09-21-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

15-3774 August 12,2015 Page 4 of 8 General Site Layont Observations The proposed new lots are separated from tlie e�tistang residence and outbuildings by steep slopes and bluff area,piacing the new homes significantly distant from the existing xesidence. It appears to staff that the developers of Foxhill and/or the City Council and Planning Commission in 1965 recognized that providing for future extension of Heritage Lane would be prudent, given the topograp}ucal challenges of the 1700 Shoreline property. Accessing the 3 new lots via a road through Lot 4 from Shoreline Drive would have signif cant negative impacts on the forested area due to the grading and tree removal that would be necessary to create an acceptable road. Road Layont and Standarda Lots I-3 are proposed to be accessed from the west via a public road extension of Heritage I.ane. 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 1640 feet in length from its "Y" inte�rsection with Heritage Drive. The City's standard for maximum length of a cul-de-sac road is 1000 feet. While there are a number of cul-de-sac roads in the City extending well beyond 1000 feet, the Planning Commission should review the pmposed length of the cul��sac and consider whether there aze any reasonable alteznatives for access. The topographic constra,i.nts of the site would appear to preclude the feasibility of a functional road corridor connecting from the proposed cul-de-sac uphill to Lot 4. While establishing the possibility of a through road connccting Heritage Lane back down to CR15 through the 1700 Shoreline property wouid make sense from a planning perspective, the steep slopes and da�mage to the woods tha.t would be caused by such a road would appear to make such a connection undesirable. The unitnproved portion of platted Heritage Lane is heavily vegetated and contaxns a smsll wetland. This Heritage Lane corridor extension appears to be the only option for accessing the northern portion of the subject property. The proposed road extezision plan raises a significant number of questiflns that will have ta be addressed and resolved,from an engineering perspective, from an environmental standpoint, and in terms of aesthetics. Please see the comments from the City Engineer {Eghibft E). Among the concerns for discussion surrounding this road extension are filling of the wetiand and stormwater management; aesthetics and design of the proposed retaining walls;design for ease of future road maintenance;tree loss;and potentzal revisions to the existing cul-de-sac and existing driveways and private yard areas. If the retaining walls are needed to avaid extensive gradi.ng onto the adjoining properties, easements from the adjoining proper#y owners may be necessary in order to construct the�road and walls. The preliminary plat shows a proposed road corridor width of 50 feet which meets code. The road eartension 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 mad serving more than 10 dwelling units to be 32' in width (with the extension, the road will serve 13 homes). The prelixninazy road design indicates the use of catch basins for road runoff, suggesting the need for curbing in order to direct runoff to the pmposed stormwater ponding area. The preliminary plat dz�awings suggest z'emoval of the e�usting cul-de-sac. Whether 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. Thi.s is an issue that will require additional review. It would appear tbat a more detailed street design along with grading and drair�a.ge information is required in order to complete an adequate review of the prelimimary piat.