04-26-2006 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 present to warrant the second curb cut. Allan stated that she had concern with allowing second curb cuts routinely given the added impervious surface and the impact on the environment. Allan suggested that if second curb cuts are allowed one condition should be the use of pervious surfacing. LaValle pointed out that a double driveway may have the same amount of impervious surface as a single -width horseshoe driveway. Keis agreed and pointed out that there are triple -car garages in the City that have very wide driveways. Keis pointed out that there is no limitation on the amount of impervious surface for a residential property other than in the Shoreland District. Allan felt that the City should take a look at that issue given its impact on the environment. Keis did not feel there would be a huge influx of requests for CUP's for second driveway accesses if the Council approved the Text Amendment. Keis pointed out that even the T turnaround and full circle options add additional blacktop. He felt a horseshoe driveway looked nice, and that the driving factor was really one of personal choice. Allan agreed that aesthetically a horseshoe driveway can look good. She pointed out, however, that according to MN DOT numerous curb cuts along a street resulted in a less safe condition. Keis felt it depended on the street indicating that it was safer to pull out on a busy street. Allan noted that property owners with 75 foot wide lots would not be able to put in a horseshoe driveway under the proposed conditions in the Text Amendment. Keis pointed out that they would likely have the ability to put in a T turnaround. The City Planner indicated that a T turnaround is allowed as long as it is not used as a parking space. Biesener indicated that a T turnaround could add as much impervious surface to a lot as a second curb curt. Montour felt that the Text Amendment had some merit, and pointed out the list of existing horseshoe driveways in the City that the Murphy's provided. Montour felt that the definition of a hardship was somewhat subjective. He felt that handling these requests by CUP took away the ambiguity. He also pointed out that unless a property owner can meet the conditions outlined in the CUP, the request would not be processed. LaValle felt requests for second driveway curs should be handled on an individual basis, 3 5