Laserfiche WebLink
2!oning File 1^065 <br />September 14, 1995 <br />Page 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 alternative, 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 tnat former City Councis <br />and staff mav have felt tha» Scotch Pine Une should never have been built. Mr. Martie d s <br />recent recollection of the extensive tree removal that took place when that road was built is <br />confirmed in the Citv files. Apparently former City Planner Alan Olson, former Mayor Van <br />Nest, and others are purported to have noted the road was eveevove 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 tod.iv ’s Co des, these three 1 ts would be required to be platted with a pri^ <br />nmiot rmd beinc^ 50 in width with 100’ platted cul-de:.sac and paved to a width of .4 . with 80 <br />raved diameter cul-de-sac. similar to what currently exi_sts. As Planning Commission and <br />Council are aware, the City is currently reviewing the issue of the use ol private roads vs. <br />nhvaf drivewavs. and tandards for their construction. Planning Commission will certainly <br />retail 'the recent' di cussions with the Long Lake Fire Chief that lead Planning Commission to <br />wonder whether juiier.t standards were not strict enough. <br />Further, there may be an issue of whether a current moratorium which "prohibits the <br />eramir'’ of prcliminars' subdivision approval or ouier permits and approval for private dnvevvays <br />which swerve 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 dilieentlv attempted to make the applicants aware that there are policy <br />issues that miahi derail their proposal. Not the least of which is the possible precedent set by <br />addin.’ a driveway access to a busy County road, when the City’s policy has been to not only <br />iiniit the number of drivew ays, 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 tor 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 tnroughout the rural zoning districts.