10-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Date Application Received: 7/22/15 Date Application Considered as Complete: 7/22/15 120-Day Review Period Expires: 11/19/1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 22, 2015 Item No.: 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron RJO Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner _____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #15-3774, Michael Steadman o/b/o Irwin Jacobs, 1700 Shoreline Drive - Preliminary Plat - Review Alternate Cul-de-sac Plan ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits: A – Alternate Plan: Driveways Only, No New Cul-de-sac B – Original Plan: Proposed New Cul-de-sac C – Hardcover Comparison Overlay D – Comments from Consulting Engineer Bob Bean 10-22-15 E – Draft Council Minutes 10-12-15 At the October 12 meeting Council tabled the application in order for applicant to explore the potential for eliminating the new cul-de-sac and simply extending three individual driveways to serve the three new lots. Applicant has submitted a drawing depicting such a driveway, attached as Exhibit A. The original plan with new cul-de-sac is attached as Exhibit B for comparison. The primary intent of this review is to analyze and compare the alternate plan without a new cul- de-sac. Incorporating comments from Consulting Engineer Bob Bean, City Engineer Adam Edwards and Planning Staff, we would note the following: 1. A cul-de-sac is required per City code when three or more lots are being served. The alternate plan would require a variance, even though the cul-de-sac bubble would be platted. 2. The existing cul-de-sac on Heritage Lane does not meet current City standards. If a new cul-de-sac is not provided with the new development, the existing cul-de-sac should be reconstructed to meet current standards. The existing cul-de-sac is tear- drop shaped and as was demonstrated by the resident’s video, not capable of allowing large vehicle movements without backing. 3. Expansion of the existing cul-de-sac will have an impact in reducing the neighbors’ improved yard areas and possibly their landscaping. Existing driveways will have to be adjusted accordingly. 4. Without a cul-de-sac that meets current City standards, emergency and maintenance vehicles may have difficulty accessing the new development and turning around. The proposed layouts should be reviewed by the Fire Department. 5. The “no new cul-de-sac” alternative would not result in any significant change to traffic patterns or views. However, not adding the new cul-de-sac could easily result in sightseers continuing past the existing cul-de sac and then having to maneuver to exit the site.