My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 09-11-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 09-11-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:24 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:09:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />design somc additional alignment options that did not traverse the front yard to the south <br />which it currently docs today. The main concern from 351 1 was the alignment of thc <br />driveway and the fact that thc drivcway should not get any stceper. The existing <br />driveway has a grade that varies throughout but the steepest grade is 1 1.8% adjacent to <br />the garage apron. The preference from 351 1 is that the driveway be extended straight out <br />of the garage in order to intersect the roadway pcrpcndicular although this is the shortest <br />distance to the road and makes for the steepest drivcway. So, the additional options <br />URS was directcd to investigate were one which extended straight out of the garage and <br />another which was in-betwccn that and the original alignment. <br />· As part of the roadway design at this time, URS was pcrforming an analysis of the <br />profile of Siems Court. The options were to raisc, lower, or maintain the profile of the <br />road. Raising the ccnterline of the road would help driveways to the east but negatively <br />impact the gradc of the driveways to the west (the shared driveway is on the west side of <br />Siems Court). Vice versa, if the roadway centerline were lowered, driveways to the east <br />would have steeper grades while driveways to thc west would bc improvcd. The City <br />directed URS to maintain the existing profile of Siems Court as well as provide a <br />constant 2% cross-slope from east to west in order to hest maintain existing driveway <br />grades. Although, hecause of the introduction of curb & gutter and the concrete aprons <br />some challenges would sti]J he apparent. <br />. February 23,2006 URS completed the analysis ofthree options for 35l 1. The original <br />proposed option which angled to the south had a gradc of7.8%, the perpendicular option <br />produced a grade of 15.1 %, and the middle option had a grade of 12.l %. This <br />information was provided to 3511 and none of these options were acceptable. 35 1 1 <br />again indicated that they prefcrrcd the perpendicular alignment but was not happy that it <br />significantly increased grade of the driveway. It was pointed out that all these options <br />included an apron that cxtended behind the curb 5 feet with a 7.5% grade, a 5 foot <br />tangent section, and then a 10 foot vertical curve to transition from positive grade to <br />negative grade. 35l I thcn requested that the City investigate a 5 foot road shift to the <br />east as well as a lowering of the road to help out grade. It was pointed out that lowering <br />the road was not an option based on our previous analysis but the apron gradc, thc 5 foot <br />tangent section, the 10 foot vertical eurve, and a 5 foot road shift could be investigated. <br />· February 24, 2006 URS completed the property research which indicated there are <br />perpetual driveway easements for four properties in this area including the lot to the <br />south of the 35l I. With this easement in place, the only way to create the separate <br />driveway scenario would be if the four property owners agreed to remove the easement. <br />35 1 7 then indicated that they still prcfer the shared driveway and would not agree to <br />rcmove the driveway easement. The City then directed URS to design improvements in <br />this area which included the shared driveway with improvements to the retaining wall <br />and stairs. <br />· March 29, 2006 URS completed the analysis of the 5 foot road shift as well as the <br />adjustments to the apron grade and removal of the 5 foot tangent section. A]J this <br />information was presented to the City and it was apparent that the 5 foot road shift had <br />too many impacts on the east side of Siems Court. The property across the street from <br />351 1 would have three mature trees impacted, the need for a retaining wall, a much <br />longer rcmoval ofthe driveway as well as an increased driveway grade, which was not <br />acceptable to that resident. The City concludcd that thc 5 foot shift was not an option, <br />although, the adjustments to thc apron grade and the removal of the 5 foot tangent <br />section are good options for improving thc driveway grade for 351 l. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.