08-17-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� � 15-3774 August 12,2015 Page 4 of B General Site Layout Ubservations The proposed new lots are separated from the existing residence and outbuildings by steep slopes and bluff azea, placing the new homes significantly distant from the existing residence. Tt appears to staff that the developers of Foxhill and/or the City Council and Planni.ng Commission in 1965 recagni.�ed that pxoviding for future extension of Heritage Lane would be prudent, given the topographical challenges of the 1700 Shoreline property. Accessing the 3 new lots via a road through Lot 4 from Shoreline Drive would have sigtvficant negative impacts on the forested area due to the grading and tree removal that would be necessary to create an acceptable raad. Road Layont and Standards Lots 1-3 are proposed to be accessed from the west via a public road extension of Heritage Lane. Heritage Lane was originally platted as a public road in 1965 and has since been maintained by the City. With the extension, Heritage Lane will be about 16Q0 feet in length from its "Y" intersection with Heritage Drive. The City's standard for maxnnuxn length of a cul-de-sac road is 1000 feet� While there are a nuxnber of cul-de-sac roads in the City extc,mding well beyond 1000 feet, the Planning Commission should review the proposed length of the cul-de-sac and consider whether there are any reasonable alternatives for access. The topographic constra,ints of the site would appear to preclude the feasibility of a functional road cortidor connecting from the propos�d cul�e-sac uphill to Lot 4. While establishing the possibility of a through road connecting Heritage Lane back down to CRIS through the 1700 Shoreline property would make sense fram a planning perspective,the steep slopes and damage to the woods that would be caused by such a road would appear to make such a connection undesirable. The unimproved portion of platted Heritage Lane is heavily vegetated and contains a sma11 wetland. Tk�is Heritage Lane corridor extension appears to be the only option for accessing the northern portion of the subject property. The proposed road extension plan raises a significant number of questions that will have to be addressed and resolved, &om an engineering perspective, from an environmental standpoint, and in tertns of aesthe�ics. Please see the coxnments from the City Engineer (Exhibit E). Among the concerns for discussion surrounding this road extension aze filling of tb�e wetland and stormwater management; aesthetics and design o£the proposed retaining wa11s; design for ease of future road maintenance;tree loss; and potential revisions to the existing cul-de-sac and existing driveways and private yard areas. If the retaaning walls are needed to avoid extensive grading onto the adjoining pxoperties, easements from the adjoining property owners may be necessary:�t�order to construct the road and walts. The preliminary plat shows a proposed road corri.dor width of 50 feet which meets code. The road extension is shown at a paved width of 24' which approximately matches the existing width of Heritage Lane; whereas the City Code would require a public road serving more than 14 dwelling units to be 32' in width(with the extension, the road will serve 13 homes). The preliminary road design indicates the use af catch basi�s for road runoff, suggesting the need for curbing in order to direct runoff to the proposed stormwater ponding axea. T'b�e preliminary plat drawings suggest removal of the existing cul-de-sac. Wbether this is advisable remains to be seen, as there are City and private sewer facilities and likely other utilities making use of the existing platted cul-de-sac area This is an issue that will require additional review. It would appear that a more detailed street design along with grading and drainage infarmataon is requi.red in order to complete an adequate review of the preliminary plat.