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

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Socha stated that she did not see a problem with the request and felt that from a public safety standpoint, the Variance should be approved. Hall stated that he did not have a problem with the request, but noted that the Commission is bound by the ordinance. The City Planner indicated that in order to recommend approval of a Variance, the Commission should make a finding that there is some unique condition present that prevents Che property owner from putting the property to a reasonable use. It was noted that the Planner's report references one curb cut per 250 feet of property. However, that reference applies to commercial properties, not residential. The Planner noted that the Code limits residential properties to one curb cut regardless of frontage. Rheaume pointed out that Chis family has young children, and felt it was safer for them to pull out onto County Road B-2 rather than back out. Rheaume felt the Variance was justified from a public safety standpoint, noting The Yr•affic volumes and speed on the road as well as pedestrian traffic. Wojcik felt there asked if there was ample distance room on the property to install aback-in spot. Heidi Murphy replied that there was a concrete front porch between the tree and the house that limited the ability to install a back-in spot. Duray felt a horseshoe driveway would work, but did not see a hardship to warrant approving a Variance. Duray suggested that there was room on the property to design aback-in spot, and suggested that the property owners explore this option. Duray noted the precedence that a Variance would set in this case. Mike Murphy asked the objection from a planning standpoint to horseshoe driveways. The City Planner indicated that the traditional objection is Che result in multiple curb cuts along a residential street. This increases Che hard surface along the street, reduces the amount of area for snow storage, and increases the potential for driver confusion. Murphy asked if there were any studies that showed this. The City Planner indicated that this is the planning standard that has been applied for at least 25 years. He would have to research the genesis of that standard. Murphy reported that he has been trying to find data to support the Planner's theory and has not. Murphy objected to the statement in the Planner's report that the reason for the horseshoe driveway is to create a functional landscape island. Murphy reported that that is not their motivation for requesting the Variance. Murphy stated that while the -8-