My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-09-06 Planning Comm. Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
03-09-06 Planning Comm. Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2008 9:53:02 AM
Creation date
4/23/2008 9:49:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />NOVEMBER 10, 2005 <br />island does look nice, the reason for the Variance request is due to safety <br />concerns. He noted the heavy traffic volumes as well as high traffic <br />speeds on County Road B-2. <br />Heidi Murphy indicated that it would be difficult to maneuver their <br />vehicles into aback-in spot and then pull onto County Road B-2 given the <br />limited room they have to work with. She further noted the additional risk <br />in backing onto County Road B-2 given the traffic volumes, traffic speeds, <br />and the high volume of walkers and joggers on County Road B-2. <br />Murphy also pointed out that they would like to save the large pine tree on <br />their property given the fact that the property to the west of them was <br />recently clear cut. <br />Rheaume stated that he supported the Variance request and saw no reason <br />to deny it. <br />Heidi Murphy noted the criteria listed in the Planner's report Co justify the <br />granting of a Variance, and felt that they met these criteria. The first was <br />that without the Variance they would be deprived of rights that other <br />property owners enjoy -Murphy noted that others have received a <br />Variance for a horseshoe driveway. The next was that the special <br />conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the <br />applicants -the heavy traffic volumes and speeds are not the result of their <br />actions. The Variance will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege -there are many horseshoe driveways in the City. <br />Duray stated that he did not support the Variance request since there was <br />no evidence of a hardship. Hall agreed and stated that the Commission <br />has not heard enough that would convince it to grant a Variance. Hall <br />noted that there appears to be other options that the property owner can <br />explore. Hall indicated that the burden of proof is on the applicant. <br />Rheaume disagreed and felt the public safety issue was hardship enough to <br />warrant granting the Variance. <br />Heidi Murphy felt Chat the City Planner has made substantiations in his <br />report that he does not have the data to back up. <br />Duray recommended denial of the Variance allowing a second driveway <br />curb cut for 601 East County Road B-2 requested by Mike and Heidi <br />Murphy as there is no hardship present to warrant the granting of a <br />variance, and there are other options that the property owner can pursue <br />more fully, such as a back-in spot on the property, that would allow the <br />property owner to pull out onto County Road B-2. <br />Motion seconded by Hall. <br />9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.