Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 14, 2005 <br />in the standard blueprint was for the reasons of improved traffic safety, <br />snow storage, and visibility as discussed previously. <br />Blesener suggested that the City Planner verify that these reasons are still <br />valid today, and also report on how other cities handle the issue of <br />horseshoe driveways. Blesener stated that he personally felt it was safer to <br />pull out of a driveway into traffic than it was to back out. Again, Blesener <br />suggested that the Variance request be tabled to give the City additional <br />time to study the issue. <br />Heidi Murphy asked what the City will do relative to the existing <br />horseshoe driveways in the event that their request is not approved. <br />The City Administrator noted that seven of these driveways are <br />grandfathered in, and nine were put in on County roads, although some of <br />the roads have since been turned over to the City. The Administrator <br />noted that the County appears to have had no trouble in granting these <br />additional curb cuts, although their practice has obviously changed given <br />the County's desire to limit curb cuts on Little Canada Road when it was <br />being redeveloped. The Administrator also commented that the traffic <br />levels on County Road B-2 are much lower than some City streets, such as <br />Edgerton Street. He also noted that the City's code enforcement efforts <br />are much more intense today than they were previously. Therefore, as <br />with the horseshoe driveway on Sunset Court that the Building Official <br />missed, other such driveways were put in by property owners without the <br />City being aware that a second curb cuC had been installed. <br />Allan asked how many requests for horseshoe driveways the City has <br />denied. The City Administrator indicated that he was not sure of the <br />number, but would asked the Building Official for an estimate. <br />Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2005-12-284 -CONTINUING THE PUBLIC <br />HEARING ON REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A <br />SECOND CURB CUT FOR 607 EAST COUNTY ROAD B-2 TO THE <br />MARCH 22, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING SUBJECT TO MR. MIKE <br />MURPHY SIGNING ASIXTY-DAY WAIVER ALLOWING THE CITY <br />ADDITIONAL TIME TO STUDY THIS MATTER FURTHER, AND <br />IN THE EVENT THAT THE SIXTY-DAY WAIVER IS NOT SIGNED, <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL HEREBY BE CLOSED AND THE <br />REQUEST FOR VARIANCE DENIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT <br />THERE IS NO HARDSHIP PRESENT TO WARRANT GRANTING <br />OF THE VARIANCE <br />6 <br />