. Andrew stated the reasoning is that when you have narrower lots and you
allow wider driveways and have the same radius you start reducing the area
available for parking on the street. The neighborhoods in Salina that have
narrower lots and one car garages they have more on-street parking then those
Salina Planning Commission
November 2, 2004
Page 5
that don't. The idea behind the 28 ft. on the narrower lots is to preserve more of
the frontage for on-street parking then you would have ,with a 30 ft.
Mr. Weisel asked isn't that really the choice of the developer to do that to make
that decision? This is a market driven decision. So if the developer wants to do
that why would the City have a say in that?
Mr. Andrew stated if you have a 90 ft. lot and a 30 ft. driveway you have more
space at the curb to park vehicles. If you start having wider driveways on lots
that are 50 ft. or 60 ft. wide you reach a point where there isn't enough room
between the radii to even park any cars on the street.
Mr. Weisel stated I guess the point would beJ the developer knows this, he is
the one selling the house.
Jim MaesJ Salina Board of Realtors. My question is are we trying to fix a
problem or what is the goal in changing this ordinance? Just to provide more
on-street parking is that the purpose of this whole thing?
Mr. Andrew stated the purpose of this was a request from the Homebuilders
Association to look at increasing the allowable width of a driveway approach.
Mr. Maes stated so in effect we decreased it?
Mr. Andrew stated we were looking at it not only from that standpoint but also
the problems that you are having on cul-de-sacs where somebody might only
have 24 ft. of frontage available at the street, or the situation where you have
town homes with side by side garages where 30 ft. simply doesn't work. You
have got to allow for something wider so that is where we have tried to address
that and tried to address cul-de-sacs and tried to address using the approach
the homebuilders requested to allow wider driveways and approaches for wider
lots.
/
Mr. Maes stated in response to Dean's statement concerning on-street parking
in the smaller lot subdivisions, normally that is a market driven issue because
you are building a more modest priced home so you don't put in large
driveways. You cut that back because it is a modest priced home and you are
putting it on smaller lots. Just for the sake of simplicity an ordinance like this is
hard to follow. You have all of these widths and everything, would it be easier
and would it be acceptable to the homebuilders to go with the 50% of frontage?
Because most of these end up right at 50% lot width to driveway width. That
would make it a lot simpler instead of having four or five different categories and
four or five different lot widths. That is just an idea.
Mr. Andrew stated there is also a side issue that is probably addressed more
aggressively in Overland' Park and Lawrence and some of those other
communities and that is what happens on private property. John can you put
up the slide on South Ohio? The situation you have here does violate the
Zoning Ordinance because 85% of this front yard is paved. If you have no
standard behind the curb either then you are looking at a situation where maybe
that is the product that you end up with. One can say that that is a market
decision if I want to have a subdivision where all the lots look like this, that is a
market decision but it is also a community decision, so part of the idea on
setting a maximum for the amount of paving in the front yard or the amount of
width that you can have in a driveway is to try to keep a residential appearance
by having some green space left and maintained in the area between the home
and the street.
Mr. Maes stated Dean this is already a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. It
doesn't have anything to do with the driveway.
Mr. Andrew stated it doesn't meet the driveway ordinance either. The approach
ended up getting built much wider than what was shown on the plan. I am just
saying that if you have no limitation then that is an option also. There is nothing
Salina Planning Commission
November 2,2004
Page 6
to prevent someone from doing this on any residential subdivision or residential
lot. This again was our attempt to try to do something more comprehensive. It
actually is a lot more generous and a lot more clear from the standpoint of
allowing the 48 ft. width on the town homes and duplexes allowing for second
drivewaysJ a number of things there, whether the Commission favors that
sliding scale approach as to the width of the lot, that is the only approach that
we have seen because the other communities again that we have talked to
there is no trend, there is no interest, there is no discussion of widening their
driveway standards. It is not, if you talk with the people in Lawrence, it is not an
issue there that they only allow a 26 ft. maximum driveway width and there is no
movement to change that.
Mr. Britton stated and there are some big garages and houses in Lawrence.
Daryl as far as speaking for the Homebuilders Association do you guys have
problems with following these guidelines?
Mr. Bixby stated I don't think we have any problem with this. The only thing,
would be maybe changing the 75 ft. so that way we don't have two overlaps
possibly, but I don't think there is any problem with this. Because like I say I
don't think that we will have any problem. We are talking basically what we are
looking at is the three car garage and like I say the other cities so forth maybe
haven't brought it up and so forth and we are interested in doing that and
bringing the homes up to say we keep changing codes and everything else and
that is why we are looking at possibly increasing the width there for possibly
looks and that aspect and like I say it will blend in better, but I don't think that
we have any problem with the way that we have it laid out even though like I
say they are suggesting the 28 ft. The 28 ft. and 30 ft. I just don't know, like I
say maybe that is a percentage. Like I say the main thing, a lot of the lots jump
from 75 ft. up or they can be anywhere from 60 ft. to 74 ft. On smaller lots you
are not going to have a three car garage and as far as a builder. Now an
individual may come in and try or want to do something different, but I would
say a builder in a new area and so forth basically is not going to build a small
house and put a great big driveway in the front yard and try to sell it, but like I
saYJ you can't talk for everybody. But you have to have some guidelines.
