Commission backs homeowner appeal to allow temporary crushed-asphalt driveway, recommends enforceable agreement

The Manvel Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend city council approve an appeal by homeowner and applicant Oscar Carranza to the city engineer’s denial of a design modification request that would allow a crushed-asphalt (gravel/crushed asphalt) driveway on private property at 7619 Scott Avenue.

Carranza told the commission he planned a concrete driveway originally but faces financial constraints; he said his house is nearly complete and that a full concrete driveway would cost roughly $60,000 while a crushed-asphalt surface would cost “about $5,000.” Carranza said he proposed pouring concrete from the street to the property line and covering the private portion of the driveway with crushed asphalt, with the intention of pouring full concrete “within a year.” He said a professional engineer inspected the site and submitted the required design-modification documentation.

Staff and the city engineer had denied the design modification on April 15 because the city’s Engineering Design Criteria Manual (chapter 6, section A, item 7) requires residential driveways that connect to asphalt streets to be built of concrete or asphalt; staff said the policy aims to reduce dust, gravel tracking onto public streets and the number of unpaved driveways. Staff told the commission the denial was not based on a specific structural concern with Carranza’s lot but on the goal of minimizing gravel driveways.

Commissioners discussed enforcement options if a temporary allowance were granted. City staff described two enforcement pathways: (1) a formal, enforceable agreement (a variance-like development agreement) that memorializes a paving schedule and remedies for noncompliance, or (2) revocation of a certificate of occupancy if the condition is not met—an option staff said is undesirable but legally available as an enforcement mechanism. Staff said the city does not operate a formal temporary-certificate-of-occupancy program and that tying an enforceable agreement to the CO is the likely route.

Commissioners ultimately moved to approve the applicant’s appeal provided there is a suitable written agreement (described in discussion as a “development agreement” or variance agreement) that establishes an enforceable paving requirement and a one-year deadline for completion. The motion passed 7–0 and will be forwarded to city council for final action.