09-18-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 6 trucks damaging private roads and driveways, for which the Fire Department was often held responsible when damage occurred during a call. It can certainly be argued that Scotch Pine I unp as it exists is a better situation for fighting fires than »f we have separate narrow driveways in place. Hennepin County DOT Comments Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County met with staff and the properry owners on August 23rd. Zetterstrom verbally indicated that based on the proposed driveway location, and the potential benefits to the neighborhood, the County was likely to support the vacation/replat proposal and would issue a permit for a new curb cut for Toles. That has been confirmed in a letter received today (Exhibit O). City Engineer Recommends Denial City Engineer Shawn Gustafson in his September 13th letter indicates that the City should discourage an increase in the number of accesses to an arterial roadway such as County Road 51 and he recommends that the proposal be denied. From a policy stai^point, he indicates that the new driveway accesses to a County Road should only occur if there is no feasible alternative. He notes that approval could be considered precedent setting. Gustafson also notes that the wetland and floodplain boundaries should be delineated (and easements granted), and that a grading/erosion control/drainage plan should be prepared (received from applicants on 9/13/95), if the proposal is approved. Further, he suggests that all existing sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, electrical, gas, telephone and cable television lines should be located and shown on a survey. Note that while all utility companies have been notified of the vacation request, the location of utility lines has not been presented in a comprehensive survey. If the proposal is approved, such a drawing should be presented before final approval of the replat so that appropriate easements can be granted or utilities moved to match new easement locations. Staff Recommendation In order to approve this vacation and replat. Planning Commission must be able to fmd The necessary variances involved in the replat (lot width/frontage/back lot issues) are clearly justified and supported by adequate findings. It is in the public’s best interest to vacate the road. All utilities and access needs will be accommodated. This vacation is unique and supported by compelling jus Tications that apply to this neighborhood but not to other similar neighborhoods, in order that a basis to deny similar requests without such conditions existing, is possible (i.e. show why this vacation does not set a negative precedent). that: