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

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2006 Duray stated that he runs around the lake and agrees that there are a lot of people walking and pushing strollers. Duray felt that County Road B-2 was highly used, and agreed with the condition suggested by Knudsen. Duray also suggested that a minimum lot width of 100 feet would be preferable to the 125 feet suggested by the Planner. He noted that the typical lot width in the City is 75 to 80 feet. Barraclough suggested he was leaning toward a Variance rather than a CUP and suggested that the conditions listed by the Planner apply to the Variance. The Planner noted Yhat conditions are not listed for Variances, a Variance has to meet the hardship test. Hall asked for clarification that a Variance must be unique to the property, but a CUP is presumed to be allowed if all listed conditions can be met. The Planner replied that Chat was correct. The Planner also noted that a property owner would have to apply for a CUP, it is not automatically granted even if conditions can be met. Duray noted that the Council has indicated that there is no hardship present in the Murphy case to warrant a Variance. Knudsen replied that that is correct. Knudsen noted thaC the task for Che Commission Chis evening is to deCermine wheCher or noC second curb cuts should be allowed by CUP, and, if so, what conditions should be established to regulate those second curb cuts. Knudsen questioned the Planner's recommendation that a second driveway access be allowed only for properties that do not have the ability to install a T turnaround. Knudsen suggested that most properties would have that ability. The Planner replied that each CUP application would have to be evaluated as to this condition. He suggested that in the case of the Murphy property, they have indicated thaC a T turnaround is not possible given the distance of their garage from the street as well as Che locaCion of a large existing tree. Mike Murphy, 601 County Road B-2 EasC, stated that he has reviewed Che MN DOT reports and found them to be very thorough. He noted that one thing he did not find was MN DOT's definition of a major roadway versus residential street. The Planner reported that MN DOT has four classifications of streets: local street, minor collector, major collector, and arterial. The Planner stated that the classification of Edgerton Street and County Road B-2 East, for example, are minor collector streets. Murphy stated that he saw no data from MN DOT or the staff that addressed the danger of backing out onto roadways that have extra driveway curb cuts. The Planner stated that he has not seen any