06-10-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I y I ' ; i., ? . Zoning File #1645 May 16f 1991 Page 2 of 2 r staff has enclosed two pages from an/^riginal staff memo written for the review of Lot 2, Block 2's'^equest for a^ looped drive. In these pages you will find quotes from the Public Works Director providing criteria/standards in the consideration of loop drives within the Sugar Woods PRD, r^ey are noted as follows: 1. Hardcover must be maintained at or below 80%. 2. 200' minimum frontage on Sugarwood Drive. The subject property has approximately 116' to 117 ’ 3. Heavily treed or placement of unique trees within front yard protected area^ loop drive used to minimize impact on existing vegetation. It is staff's understanding that a Linden tree of approximately 10" to 12" in diameter is the only tree that will be lost if roadway is installed. Qe]^)iA]^(3son also noted that such looped roads will be limited to a 12' width and that no further encroachment for turnaround puj^oses woul'* be allowed within the 50' setback area. The City has already approved a turnaround area encroachment within the 50' setback area in November of 1990. Per the previous hardcover facts and fact sheet submitted by applicant, there clearly is no hardcover problem as hardcover is maintained at approximately 50%. The real issue for this review is the problem created for a lot located on a one-way lane within the subdivision. Unfortunately, if the grading plan layout is correct, this lot may not abutt a portion of the road that is under a two-way traffic control. The difficulty with this review is that all improvements are in. In the early stages of the development of this lot, it may have been possible to look at a shared access with the lot to the immediate east. If the lot has access to the two-lane road section, staff would ask the Planning Commission to consider a second curb cut. I will consult Glenn Cook and provide clarification on this matter. This application has raised more comprehensive transportation planning Issues for the Sugarwood PRD that need to be addressed before more Intense development. Should the islands be removed? Should Sugarwood Drive be reclassified as a one-way road? If changes are not proposed from the existing traffic pattern, the City will be dealing with more requests for loop roads for at least three other properties. Please note per the directives of Resolution #2917, if applicant chooses not to appeal the Planning Commission decision, your action will be the final action for this request. r-