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

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 14, 2005 pointed out to the Murphy's that this is no guarantee that a Text Amendment would be approved, however. Allan indicated that for this particular property she saw no hardship and felt that a T-driveway was an acceptable alternative to a horseshoe driveway. Allan noted that the Variance that was granted for the Vermeesch property was based on the fact that there was a physical hardship present that prohibited the ability to install a T-driveway. Allan was concerned that a Text Amendment allowing horseshoe driveways by CUP would open the City up to numerous requests. Allan stated that this was a concern for her based on the City Planner's comments about traffic confusion and decreased snow storage and visibility issues that result from horseshoe driveways. Allan also noted the increased impervious surface and impact to water quality. Allan noted that the Murphy property is located on Lake Gervais. Blesener suggested that an additional condition could be that the property owner put in a rain garden. Allan stated that she did not see that a horseshoe driveway was a necessity for this property, and felt that creation of a second curb cut had the potential for a traffic hazard as well as increased the amount of impervious surface. Allan stated that she saw no hardship. Keis agreed that there was no hardship. Keis stated, however, that he was not opposed to horseshoe driveways and knows people who have them and they work quite well Keis felt it was safer to pull into traffic rather than back into it. Keis felt that a text amendment could be drafted permitting horseshoe driveways by Conditional Use Permit with narrow enough conditions to ensure that these driveways are limited properly. Murphy pointed out that one of the hardship criteria is that the property owner is not being deprived of rights that are commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Murphy pointed out the two horseshoe driveways on County Road B-2 very near his home. Montour indicated that 25 years ago when the Code was adopted the limitation of one curb cut per single-family property was felt to be a good thing. Montour suggested that it might be time to take another look at the issue. Murphy indicated that when he met with the City Planner he asked why this limitation was in the Code. Murphy reported that the Planner replied that it was part of a standard blueprint that the City adopted. The Planner indicated that that was correct, but noted that the reason this limitation was