03-08-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning l ilc #1803 March 3. 1993 Page 2 subdivision reuulations. Review Exhibit R. Note Prudden calls attention to the fact that a second residential unit exists on his property and is also served by the driv^eway, bringing the level of service to 4 residential units. This letter also notes that the Carpenters at the southwest corner of the property are also served by private driveway. Staff in the recent Planning Commission review asked for clarification as to whether the Carpenters had legal access over the driveway and was advised that there is no easement in favor of llie Carpenter property over the private driveway. Review Exhibit Q. Mrs. Carpenter asks for special care to be taken in the placement of the road improvements as they encroach her property. Mr.>. Carpenter also asks for final review and approval of the road upgrade plans before any road construction commences. This would not be an appropriate condition of the City ’s approval but the Chy can encourage Woodhill to work with the neighboring property owner. Access was again the major issue for this review. Staff offered various options. Review Exhibits K and L. The engineer recommended that the private road outlot be designated but realigned off the current driveway in order to meet the turning radius for 30 mph speed and maintaining the maximum allowed percentage of slope at 9%. The engineer also recommended that the private road be installed up to the southwest comer of the property with a temporary cul-de-sac. Staff offered another alternative suggesting that a backout apron be installed in the southwest comer rather than a temporary cul-de-sac that would require the removal of several mature trees. The residents who use the private driveway concur that there is only a need lor a backout apron at the base of the steep incline to the north. Tlie cul-de-sac would be temporary until the Pmdden property is divided to the north. The Planning Commission questioned staff’s recommendation to require panial upgrading of the roadway. Staff had presented this option during the 1990 review as a compromise position as the applicant had requested no upgrading of a private road and yet the condition of the road at the lower elevation, -unning east and west suggested the need to upgrade. Mr. Prudden has provided photos ot * e lower portions of the roadway for Couneil’s consideration. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision as proposed by applicant and adopted the conditions set forth by staff except for the recommendation dealing with road placement and panial upgrading of road. The Planning Commission recommended that the private road outlot be shown as proposed by applicant over the existing driveway corridor. They recommended no cul-de-sac or apron to be installed at the southwest corner and asked that applicant work with both the City Engineer and all affected property owners tc determine best design for sensitive areas of existing roadbed. ITie City Engineer has confirmed that the road would have to be posted at the cuive at a 20 mph speed (and that the road be