04-26-2006 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2006 Allan pointed out that creating a CUP process for these requests will open up the availability to any property owner that can meet the conditions spelled out in the Text Amendment. Under the Variance process, a hardship would have to be met. Keis noted that a hardship must be a physical characteristic unique to the property, and most properties will not have a true hardship. Keis pointed out that technically, the City should not grant variances. Blesener reviewed the list of existing horseshoe driveways in the City noting that five were installed without City approval after the 1980 Code was adopted. Others were installed prior to enactment of the 1980 Code, and one was installed on County Road B -2 under a Variance action. Blesener noted that it will take a minimum of four affirmative votes of the Council Members to pass the proposed Text Amendment. Allan indicated that she would not support it. LaVaile stated that he felt requests for second curb cuts should be handled on a case -by -case basis. The Planner indicated that this is the way requests are currently handled, but under the Variance process which requires a hardship. The Planner noted that under the CUP process, anyone who can meet the conditions of the CUP would have the right to obtain a permit for the second driveway access. The Planner suggested that to make the process somewhere between a Variance and CUP, the CUP conditions should be very restrictive which would narrow the possibility of properties that would qualify for the CUP. Montour suggested that the compromise then might be to include more restrictions under the CUP process. Allan noted the proposed restriction that lots must be at least 100 feet in width. She pointed out that there may be lots narrower than the 100 feet that may have more of a need from a safety standpoint for a horseshoe driveway than a wider lot. LaValle asked about corner lots. The Planner indicated that comer lots would meet the 100 foot minimum. The Planner also corrected an earlier statement and indicated that the Code limits the ability to install T turnarounds to lots on minor collectors and above. The Code does not allow T turnarounds on every street. Blesener suggested that perhaps the ability to install T turnarounds should be available to all residential properties. Allan felt the Codes works the way it is written and should remain as is. LaVaile asked the width of the Murphy property. Heidi Murphy responded that the lot is 114 feet wide and the existing driveway is 20 feet wide. There would be a 40 foot separation between driveways. 6