5.2. SR 06-28-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . The Martin driveway has been installed without any plans being provided to the county or the city. Desired information includes the status of the setback from the property line to meet the city's ordinance and what the plans are for hard surfacing the driveway in order to control dust. Based on no permit being in existence, I believe that any exposure or liability, in case a future accident takes place, would be with the city as we, not the county, issued approval for this driveway to be installed. Clearly, the situation is different now than when we first inquired about a driveway last year due to trailers no longer being allowed in this residential district. With this being said, if the council does not want this driveway removed entirely, then it can still order the driveway to be relocated and reconstructed to different standards. Regarding the second issue, which was a request from Mr. Grimmer to support his driveway improvement request from County Road 32 into his property, this site also needs to be seen firsthand by the council. I agree with the county's observation that this is not a driveway, but a field entrance in which the property owner is driving into his property at a convenient, flat location. The exit off of County Road 32 into the Grimmer property and along the back side (west side) does not appear to be a "driveway" in any shape or form. The council is strongly encouraged to withdraw its support for having this entrance become a driveway onto County Road 32. Again, the council can do nothing or do anything regarding these situations. Staff supports having the Martin driveway removed and not allowing this property any access onto County Road 32, and withdrawing support for the Grimmer field entrance becoming a driveway. From a traffic safety point of view, two more driveways onto County Road 32 should not be approved. .