HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: driveway request �A>%�- �,11i.���... L�!rrcE��C
�! . .
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
Date: April 19 , 1990
Subject: Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods - Request for Loop Driveway
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Pflaum' s Letter
Exhibit B - Site Plan - Loop Drive
Exhibit C - Site Plan - Turnaround
Exhibit D - Site Plan - Backout Apron + Interior Turnaround
Cul-de-sac
Exhibit E - Site Plan Approved by Staff with Issuance of
,Building Permit
Exhibit F - Affidavit - Steiner & Koppelman Inc.
Exhibit G - Hardcover Fact Sheet
Exhibit H - Area Calculations for Sugar Woods Lots
Exhibit I - Staff Sketches
The developer of Sugar Woods has asked for clarification
concerning Condition 1-F of Resolution # 2652 (resolution
approving conditional use permit for PUD) , written as follows :
F. The applicant has created a no-grading zone/woodlands
protection area within the private open space outlots
(namely Outlots A and B) , and the setback areas defined
within each building lot. Within those areas no future
owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2" in
diameter at 4' above grade. No grading is allowed within
the protected area, however, each residential lot ma
include one driveway u� to 20' wide leading to the loo
road. This driveway may be graded and trees of any size may
be removed to build it. The subdivider's agreement should
also define the protected areas such as the setback area of
each lot and the private open space outlots.
Staff has not researched the minutes nor the staff inemos
that would confirm the City's intent regarding this specific
directive of that condition. It is the City's position that a
single access/curb cut/driveway with a maximum width of 20' was
to be installed to serve each residential pad. Such a driveway
would cross the 50' wide front street protected area. The single
underlying theme of this PUD has been to protect the unique trees
within the subdivision. This condition was an attempt by the
City to lessen the impact on the tree growth by limiting access
drives to one at a maximum width of 20'. It would be the City's
position that a loop driveway would be two driveways. It is the
developer's position that a looped driveway is one driveway and
not prohibited by resolution #2652. Please review Exhibit A, Mr.
Pflaum's letter reflects his clients position.
Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods
April 19, 1990
Page 2 of 5
The interpretation question arose at the time of the
issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 2 to Steiner &
Roppe lmann (review Exhibits B, C and D). Obvious ly, there are
portions of drive, backout apron and turnaround areas that cannot
be classified as a single driveway at a 20' width that encroach
the front setback area. This is not just an issue of two drive-
ways at a 20' width intersecting the front building setback area,
but of the other required improvements that would also be placed
within the protected setback area (review Exhibits E, F and G).
Staff issued a building permit to Steiner & Roppelmann based on a
driveway and backout apron designed to limit the encroachment of
the front setback area to 1,000 square feet (20' maximum width of
drive by 50' depth of front setback area) until Council would
approve a greater encroachment.
Specific site conditions for this lot require that the house
be placed right at the 50' setback line. This will, also be the
case for other lots within the plat where the desire is to
minimize impact on trees and taking advantage of gentler
elevations. In the case where a house is placed right at a 50'
setback line, the City must deal with the question of portions of
a backout apron and possible turnaround within the front street
setback area. It would be appropriate to amend the approval
resolution to allow for more than a single 20' wide driveway
directly to the street where appropriate for safe ingress and
egress.
It is the hope of both the developer and the City staff to
establish standards/criteria/guidelines for future building
permit applications within the Sugar Woods p lat so that it is not
necessary to come back to Council for every building permit that
cannot follow the very general guidelines of the PUD.
If you have a chance to visit this specific site, you will
find that the majority of the front street setback area on the
portion of the curved lot that extends westward, has few trees. A
Iooped driveway will provide minimal impact on the trees within
the protected area. Note the contractor has already screened off
the larger trees, in fact, the looped driveway is almost defined
by the vacant corridors in the protected area.
(As you may recal 1, development within this project is
limited to no more than 80� of the defined building pad being
covered with "hardcover" improvements. The normal lakeshore
hardcover regulations do not apply. )
•
. -�y � ,
Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods
April 19, 1990
Page 3 of 5
It should also be noted that there is no hardcover problem
(review Exhibit G). This is the smallest of the building pads
and it would appear that we have 3,400 square feet of additional
hardcover available for the improvement of this specific lot. In
consideration of the PUD as a whole, hardcover will not place any
restrictions on �dditional turnarounds or looped driveways on a
given lot.
