Skip to main content
header-left
File #: 2025-0875    Version: 0 Name:
Type: MOTION Status: PASSED
File created: 10/27/2025 In control: Plan Commission
On agenda: Final action: 11/4/2025
Title: /Name/Summary Land Development Code Amendment - Driveway Width Requirements
Attachments: 1. Staff Report to the Plan Commission - Driveway Width Amendment, 2. Residential Driveways Text Amendment_10.31.2025

Title/Name/Summary

Land Development Code Amendment - Driveway Width Requirements

 

History

Project: Land Development Code Amendment - Driveway Width Requirements

Legistar ID: 2025-0875

 

Requested Approvals: Increase the maximum driveway width requirement for single-family residences with 1-car garages, clarify all driveway width requirements, and add driveways to the list of detached accessory structures.

 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT SUMMARY

The Land Development Code was amended in December 2023 via Ordinance No. 5856, changing the dimension requirements for driveways and driveway aprons. This amendment was intended to clarify the appropriate dimensions and make the requirements consistent between the Village Code (VC) and Land Development Code (LDC). Whereas the VC required the maximum driveway widths to be 10’ for a 1-car garage, 20’ for a 2-car garage, and 30’ for a 3-car garage, the LDC allowed for wider driveways at 20’ for a 1-car garage, 26’ for a 2-car garage, and 36’ for a 3-car garage . As the VC requirements were more restrictive, they superseded the LDC requirements, so the decision at that time was to adopt the more restrictive requirement, amending the LDC to reinstate the width requirements that were listed in the VC.

 

Now that time has passed and staff has been able to evaluate the impacts of this code amendment, staff proposes new amendments to clarify the driveway width requirements and expand the maximum driveway width for properties with 1-car garages. While the maximum driveway/driveway apron widths are currently based on the size of the garage for a single-family home, this creates issues for single-family properties with non-conforming garages. Many properties in the R-3 & R-3A Districts have non-conforming 1-car garages, with no room to expand to a 2-car garage. This makes it difficult and often impossible for these properties to meet the 2-car, off-street parking requirements (Table 6-306(B)), as the LDC does not consider tandem parking in determining code compliance. It is recommended to increase the maximum driveway width allowed for 1-car garages from 10’ to 18’. Staff is proposing to increase the maximum width to 18’ because the minimum width for a standard off-street parking space is 9’, per Section 6-306.C.1 of the LDC. Therefore, this would allow 2 cars to park side-by-side while still being more restrictive than the driveway width requirements for properties with 2-car garages.

 

 

 

 

Amendments are proposed for Section 6-302, Accessory Structures, to add driveways to the table of detached accessory structures and referencing Section 6-406. An amendment is also being proposed to Section 6-406 of the LDC, which includes clarifying driveway width and length requirements for all single-family residential properties in the Village.

 

RESEARCH

Staff completed an aerial survey using GIS mapping software of a neighborhood  in the R-3A District to determine the existing conditions of driveways for 1-car garages under the current code requirements. The area surveyed is shown in the image below. This area was chosen as it has the most 1-car garages in the Village. A total of 190 properties were included, out of which 159 have 1-car garages. Only 12 of the properties with 1-car garages meet the current driveway width requirements. The aerial survey consisted of measuring the approximate width of each driveway, determining the garage size using a combination of Google Street View and permit research, and inputting the data into an excel spreadsheet to keep track of each property’s code compliance status.

 

168 of the surveyed properties have driveways that do not meet the current driveway width requirements, or 88%. Some of these driveways may be considered nonconforming to the Land Development Code, but it is unclear how many driveways were lawfully established and how many were built without permits. For a driveway to be considered nonconforming, it would need to have been lawfully existing prior to the adoption of the current code requirements. For the purpose of this research, staff has determined whether each surveyed driveway is compliant or non-compliant with the current code requirements as opposed to determining their nonconforming status.

 

If the proposed amendment were adopted to increase the maximum driveway width from 10’ to 18’, the number of non-compliant driveways would reduce in the surveyed area from 168 to 72, or 38%. This would be an approximate 50% reduction in non-compliant driveways in the sample area. Additionally, this could allow for 78 properties within the surveyed area to expand their driveways, as they are not able to expand under the current code requirements.

 

SURVEY RESULTS - SUMMARY

1-Car Garage: 159, 147 were non-compliant, 12 were compliant

2-Car Garage: 13, 3 were non-compliant, 10 were compliant

No Garage: 18, 18 were non-compliant

Total: Out of 190 properties surveyed, 168 had non-compliant driveways (88%), while 22 had compliant driveways (12%)

 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TEXT

See “Residential Driveways Text Amendment” exhibit, dated 10/31/2025.

 

Recommended Action/Motion

Regarding Case Number 2025-0875 - Land Development Code Amendment: Driveway Width Requirements, Staff recommends to accept and make findings of fact as discussed at this Plan Commission meeting and within the Staff Report dated October 28, 2025;

 

And

 

Staff Recommends the Plan Commission approve the Land Development Code Amendment for Sections 6-302.C and 6-406.B.6.

 

Recommended Motion

Regarding Case Number 2025-0875 - Land Development Code Amendment: Driveway Width Requirements, I move to approve the Staff Recommended Action as presented in the Staff Report to the Plan Commission for this case.