Arnold city officials are considering changes to some building regulations to eliminate practices that have been labeled obsolete, and those proposed updates have ruffled some feathers, especially related to paving driveways.
Community Development Director David Bookless said the proposed changes are scheduled to be discussed at an Oct. 26 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission typically meets at 7 p.m. on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at Arnold City Hall, 2101 Jeffco Blvd.
Bookless said possible changes to six construction practices would be discussed at the meeting, and the commission members could decide that evening to make recommendations to the City Council, which has the sole authority to approve the changes. Or, the Planning Commission could decide to discuss the matters further before making any recommendations.
One of the changes to be discussed would require driveways longer than 100 feet to be fully paved. Currently, only the first 50 feet must be paved.
Ward 2 Councilman Brian McArthur, who is the council’s liaison to the Planning Commission, said Sept. 16 he opposes the proposed change.
During a Sept. 9 work session, Ward 1 Councilmen EJ Fleischmann, Ward 2 Councilman Tim Seidenstricker, Ward 3 councilmen Mark Hood and Rodney Mullins and Ward 4 councilmen Butch Cooley and Gary Plunk indicated they favored requiring the entire length of all driveways to be paved.
McArthur and Ward 1 Councilman Jason Fulbright were absent from that work session.
City staff members want the Planning Commission and City Council to re-examine the paving rule because Arnold has conflicting sections in it ordinances, with one saying the entire driveway must be paved and another requiring just the first 50 feet of a driveway longer than 100 feet to be paved. The rule about paving only a portion of longer driveways was established in 2005.
City attorney Bob Sweeney told council members Arnold’s standard when dealing with ordinances that contradict each other is to enforce the stricter rule.
“I would have assumed the old ordinance would have been pulled out. It wasn’t,” McArthur said. “I don’t remember who the community development director was at the time, but it should have been caught at that time. I don’t dispute that the attorney is correct when there is a conflict in the ordinances that the stricter one takes over. I get that in a normal situation, but the reason we did the 50 foot was to replace that one. It got skipped as an error and here we are.”
Arnold City Administrator Bryan Richison said the city needs to clear up the discrepancy.
“We need to pick one or the other or come up with a third option. We need a clear standard,” he said.
Most of the other functionally obsolete features being examined would apply only to new construction or if a home is significantly damaged and must be rebuilt, but a change to the driveway paving rule could affect current homeowners.
Bookless said the city is aware of about 60 homes with driveways that are not completely paved. Richison said if the driveway paving rule is changed, the city would not seek out driveways that need to be paved, but if a homeowner with one of those driveways were to apply for a permit to have other work done on the property, like building a large shed, replacing roofing materials or undertaking a large remodeling project, then the driveway would have to be paved, too.
“A condition of the building permit is you have to be up to code,” Richison said. “A house can have non-conforming uses, but a driveway is not a structure. There is no legal non-conforming driveway. People understandably get upset when we tell them to pave a driveway because it is pretty costly. It seems like most of the time the homeowner knows about the two sections and points to the one that says if it is over 100 feet, then they say they are compliant. It creates a frustrating situation for everyone, and it needs to be sorted out.”
McArthur said he doesn’t want to see homeowners with long driveways forced to pave the entire length.
“You will not see more than the first 50 feet of their driveway anyway,” he said. “I get it in small subdivisions. You don’t want to look at rock driveways. That was a point of this ordinance; you only see the first 50 feet of longer driveways.”
Richison said there are concerns about not having fully paved driveways.
“Even with the first 50 feet paved, some of that gravel washes into our streets,” he said. “It is a mess, and the gravel is rough on the concrete. From a street maintenance perspective, we prefer not to have gravel.”
Richison also said he understands residents’ resistance to having to fully pave driveways.
“The negative is the cost to the homeowner,” he said. “We ae pretty lenient. We count chip and seal and paved, but it can still be expensive for people.”