Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paving Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables request to waive paving for proposed Buchanan car lot, asks owner for plan and cost estimates
Summary
Property owner Bill Bush asked the commission to waive the city’s commercial paving requirement for a proposed car-lot use at 1770 W. Buchanan; commissioners discussed hardship standards, alternatives (chip seal, permeable surfacing), equity with existing gravel lots, and budget constraints, and voted to table the variance pending a specific improvement plan and pricing information.
The Craiger Planning Commission on Aug. 8 tabled a variance request from property owner Bill Bush who sought relief from the city’s paving requirement for commercial parking areas at 1770 West Buchanan Street.
Bush told the commission the lot currently has a chip-seal/gravel surface and said he cannot afford full paving; he asked that the property be grandfathered in or be allowed to continue with a non‑paved surface. “I just can't afford to spend a ton of money on that,” Bush said during his remarks. Staff and several commissioners reiterated the ordinance standard that variances must be based on a hardship inherent to the property and discussed alternatives such as chip-seal, graded gravel with defined tire strips, or permeable paving to reduce runoff.
Commissioners and members of the public raised equity and enforcement concerns, pointing out other gravel lots in the area and asking whether those were continuous uses or previously grandfathered. Staff explained the city’s paving ordinance requires commercial properties that sit vacant for more than three months or change use to bring parking up to standard; if a lot has been continuously used, the ordinance’s provisions differ. Commissioners said a one‑size‑fits‑all waiver would create precedent problems and emphasized that any variance must be defensible under the hardship standard rather than based on an applicant’s inability to pay.
Because the commission lacked specific cost estimates and a concrete improvement plan, a commissioner moved to table the request and ask the applicant to return with a site plan showing proposed surfacing, the area to be paved or treated, and price quotes; staff was asked to consult with the city engineer and, if appropriate, bring the matter to council for ordinance-level relief. The motion to table carried by voice vote.
