10-16-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2065 September 14, 1995 Page 4 Property owners will need to grant casements to each other for their sc connections which may cross over what will now become private property. 6.Confirmation that the drainage easement for the storm sewer leaving the east end of the cul-de-sac is legally filed and in effect; as an alternative, the need for this storm drain system may be alleviated by the property owners regrading the entire site as proposed. Policy Is«ics A review of the extensive files attached regarding the original Dicon Addition approval and the later Whalen easement vacation and variance request, suggest that former City Councils and staff may have felt that Scotch Pine Lane should never have been built. Mr. Marficld s recent recollection of the extensive tree removal that took place when that road was built is confirmed in the City files. Apparently former City Planner Alan Olson, former Mayor Van Nest, and others are purported to have noted the road was excessive for serving just three lots. However, it is a fact that absent the lot areas being substandard, in the two acre zoning district under today’s Codes, these three lots would TPKM 19 ^ PlattftI wjtii a pygS nurinr mad heiny 50’ in width with lOO* plaHcd cui-de-$a£ and paved to a width of 24 . with 80 paved diameter cul-de-sac, similar to what currently exists. As Planning Commission and Council are aware, the City is currently reviewing the issue of the use of private roads vs. private driveways, and standards for their construction. Planning Commission wUl MtUinly recall the recent discussions with the Long Lake Fire Chief that lead Planning Commission to wonder whether current standards were not strict enough. Further, there may be an issue of whether the current moratorium which "prohibits the granting of preliminary subdivision approval or other permits and approval for private driveways which serve three or more residences", applies to the current request. It was not intended, m staff’s opinion, to necessarily apply to the case where there will be two private driveways, one serving one residence and one serving two residences, although one imght interpret it that way. Additionally, while the residents have pursued this application with much zeal over the last month staff has diligently attempted to make the applicants aware that there are policy limit die number of driveways, but to require that private roads be constructed to City stand^ whenever three or more lots are created as pan of a subdivision. Absent all of the compelling reasons whv the proposed vacation is a positive improvement for this neighborhood (and pertops will reduce^City maintenance costs), it stUI seems to be flying in the face of what has been consistent City policy throughout the niral zoning districts. 1 1.A ,i ITT ft 111