Mr. Britton asked as builders is there any other impact or Dean as far as from a
Planning sense, a lot of the homes now are being built with side load garages. I
mean some subdivisions are even mandating that a lot of the lots be built with
side load. Is this going to impact that in any way? I n other words somebody
could come in and say I have a three car garage, be it side loaded, and I load
the concrete up in the front for all the kids' cars. Yes I have a three car garage
but it is not even a front loaded garage and it ends up being the concrete thing
that we were just looking at in a different respect a minute ago.
Mr. Andrew stated that is one stipulation that you could put on here. It is a
misprint on the page there where it says detached and it should say attached
garage, but that could be qualified so that you are only eligible for the wider
width, if you have a three car garage with the doors facing the street.
Mr. Bixby stated right.
Mr. Britton stated I am throwing that out because some of the newer homes are
being built with side loaded garages and I don't know if this is really applicable
for side loaded garages.
Mr. Bixby stated I would think that basically I see what you are saying. If you
have three doors, a lot of times you will have say on a corner, where you have
two cars coming out from the street and then you might go around on the other
side and come in, there again. I would say that would not be a three car
garage. It would be I guess, well you have one, two, three doors. That is
where I think your three car garage would be even though you have one around
the back. You say coming off another street I wouldn't think that you would put
three and I don't know how you would address that. I would look at it as a two
car garage if it is all on the front of the house.
Salina Planning Commission
November 2, 2004
Page 7
Mr. Andrew asked are your referring to the ones where the driveway comes off
the streetJ but you have to make an L turn to get into the garage?
Mr. Britton stated yes. Mariposa is one subdivision that almost mandates side
loaded garages. You can end up with a lot of concrete in front even though it
really didn't end up being, I don't know if it needs to be addressed or not.
Mr. Andrew stated the goal as we understood on it was to try to facilitate the
entry and the backing of vehicles from the garage doors to and from the street
and that is part of what the request was for.
Mr. Bixby stated it has nothing to do with this because if someone is going to
come in there and put all that concrete in the front yard a person can do that.
You can put 40 ft. of concrete out in your front yard right now if you want to, but
the approach is what we are talking about. So basically this wouldn't have
anything to do with that.
Mr. Flory stated most of those areas up there, the idea of turning the garage
sideways is to have some landscaping in the front. So I don't think you would
see a significant problem with that.
Mr. Bixby stated and there again we are getting into another area, like I say this
is just a cut in the street is what we are talking about here.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked and you would rather have the 30 ft. for the 61 ft. to 74 ft.
lots? Rather than cut it down to 28 ft.?
Mr. Bixby stated probably. Instead of having two different figures I would say
yes. Just in case somebody would put a three car garage. But like I say you
get down to a 60 ft. lot and put a three car garage on there you are going to
have almost all garage on that. Normally I would say your builders wouldn't do
that but you can't talk for everybody.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked so are you saying then for anywhere from 61 ft. on up 30
ft. is fine you aren't asking for 32 ft. or 36 ft.?
Mr. Bixby stated what we are asking for on the 36 ft. is on a three car garage
which that is the way they have it listed here. The detached should be attached
like Dean said. But the three car garage could be over 30 ft. Anything under a
three car garage maximum 30 ft. That is fine. We are really addressing the
three car garage so we wouldn't have any problem with that at all.
Mr. Britton asked are there any other members of the public that would like to
comment?
Mr. Flory asked can we go back to the Ohio slide? I wanted to point what
appears to me. I think that other than possibly the zoning which we are not
dealing with here, I think that would meet both current and proposed standards.
Those are 16 ft. garage doors so that has got to be right at a 20 ft. approach
there on each side which would meet the criteria of both under our current
'regulations and under the proposed. So I don't want to get confused by seeing
all that concrete. What is in the middle there is a zoning issue, not what we are
talking about here. Correct me if I am wrong, but if my eyes are correct that has
to be about a 20 ft. approach. If that is a 16 ft. door.
Mr. Andrew stated originally they were 24 ft. and they were both 24 ft.
approaches.
Mr. Flory stated it looks like they cut them back there on each edge. I didn't
want the concrete in the center there which is a zoning thing getting in the way
of what we are looking at.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated it looks to me though the way that it is laid out that there
isn't too much more you could do.
Salina Planning Commission
November 2, 2004
Page 8
Mr. Flory stated no and there would not be any room for any off-street parking
between there regardless of how small you made it.
Mrs. Yarnevich asked even if you had the driveways coming straight out?
Mr. Flory stated yes.
Mr. Britton asked are there any further questions or comments? Hearing none
do you want to put these ideas back together now Dean? What is staffs desire
on this at this point?
Mr. Andrew stated I think to look at it item by item to see what would be your
preference. The goal here would be to get a recommendation or a consensus
from the Planning Commission that would be sent to the City Commission for
their adoption by resolution for a full set of standards for residential driveways.
So the purpose here is to get input from both the homebuilders and realtors and
also from the Commission. Like I said we laid that out. If the Commission has
a recommendation or preference and wanted to go down those item by item.
Mr. Weisel stated Dean it seems that we really need to bring the builders in on
this earlier on so that we don't have to ask their opinion after it is all over and
done with, unless you have already done this.
Mr. Britton stated we did.
Mr. Weisel stated because they are the ones with a dog in this fight.
Mr. Andrew stated I am not following, I thought that is what we were doing.
Mr. Weisel stated what I am saying is that when you rewrite this to bring them in
while you are doing it rather then present it to us and then have them here for
comment. Maybe you have already done this.
Mr. Britton stated this isnlt the first meeting on this, if that is what you are
saying.
Mr. Weisel stated yes.
Mr. Britton stated Daryl and Mike have been here for all three of these
discussion that we have had.
Mr. Andrew stated we always send the draft out in advance so that they can
review it and come with their comments.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated I am not sure but I am kind of leaning with the builders on
the 30 ft. for the 61 ft. to 74ft. And then put the 36 ft. limit on the three car
attached garage. This is really difficult for me so I am open for discussion.
Mr. Krug stated the 20 ft. is no change, the 24 ft. is no change. If it stayed at 30
ft. that would be no change.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated the only thing would be to increase the width for three car
garages.
Mr. Krug stated right and that is exactly what this is.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated and I think that is what we ought to do.
Mr. Krug stated 61 ft. to 74ft. and then 75 ft. and greater.
Mrs. Yarnevich stated right.
Mr. Simpson said that sounds good.
Salina Planning Commission
November 2, 2004
Page 9
MOTION:
Mrs. Yarnevich moved to approve the change of 61 ft. to 74 ft. and 75 ft. and
greater on lot width using the 30 ft. for the standard driveway for these lot
dimensions and then for the 75 ft. or greater lot with an attached three car
garage recommending a 36 ft. width.
SECOND:
Mr. Weisel seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Motion carried 6-0.
#4
Consider policy on street access to residential subdivisions.
Mr. Andrew gave the staff report which is contained in the case file.
Mr. Britton asked are there any questions of staff? Why does this have to be
done? In staffs experience RiverRun was pretty unique because of backing up
to the river. And that whole discussion is done in design review during platting,
preliminary platting where those issues such as access through the Elks and
everything else were determined. Do you view this, I am especially concerned
with item two as far as the covenants and everything. Is this something that
needs to be in this form? Have this had this happen before other than in
RiverRun where this would even be a topic?
Mr. Andrew stated if this were in place what is known as the Hidden Meadows
Addition would probably not be there as it is today and would not be in that
situation without the access. Those types of things that you are discussing as
predetermined on RiverRun were not predetermined. Those things are actually
within your discretion to decide so it was not predetermined that RiverRun
would have an emergency access across the Elks Country Club. That is for
you to decide, not for staff to decide.
Mr. Britton stated that issue came to us from staff and really from the Fire
Department saying this is a deal killer on this issue without another access to
that. I remember the discussion. The Fire Department mandated that there be
another access point at some point brought in there which was brought into the
Commission.
Mr. Andrew stated right but they donJt really have that kind of authority to do
that on a subdivision. You have the authority but they don1t. The question is
whether you want to make that a policy for how you review plats or simply react
to it on a case by case basis. This is simply saying that the expectation is two
ways in and out if possible, if not possible then emergency access needs to be
provided. The Planning Commission approves or disapproves plats.
Mr. Britton stated but clearly, especially as it refers to the townhomes to be built
in the future at RiverRun, I remember the discussion that there will be another
access point in there by the Fire Department, or did I miss something?
Mrs. Yarnevich stated I feel that it is really essential to have two ways in and out
of a development and the fact that we made them have another access I think it
is important if that needs to be written into the ordinance. I think that is fine.
Mr. Andrew stated this is not proposing to necessarily write it into an ordinance
but it is a policy to put people on notice that that is the expectation. If you can't
get a second public street in and out, a secondary emergency access is
partially to support the concerns of the Fire Department. Anytime somebody
has a subdivision plat, there is going to be a staff report and staff
recommendations and concerns identified. But the final decision about whether
that is the final determination or whether that needs to be addressed lies with
the Planning Commission so that is why this is brought to you as a body to see
if that is something that you want to go on record as saying in that situation the
policy should be that you have two streets or a secondary emergency access in
and out when you layout your plat.