Laserfiche WebLink
15-3774 1700 Shoreline Drive <br />October 22, 2015 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />6. City maintenance of the public road will be less efficient if the new cul-de-sac is <br />not built. Or, will the City simply not plow past the existing cul-de-sac and expect <br />the three new homeowners to plow not only their own driveways but the added 300 <br />feet to get to the existing cul-de-sac? <br />7. The alternate plan would result in only 6-10 less significant trees requiring removal, <br />when comparing the two plans side-by-side. See Exhibit C. The minimal tree <br />savings does not justify the creation of another substandard road, a public one at <br />that, in the city. <br />8. The amount of hardcover needed to be added is roughly equal in each plan. A full <br />new cul-de-sac coupled with removal of portions of the existing cul-de-sac, is <br />roughly the equivalent in hardcover of simply adding driveways and expanding the <br />existing cul-de-sac to meet code. <br />9. If no new cul-de-sac is provided, construction traffic during home construction is <br />more likely to spill out onto the existing Heritage Lane cul-de-sac despite the <br />efforts to avoid such activity. <br />10. City Engineer Edwards recommends that whether a new cul-de-sac is built or the <br />existing one expanded, surmountable concrete curbing should be used rather than <br />asphalt curbing. A suitable transition from existing asphalt curbing to concrete <br />curbing is easily accomplished, and asphalt curbing is a maintenance issue. <br /> <br />City Consulting Engineer Bob Bean has updated his previous comments to include a review of <br />the revised plans received in September as well as the alternate ‘no new cul-de-sac’ plan. See <br />Exhibit D. A number of these comments are carryovers from the prior letter and have since been <br />resolved. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff recommends that the original plan to create a new cul-de-sac be approved, accompanied by <br />removal of the excess portions of the existing cul-de-sac. Staff would oppose the alternate plan. <br />If Council determines that the alternate plan should be followed, staff recommends that the <br />existing cul-de-sac be brought up to City standard (80’ paved diameter) as part of the <br />development improvements, and a determination made as to future maintenance of the extended <br />road. <br /> <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED <br />Review the attached materials and consider whether all issues of concern have been addressed. <br />Provide staff with direction for moving forward, which may include requesting additional <br />information, or directing staff to prepare a Preliminary Plat Approval resolution for <br />consideration.