Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Zoning Board of Adjustment <br />Minutes of October 27,1994 <br /> <br />Mr. Lewis noted there were 19 public notices mailed to surrounding property <br />owners. Four replies were returned in favor, none in opposition, one returned <br />undeliverable, and two favorable replies were submitted by the applicant. <br /> <br />Staffs review of the request found the following: <br /> <br />· Granting this request would be contrary to the best public interest <br />for the following reasons: <br /> <br />The additional driveway width would not promote traffic <br />safety. <br /> <br />The additional culverting necessary to support the requested <br />driveway would exceed the maximum length established by <br />the City drainage policy. <br /> <br />Drainage policy has been developed and implemented in <br />response to a mandate from City Council. <br /> <br />· This request does not involve a hardship as defined by the Zoning <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />· Denying the variance will not prevent reasonable development and <br />use of the property. <br /> <br />· Granting the variance will not uphold the spirit or intent of the <br />Zoning Ordinance. <br /> <br />Staffs recommendation was to deny Variance Request V94-008. <br /> <br />A. PROPONENTS <br /> <br />Chairman Bernay swore in Ronald Sharp. Mr. Sharp explained his <br />situation and asked the Board to grant the variance. He submitted <br />photographs showing his and adjacent properties. <br /> <br />Chairman Bernay swore in Rosemary Sharp. Mrs. Sharp stated she <br />did not understand staffs safety concerns. Mr. Lewis answered by <br />saying that the intent of restricting driveway access is to limit access <br />