Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2065 <br />September 14, 1995 <br />Paee 4 <br />5. Property owners will need to grant easements to each other for their sewer <br />connections which may cross over what will now become private property. <br />6. Confirmation that the drainage easement for the storm sewer leaving the east end <br />of the cul-de-sac is legally filed and in effect; as an alttmative, the need for this <br />storm drain system may be alleviated by the property owners regrading the entire <br />site as proposed. <br />Access Issues, Policy Issues <br />A review of the extensive files attached regarding the original Dicon Addition approval <br />and the later Whalen easement vacation and variance request, suggest that former City Councils <br />and staff may have felt that Scotch Pine Lane should never have been built. Mr. Marfield’s <br />recent recollection of the extensive tree removal that took place when that road was built is <br />confirmed in the City files. Apparently former City Planner Alan Olson, former Mayor Van <br />Nest, and others are purported to have noted the road was excessive for serving just three lots. <br />However, it is a fact that absent the lot areas being substandard, in the two acre zoning <br />district under today’s Codes, these three lots would be required to be Placed with a Ptlv^ <br />outlot road being 50’ in width with lOO* platted cul-de-sac and paved to a width of 24 ’, with 80’ <br />paved diameter cul-de-sac, similar to what currently exists . As Planning Commission and <br />Council are aware, the City is currently reviewing the issue of the use of private roads vs. <br />private driveways, and standards for their construction. Planning Commission will Mitoinly <br />recall the recent discussions with the Long Lake Fire Chief that lead Planning Commission to <br />wonder whether current standards \^ere not strict enough. <br />Further, there may be an issue of whether the current moratorium which "prohibits the <br />granting of preliminary subdivision approval or other permits and approval for private driveways <br />which serve three or more residences", applies to the current request. It was not intended, in <br />staffs opinion, to necessarily apply to the case where there will be two private driveways, one <br />serving one residence and one serving two residences, although one might interpret it that way. <br />Additionally, while the residents have pursued this application with much zeal over the <br />last month, staff has diligently attempted to make the applicants aware that there are policy <br />issues that might derail their proposal. Not the least of which is the possible precedent set by <br />adding a driveway access to a busy County road, when the City s policy has been to not only <br />limit the number of driveways, but to require that private roads be constructed to City standards <br />whenever three or more lots are created as part of a subdivision. Absent all of the compelling <br />reasons why the proposed vacation is a positive improvement for this neighborhood (and perhaps <br />will reduce City maintenance costs), it still seems to be flying in the face of what has been <br />consistent City policy throughout the rural zoning districts.