My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-02-07 P & Z
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2000-2022
>
2006
>
2006-02-07 P & Z
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 2:36:42 PM
Creation date
3/20/2006 9:12:10 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning & Zoning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 7, 2006 <br /> <br />Mr. Wilharber indicated that the Church does not want to cause hardship to adjoining <br />property owners and does not feel this driveway will cause issues in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Joel Highland of 1680 Heritage Street indicated that this would be dangerous to be <br />located 10 feet from their property. He then said that there is nothing that states the road <br />has to be in this location and they feel there is room for the driveway to be located farther <br />west. He further said this puts an undue hardship on them by being so close to their <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Highland indicated he feels this would affect the value of their land and their <br />enjoyment. <br /> <br />Ms. Christie Highland of 1680 Heritage Street indicated that the road going straight <br />against their property is a convenience for the Church and this is a safety issue for them <br />and the biggest issue is they are not asking for a variance for one or two feet but less than <br />half the distance that they are supposed to be away from the property line. <br /> <br />Dennis Caterhenry (Christie’s Dad) of 4114 Oakview Lane in White Bear Lake indicated <br />that when he looks at zoning in other cities there needs to be a compelling reason for a <br />variance and there does not seem to be a compelling reason to locate the road there in this <br />situation. He then said that the 20-foot boundaries were shown on the original plan, but <br />the road has been cut inside the boundary. He further said that there are other options for <br />locating the road and he agrees with a secondary egress for the property as this is <br />secondary and they want to keep it secondary and move it from where it is. He also <br />indicated that normally there would be a variance because there is not enough room to <br />locate the driveway and meet the Code requirements but, there is enough room in this <br />case. <br /> <br />Mr. Caterhenry indicated that lining the driveway up with the street across the street <br />makes it a street and that was not the intention. It is to be a driveway and lining it up <br />would make it a street. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilharber indicated that there is a drainage easement area where the alternate route <br />could be. He then said they went with the police and fire recommendation matching up <br />the driveway with the street. He further suggested adding speed bumps to slow traffic <br />and adding plantings for sound and safety. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilharber indicated they would recommend shrubbery as a barrier and said pine trees <br />and a berm would not be feasible because that property drains to the northwest corner and <br />they intend to install a culvert under the driveway. <br /> <br />Mr. Caterhenry indicated that there is not enough room for evergreens or a berm and that <br />means it is too close. He then said keep it straight but pull it away from the lot line. <br /> <br />Page 2 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.