Laserfiche WebLink
r , <br />staff has enclosed two pages from an original staff memo written <br />for the review of Lot 2, Block 2's (Exhibit F) request for a looped <br />drive.In these pages you will find quotes from the Public Works <br />Director providing criteria/standards in the consideration of loop <br />drives within the Sugar Woods PRD. They are noted as follows: <br />1.Hardcover must he maintained at or below 80%. <br />2.200* minimum frontage on Sugarwood Drive. The subject <br />property has approximately 116’ to 117’. <br />3.Heavily treed or placement of unique trees within front <br />yard protected area» loop drive used to minimize impact on <br />existing vegetation. it is staff's understanding that a <br />Linden tree of approximately 10" to 12" in diameter is the <br />only tree that will be lost if roadway is installed. <br />Gerhardson also noted that such looped roads will be limited <br />to a 12* width and that no further encroachment for turnaround <br />purposes would be allowed within the 5C setback area. The City <br />has already approved a turnaround area encroachment within the <br />50* setback area in November of 1990. <br />Per the previous hardcover facts and fact sheet submitted by <br />applicant^ there clearly is no hardcover problem as hardcover is <br />maintained at approximately 50%. <br />The real issue for this review is the problem created for a <br />lot located on a one-way lane within the subdivision. <br />Unfortunately, if the grading plan layout is correct, this lot <br />Bsy not abutt a portion of the road that is under a two-way <br />traffic control. The difficulty w th this review is that all <br />Improvements are in. In the early scages of the development of <br />this lot. It may have been possible to look at a shared access <br />with the lot to the immediate east.If t’.v lot has access to the <br />two—lane road section, staff would ask t ... r canning Commission to <br />consider a second curb cut. I will consult Glenn Cook and <br />provide clarification on this matter. <br />This application has raised more comprehensive <br />transportation planning issues for the Sugarwood PRD that need to <br />be addressed before more intense development. Should the islands <br />be removed? Should Sugarwood Drive be reclassified as a one-way <br />road? If changes are not proposed from the existing traffic <br />pattern, the City will be dealing with m^re requests for loop <br />roads for at least three other properties. <br />Please note per the directives of Resolution #2917, if <br />applicant chooses not to appeal the Planning Commission decision, <br />your action will be the final action for this request. <br />i.. <br />Ilfiiiiiintrti