CC 08-18-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ " i'Hnutes of Special Coune! I Meei"ing -2- August 18, 1980 Mr. Earl Morgan, presented a sl~~Ch of the re-aligned Lexington Avenu~ and County Road o intersection, Indicating a sIght line and recommended sight line minImums and stopping distances at 30 mph and 40 mph speeds; noted that his calculations Indicate that a car traveling at SO mph will cover 300 feet In 4 se,conds (at 40 mph In 5.1 seconds>. Tom laNasa said he studied the corner, appears to be no difference If a garage Is there or not; feels the real problem is the retaining wall. Mrs. ~oOrgan said one problem Is being removed and another problem Is b,.lng created If garage is constructed. - - Resident on Shol-ellne suggested that Carrol Is consider enlarging their existing garage and create a horseshoe drive and turn-around area. Mrs. Carrol! said there Isn't sufficient space; problem is backing on'lo Lexington. Weltzln explained that the proposed garage Is behind the sight line. Mrs. Hardy asked why a garage Is needed; If a driveway to County Road 0 Is desired, "I'lne, but does not see why a garage is necessary that wI i I hInder the sllfety for the residents on COllnty Road 0 and Shoreline. Mr. Cllrro! I said he does not feel that removal of his existing drive alld cons'tructlon of a new garage as proposed, will be a sight line problem; currently, ClrS parked . on his driveway could cause a hindrance; existing drive will have IS% grade; snow piles at his ex~stlng drive will create a sight line problem; If driveway Is to County Road 0, these situations wou~d be alleviated. Mrs. B.timberry sa ld ther',. wi II be a high bank on County Roe.d D at thE' proposed driveway and her property line - also a sight problem. It was noted by Weltz'n that additional concreta will have to be removed from.the oldstlnq Carroll driveway; about a 15% slope wIll result; similar sltu,~tlon to that at the house next door to the north; County Is encouraging turn-arounds on the Lexington Avenue properties where feasible; noted that the contractor has been requasted to "hold off" on the drive pending Council's decision; wants to cooperate with evaryone; September 15th is the project completion date; traffic en::1ineer does not see a sight dIstance problem here. , Hanson noted thai" City or'd i nance does not requ I re peop I e to have garages; persona I needs are not a compel I Ing reason for granting a variance. Carroll explained thllt his concern Is for sa"fety of his fElmlly and also for the vaiue of his property; does not intend to create a parking lot out of what remains of his front yard; is concerned that tha variance requestod, In order to construct a garag'3 with safe access to County Road D. Is not going i'o result In a safety problem fOl" others. Mrs. Ca~roi I said '1'he propo~,a! is considered to be a ",.asc.nable solution to solve il diiijgii~"'O\JS sitw~-;- ~cn. . . \~lng3rt said he Is comfortable \1lth the sight line, which does not appear to be a probl,~m, but other thIngs should be considered; noted that Carrol Is have a safety Goncern for their existing driveway which would be alleviated if access can be ~rovlded to County Road D; would I fka to work with them and grant a varlanc3; do not kno\1 if 32' variance Is roasonable. it \'16S noted that an alternate proposal, suggested by the Planner, Is not possible unless the land acquired by "~he CoUlty Is sold to Carrol Is. \~oodbur:l agreed that there is no sight line problem, but has a problem with the amount of variance; noted a val"lance of thi s magn l'tude ha,; not been granted before, to hIs ,{nowledge. Wingert said he feels there Is ground for some variance; would like to pursue some manner of I-edUCing the varlcmcll. Woodburn moved to not approve the variance requested; seconded by Wlnger't. -"--