03-09-06 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2006 material other than asphalC. This will provide for some aesthetic enhancement to the property. 8. Allow a second curb cut for parcels Chat do not have the ability to install a T turnaround or full circle option. This will avoid additional unnecessary curb cuts wherever possible. The Planner suggested that the recommendation limiting the number of curb cuts per block would be difficult to manager, therefore, only seven of the eight recommendations were realistic. Knudsen asked for a clarification of the City's current regulation. The Planner indicated that the current regulation limits asingle-family property to one curb cut regardless of the size or frontage of the property. Duray indicated that he opposed the Murphy's Variance request for the second driveway access last fall given that there was no hardship present to warrant granting the Variance. Duray indicated Chat he was open Co Che proposed Text Amendment, however, and felt there was room to use the CUP process to allow and regulate second driveway accesses. Barraclough asked if there were many lots in the City that could accommodate a second driveway access. The Planner responded that it would depend on the criteria that is established under the CUP process. Barraclough felt that setting conditions that must be met for a second driveway access made sense; however, he wondered from a practical standpoint what the City would really accomplish in doing so. Barraclough also felt that MN DOT's position on the issue made sense from a safety standpoint. Barraclough agreed that trying to apply the Planner's recommendation on limiting the number of curb cuts per block would be tricky to manage. Barraclough stated that at this point he was leaning toward leaving the Code as it is; however, he agreed that Chere are some properties where a second curb cut made sense. Knudsen noted the rigid standard for a CUP for a second curb cut that the City Planner is recommending. He asked what condition would have to be present in order to warrant the granting of a Variance. The Planner indicated that a Variance and a CUP are fundamentally different. The Variance says Chat the ordinance is correct, but the property is so unique and the conditions so out of the ordinary that there is the need to vary from the standards in order to allow a person to put their property to reasonable use. The Planner noted that it is unlikely that a property owner will not be able to use his/her property if they are not allowed a second curb cut. Therefore, it is very difficult to find a hardship to support a Variance in