03-22-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Rebuttal to Planning Commission for 601 County Rd. B2 Mission Statement "We strive to apply city ordinances, regulations and policies in a fair and consistent manner" • In 1995 20 houses were built in Little Canada. 2437 Sunset (A high value house) was built with a two cut driveway. The site plans shows this two cut driveway (It currently has three). "The building inspector chose not to apply this ordinance to this site" (Joel Hanson). • From the inception in 1980, of this ordinance 6+ houses were built with horseshoe driveways 5 without approval from the City, one where the City chose not to apply the ordinance. 2437 Sunset, 2485 Sunset, 752 LaBore, 2465 Edgerton, 2441 Edgerton, 663 County Rd. B2 (Note a planning council member lives here and was not in attendance to vote), and 626 County Rd. B2 (with a variance approved). • Prior to the ordinance adoption, 7+ driveways were in place with NO reports of problems or complaints related to them. 2380 Diana, 2397 Diana, 801 Viking, 2907 Arcade, 2612 Edgerton, 600 Keller Parkway, and 636 Keller Parkway "We encourage city beautification, maintaining our natural environment and pride in ownership" • In April the City allowed the empty lot next to us to be completely clear cut of trees allowing top soil to run into the lake and our lower level property. • We worked specifically with a well respected landscape architect to design something that would maintain the beautiful mature trees and still provide safe access for us to the street without the fear of hitting a pedestrian or speeding car. Many options were considered and the one you have is the best possible solution that also maintains the mature tree on the site. "We foster long term growth by proactively pursuing and assisting in high quality development and redevelopment." Our house at 601 County Rd. B2 was in need of some TLC that would fall into this category. We are returning it to its glory of 40 year ago. • Denying us the ability to improve the function and appearance of our landscape would not be consistent with this statement in the mission. • Additionally this specific ordinance would not be consistent with other small and large cities in the metro area. Issue Analysis: In the variance request, our request does meet requirements of section 2 items B, C, D. I. Literal interpretation of ordinance WOULD deprive us of what is commonly enjoyed by others. 2. Results of our actions would not interfere with others 3. This would NOT give us special privilege NAC's interpretation of the ordinance "Intent of this requirement is to iimit curb cuts to control traffic onto streets and roads within residential areas." Note 1.: we asked for the intent of this provision on two separate occasions. 1. It was likely a standard building ordinance the city adopted and had no real intent for this specific section. 2. Mostly for snow removal and placement Note 2: Prior to the adoption of this ordinance witch contained this curb cut section, there were no problems or complaints related to two cut driveways. Assumptions and Recommendation "It would appear second curb cut....snay create potential Hazard.... By ;allowing another point of entrance."