Loading...
Re: City Works Regs Public Comment from Bernie KrystkowiakAimee Brunckhorst From: Bernie Krystkowiak <berniekrystkowiak@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2024 9:19 AM To: Patrick Jentz Cc: Brandon Prangley; Jana Purdy; Kalispell Meetings Public Comment; Village Greens HOA Subject: EXTERNAL Re: City Works Regs Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe.] Howdy, Patrick, Thankyou for the email regarding my driveway replacement. As thorough and informative as it is, I did not read anything sympathetic to my predicament. One only needs to look at your image of the allowed proposal changes vs. my existing driveway to comprehend the trivial and largely unsupported reasons for these codes being approved thereby thwarting long-time residents' efforts to keep up our properties. I would point out your diagram does not not show the taper that would be necessary from the easement line back to my existing width. This would entail more new lawn, constrict my functionality as to parking and add to my irrigation and landscaping complications quite needlessly. You may be sold on all the advantages of these codes from the municipal standpoint but common sense appears to be absent from having the flexibility to judge permitting on an individual basis for existing properties. My final point in my futile discussion as I'm well versed on the regs by now, would be to state that given the dates these codes went into effect, Public Works does not have a good read or enforcement on the number of non compliant projects done since. Contractors don't always comply evidently and the City apparently does not enforce violations. As I see it, there is no use trying to "fight city hall" any longer over these ridiculous driveway codes. I will let it further turn to dust unless further review by the big thinkers should allow variances down the line. Maybe when the permit request denials accrue in larger numbers, the powers that be will re -address the issue. There will be many in the future as most of these driveways needing replacement in Village Greens are wider than twenty feet. Sincerely, B. Krystkowiak On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:24 PM Patrick Jentz <pjentz - kalispell.com> wrote: Bernie, As a follow up to our call last week and our previous conversation I wanted to summarize some of the points we discussed in an email. You currently have a 26-foot-wide driveway approach through the City right of way (ROW). City standards set the maximum driveway approach width for lots with 80 feet or less at 20 feet. Your lot is 65 feet wide which means the maximum allowable driveway width is 20 feet. If you leave your driveway as is, there is no requirement to bring your driveway approach into compliance with the City's standards. If you want to redo your driveway approach (through the ROW), you will then need to meet the City's standards (both for construction and maximum driveway width). These requirements only apply within the ROW, on private property, this standard does not apply. The purpose of the ROW is to serve the residents of the City as a whole, and the standards are established to support public infrastructure use for multiple users and for multiple purposes. The City has set the maximum driveway widths in order to provide efficient services and a safer environment for residents for snow plowing, pedestrian safety, access controls (turning movements), and on street parking. Wider Driveways reduce the volume of snow that can be stored in the boulevard and the City has found that wide driveways (taking over 25% of a property frontage) are an issue in the winter. In low snow years this is less of a problem, however, standard designs and requirements must work for both low and high snow years. In all seasons, driveway widths impact on -street parking. The more length of the road taken up with driveways, the less on -street parking there is available. In addition to road maintenance, street trees also require spaces in the boulevard to grow and thrive. The City strives to be equitable with all of our residents. We have not granted special variances for driveway widths in the past, and to do so now would create inequity between other residents. We did discuss that you could install wings on your driveway per the City's standards which would give you more than 20 of width at the street. See the detail below: ,d,,` Noll Tu a Y -TYt)N ,4!/,k, V..A, 4' I" "P,�� 'AaI: ,'i nq".5i,'y'I", 1C, 41511 11, ,J-v" I r goo, �I 1`' V" r P:E ,k"V'4T x '1-4' ➢ P,"AVI 4 iii:�( ] , tlWW{ =fly .11R;,�N "Tv O f. ^'r 1di P a F EP':V1r+'WVI. b§Gi ki, Ajl�;.I YA I'NI lJrvF, 1 6" TT RJR There are other driveways both in your subdivision (Village Greens) and throughout the City that are currently not in compliance with the City's standards. These driveways were installed prior to the maximum driveway widths begin established in the City's Standards. As driveways that do not meet the City's standards are redone, they are required to meet City Standards in the same way that you are being required to meet the City Standards. But again, the standard doesn't affect the driveway area and parking on private property. 3 Thanks, Patri6zJev;tz, PE Phone: 406-758-7859 Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.