Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2065 <br />September 14, 1995 <br />Page 6 <br />trucks damaging private roads and driveways, for which the Fire <br />responsible when damage occurred during a call. It can wnamly be driveways <br />Lm as it exists is a bener situation for fighting fires than if we have separate narrow driveways <br />in place. <br />Hennepin County DOT Comments <br />Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County met with staff atri the property owners on August 23id <br />ZenLirom verballv indicated that based on the proposed driveway location, and the po''"' <br />£S rJ«ighborhood. the County was likely to i ^ <br />would issue a permit for a new curb cut for Toles. That has been confirmed in a letter recei <br />i'3day (Exhibit O). <br />City Engineer Recommends Denial <br />Citv Engineer Shawn Gustafson in his September I3th letter indicates that ^hould <br />di^oufaee an increase in the number of accesses to an arterial roadway such « County Road <br />51 and hi recommends that the proposal be denied. From a policy <br />die new driveway accesses lo a County Road should only occur if there is no feasible altemati . <br />He notes that approval could be considered precedcni setting. <br />rustafson also notes that the wetland and fioodplain boundaries should be delineated (and <br />easements granted), and that a grading/erosion control/dramage plan should be prepare <br />(received from applicants on 9'13/95), if the proposal is approved. <br />Further he sucacsts that all existing sanitary sewer, water, storm seer, 8“; <br />r^rnhnne and c'able television lines should be located and shown on a survey. Note that while <br />r^:r=trcort"“ <br />I^^ouU ^e relented before final approval of the replat so that appropriate easements can be <br />cranted or utilitit. moved to match new easement locattons. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />In order to approve this vacation and replat. Planning Commission must be able to find <br />that:The necessary variances involved in the replal (lot widih/frontage/back lot issues) <br />are dearly justified and supponed by adequate tmdings. <br />It is in the public's best interest to vacate the road. <br />All utilities and access needs will be accommodated. <br />This vacation is unique and supported by compelling justifications ^at apply o <br />this neiiihborhood but not to other similar neighborhoods, in order that ^ basis t <br />deny similar requests without such conditions existing, is possible (..e. show why <br />this vacation doc> not set a negative precedent).