My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-26-2006 Additions
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
04-26-2006 Additions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2012 2:14:27 PM
Creation date
3/28/2012 2:13:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 22, 2006 <br />Murphy noted that at the Planning Commission meeting, the Commission <br />supported the Text Amendment and agreed that backing out on a busy <br />street was a safety issue. Murphy noted that County Road B -2 is a busy <br />street consisting of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. She further noted that <br />they do not have the ability to install a T turnaround in their yard given <br />that a large spruce tree would have to be cut down. She also noted that <br />there is not enough room between the house and the street to install a T <br />turnaround due to the tree location. <br />Montour felt that there were other streets in the City just as busy as <br />County Road B -2. He noted that he lives on DeSoto Street which has a lot <br />of pedestrian traffic to Pioneer Park. Backing out onto streets with <br />pedestrian traffic is an issue and drivers must be careful. <br />Allan felt there was some room on the Murphy property to install the T <br />turnaround without disturbing the tree. Murphy disagreed and indicated <br />that the turn would be too tight. Murphy again pointed out that the <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of the Text Amendment. <br />She noted that the two dissenting votes only opposed the Text Amendment <br />as written and felt it should be available to more property owners and not <br />as limited as drafted. <br />Murphy stated that they can understand the concern for aesthetics as well <br />and limiting impervious surface. She indicated that they have already <br />submitted a landscape plan for the horseshoe driveway, and would have no <br />problem changing their plan to utilize pervious surface. Murphy indicated <br />that they want to pull out on County Road B -2 for safety reasons. She also <br />noted the point their driveway intersects with the street makes it difficult <br />to back out and drive up the County Road B -2 hill during the. winter. The <br />property across the street has the same situation, and that property was <br />granted a Variance for a horseshoe driveway. Murphy pointed out that <br />several property owners have gone ahead and installed horseshoe <br />driveways over the years without asking for the City's permission. <br />Keis noted that if the City sees a horseshoe driveway being put it, it is <br />stopped. The City Administrator noted that several have been requested, <br />and City staff has told these property owners that they are not permitted. <br />Chris Cardinal, 2755 Lakeside Court, reported that horseshoe driveways <br />have been permitted on County roads. The City Administrator indicated <br />that while the County issues curb. cut permits on County roads, property <br />owners are still required to obtain necessary approvals from the City. <br />Cardinal reported that there is a great deal of pedestrian and non - <br />motorized vehicular traffic around the lake, and consequently on County <br />Road B -2 East. He felt this was a safety issue and that the request for the <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.