12-14-2005 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It would appear that a second curb cut in such close proximity to an existing curb cut may create a potential hazard by allowing another point of entry onto the County Road rather than easing a preexisting condition. To this end, it appears that the intention of the curb cut is to create a functional landscaped island rather than easing traffic concerns. This assumption is made in part because the home has operated without traffic issues prior to the applicant's purchasing the home in April of this year. The applicant has noted a number of such second driveways in the community. While these are acknowledged, they are all pre- existing conditions that have been "grandfathered" in. They do not provide justification for approval of a new variance. The City must make the determination as to the degree of hardship with regard to this application. Under the strict interpretation of the Ordinance it does not appear that a genuine hardship exists in complying with the literal terms of the Ordinance. The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that the current layout of the lot jeopardizes the health or safety of the City. Finally, a second curb cut may in fact cause a higher degree of traffic due to the close proximity to the first curb cut. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, our office does not feel that the applicant has demonstrated the required hardship to justify approval of the second curb cut. This finding is based upon the applicant having reasonable use of the property, and that the variance is not necessary to overcome a unique condition on the subject site. As noted, the property meets the current regulations, and is consistent with conditions that are both common in the community, and in compliance with standard zoning regulations. pc. Kathy Glanzer Greg Schroeder Steve Westerhaus Mike and Heidi Murphy 3 -24-