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 />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 14, 2005 <br />Blesener asked the City Planner for the rational behind limiting single- <br />familyproperties to one curb cut. The City Planner indicated that one <br />reason is traffic control. The addition of a second curb cut for properties <br />makes things more confusing for drivers. The second reason is for snow <br />storage. Additional curb cuts decrease the amount of snow storage area <br />and results in more and higher snow piles, thus impacting visibility. <br />LaValle felt that the impact of backing out onto a busy street outweighed <br />Che reasons for the limitation outlined by the Planner. <br />Blesener asked if Little Canada's ordinance was out-of-line with those of <br />other cities. The Planner did not think so, and noted that the solution to <br />having to back out onto a busy street is to have a T-driveway arrangement. <br />Blesener stated that he did not have a problem with horseshoe driveways, <br />but felt there was no basis to granting a Variance. Keis agreed and felt the <br />City's option was to amend the Code. Keis suggested that the Code could <br />allow horseshoe driveways by Conditional Use Permit, establishing <br />conditions that must be met such as the property abuts a busy street and <br />there is a minimum amount of road frontage. Keis noted that not everyone <br />will want a horseshoe driveway, but felt that there must be some control in <br />place to regulate the situation where they will be allowed. <br />Allan noted that under this scenario, the City will be faced with a lot of <br />requests from property owners living on busy roads. <br />The City Planner suggested that some conditions can be tied to traffic <br />volumes, road widths, visibility issues, and physical concerns with the <br />property. <br />Heidi Murphy indicated that the City of Bloomington allows horseshoe <br />driveways by conditional use permit and has conditions established in its <br />ordinance. Murphy noted that they had started to install the horseshoe <br />driveway this fall, and felt that iC was allowed given there were other <br />properties in the City with horseshoe drives. Once they were contacted by <br />the City and informed that horseshoe drives were not allowed, they <br />stopped work. Murphy noted that the horseshoe drive is graveled in, but <br />the curb has not been cut for the second driveway access. <br />Blesener suggested that action on the Variance be tabled at this point to <br />give the City some time to research the text amendment issue. It was <br />noted that the Murphy's would not be doing any additional work on the <br />driveway during the winter months. It was also noted that it will take four <br />votes of the Council to approve a Text Amendment, and there were four <br />members of the Council willing to consider a Text Amendment. Blesener <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.