Laserfiche WebLink
Document 2 <br />TO: Long Lake City Council, Long Lake City Administration <br />FROM: Mike and Rachel Feldmann, Jane Davidson and Francis Kulacki, Mary Claire Owen, <br />Owners of 1010, 1020, and 1030 Old Long Lake Rd. <br />SUBJECT: Questions and comments regarding the proposed driveways at the intersection of <br />County Rd 112 and Old Long Lake Rd. <br />As a follow up to our private conversations with some members of the Long Lake City Council <br />and our statements to be provided in open correspondence at the Long Lake City Council <br />meeting July 18, 2017, we are asking for clarification and input on the items listed below. We <br />are also requesting the City of Long Lake to allow us input as the details of the driveways are <br />developed. We would like to have input on the landscaping, signage and design of our <br />driveways as the details of the plan are developed. <br />We have unanimously agreed that there are two options for our driveway that meet the criteria of <br />the county, city and our neighborhood assuming the option 4 includes a legally designated public <br />stub road. These two options are designated option 2 and option 4. Both of these options allow <br />for fire truck access and are acceptable to Hennepin County based on a telephone discussion with <br />Kristy Morter on July 15, 2017. Option 2 comprises two private driveways: one serving <br />1010/1020/1030 and a second driveway serving 1070. Option 2 has a concrete section <br />separating the two driveways. Option 4 comprises a common 60 ft. x 18 ft. apron connected to <br />two private drives. The City of Long Lake has indicated that it will request full legal jurisdiction <br />over the apron and place it on the city's pavement maintenance plan. <br />Our major requirements for the driveway design are: (1) safety for residents and drivers, and (2) <br />minimize legal costs and now and in future that could arise without legal separation of the <br />driveways of 1010/1020/1030 and 1070. <br />Option 2 fulfills the requirements for legal separation of driveways and public safety vehicles. It <br />has an ambiguous 2 foot wide concrete section, or separator, which appears to have no owner. It <br />requires the homeowners to provide maintenance. <br />Option 4 addresses many of our concerns for safety and cost, but there is a lack of legal clarity <br />with respect to ownership and jurisdiction issues. If the shared section is not a legally <br />documented public road/street, this option inserts ambiguity into our future. In our view, the <br />shared apron must be officially (legally) designated as "public" to assure us and the two cities <br />involved that legal issues and liabilities do not create problems and costs for the residents of <br />1010/1020/1030 and 1070. <br />To help us provide you with more informed opinions about the choice between options 2 and 4, <br />we seek answers to the following Questions. We respectfully. you in a setting <br />which allows open discussion and questions and answers. <br />M <br />