04-26-2006 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 ''NO REASONABLE OR SAFE USE OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY EXISTS. THIS IS DUE TO HEAVY TRAFFIC AND HIGH SPEEDS COMBINED WITH HEAVY PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ALONG COUNTY ROAD B -2 EAST; *CIRCUMSTANCE BEYOND THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL WHICH INCLUDE LOW VISIBILITY TO SPEEDING TRAFFIC OR PEDESTRIAN APPROACH FROM EITHER DIRECTION; *VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL A SECOND CURB CUT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis. Ayes (2) LaValle, Keis. Nays (3) Allan, Blesener, Montour. Resolution failed. Blesener stated that he could not support this resolution as his concern was with the next request for a Variance for a second curb cut. LaValle felt that each request should be considered on a case -by -case basis. Allan indicated that the hardship criteria listed above was not true, specifically the first and second points. Montour and Blesener agreed. Montour felt that the issue came down to item (g) in the Text Amendment that was considered, that is if there is no ability for a property owner to put in a T turnaround, then a second curb cut should be allowed. Montour felt that all efforts should be made to require the T turnaround when practical. Allan again stated that she felt the Text Amendment was inequitable as it would be available to property owners who have lots a minimum of 100 feet wide. She pointed out that there may be properties 75 feet in width that would need a second curb cut just as much as a property with 100 feet of width. LaValle asked if one of the negative votes on the Text Amendment could bring the matter back for reconsideration. The City Attorney replied that that was correct. Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -3 -69 — BRINGING THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO SECOND CURB CUTS BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION