04-26-2006 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 The City Planner reviewed his report dated March 3, 2006 relative to the issue of allowing two curb cuts for single- family lots. He noted the research done by City staff as well as his office which indicates that the majority of cities surveyed limit single - family properties to one curb cut. The Planner also reported that the Minnesota Department of Transportation has done a significant amount of work promoting access management, and recommends that access to the public rights -of -way be limited. MN DOT's position is that more access points result in less safe conditions. The Planner reported that the busier the street, the more important it is to minimize the number of access points along the street. The Planner noted that the Planning Commission discussed the safety issues related to backing out onto a street that has a lot of non - motorized/pedestrian traffic. The MN DOT studies do not address that issue, but do say that the more access points along a road the less other drivers are able to predict where turning movements will occur. The Planner reported that the Planning Commission felt that despite the MN DOT research, backing out onto a busy street was a safety concern and recommended approval of the Text Amendment creating the CUP subject to a list of conditions. Blesener felt the IVIN DOT research would have been more thorough if it had addressed the issue of bacicing out onto a busy street. The Planner replied that MN DOT is saying that all other things being equal, the more access points along a street, the Less safe the street is. Blesener felt that the ability to pull out onto a street would be safer. The City Planner stated that he could not argue that point, but noted that T turnaround or full circle driveway would provide the ability to pull out. LaValle stated that backing up an automobile is the most unsafe driving motion. LaValle stated that he does not have a strong feeling about the driveway issue, but felt the proposed Text Amendment should not be adopted. LaValle felt the need for second driveway access could be handled under the City's Variance process. Allan agreed that the issue should be handled under the Variance process, and felt the CUP process proposed would only benefit a chosen few. Allan noted the conditions proposed in the Text Amendment would eliminate many property owners from the ability to apply for a CUP for the second driveway access. Allan noted the house at the intersection of Little Canada Road/County Road C/Lakeshore Avenue would not be able to qualify for a CUP and has a difficult situation for backing into the street. Allan felt that the current Variance process worked well for addressing requests for second curb cuts, and felt that a hardship should be 4