In reviewing this issue with the Public Works Director, he
once again advised that in the recent amendment to Chapter 6 that
discussed driveway approaches to both private and public roads,
that properties were limited to one driveway approach and that
loop roads were to be discouraged. This ordinance was approved
in 1988. Gerhardson appreciates the concerns expressed in
Pflaum's letter and �made the following suggestions for criteria
that could be used in determining whether a lot would qualify for
a loop road:
1. 200 ' minimum frontage on Sugarwoods Drive.
2. Heavily treed or unique trees located within front
street setback area. As there is no doubt that a loop drive
limited to a minimum width of 12' and strategically placed
would reduce impact on protected area.
It is staff's recommendation that where safety concerns are
the real consideration because of placement of lots on curves,
that turnarounds on site always be preferred over loop road
configuration.
Chief Rilbo has advised the City against allowing the site
to be developed where only a backing out onto a roadway is
permitted. He warns that you are in violation of State law if
you don't back out into the direction of the f low of traffic. In
the site plan approved by staff, the user of the property would
have to back out onto Sugarwoods Drive as no turnaround is
provided on the site.
General Staff Recom�endation -
A. Criteria for Loop Road. The loop road configuration shall be
allowed within the Sugar Woods subdivision as long as the
following site conditions exits:
1. Hardcover must be maintained at 80$.
2. 200 ' minimum frontage on Sugarwoods Drive.
3. Heavily treed or placement of unique trees within front
protected area in order to reduce impact on front street
setback area.
•
.r� . .
, _ •
. Lot 2-, Block 2, Sugar Woods
April 19, 1990
Page 4 of 5
Such loop driveways through the front street protected area
are limited to a 12 ' width. Such lots would also not be
permitted interior turnaround cul-de-sac areas that may encroach
portions of the front street setback area. Driveway approaches
must be 10 ' from side lot lines at intersection of private road.
B. Criteria for the encroachment of other non-structure
improvements within front street setback area. Regarding
turnaround/interior cul-de-sac backout aprons located within
front street setback area. Encroachment allowed under the
fol lowing site conditions:
1. House placed at the 50' setback line because of
unique site conditions (trees - elevations) .
a) backout aprons from garage areas shall be limited
to a depth of 20' ;
b) allow portions of turnarounds within front setback
area (includes either portions of a turnaround driveway
or turnaround backout apron - to be based on impact of
trees), staff to make final determination.
Please review staff sketches, Exhibit I, that graphically
depict staff's discussion.
In conclusion and in consideration of the various site
conditions that may exist in the Sugar Woods plat, staff would
encourage the developer and contractors who develop within Sugar
Woods to use shared drives where possible, employ backout
turnarounds/interior cul-de-sacs within building pad where there
is minimal impact on trees within front street setback area, and
at last resort, seek the use of loop driveways. We would
encourage the developers and contractors to contact the Public
Works Director in the early stages of application for a building
permit.
Conncil Action -
Direct staff to draft a resolution amending resolution #2652
that granted conditional use permit approval of a PRD providing
criteria for permitted improvements encroaching front street
setback area.
. ,�
. . �
Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods
April 19, 1990
Page 5 of 5
Staff Recommendation for Cnrrent Reqnest -
To approve a loop driveway for Lot 2, Block 2, Sugar Woods
limited to a 12' width as it encroaches front setback area
providing necessary turnaround and the encroachment of a 20'
backout apron within the front setback area based on the
following findings:
1. Lot consists of 200 '+ of frontage on Sugarwoods.
2. Portions of house placed at 50 ' front setback.
3. Minimal ,trees within yard area designated for loop road.
4. No hardcover problem.
Subject to the condition that no portions of turnaround -
interior cul-de-sac or turnaround backout apron be allowed to
encroach setback area.
Proposed Motion: Moved by , seconded by , to adopt staff's
recommendation based upon the findings and conditions noted
above. Ayes , nays