CCP 09-11-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

design somc additional alignment options that did not traverse the front yard to the south which it currently docs today. The main concern from 351 1 was the alignment of thc driveway and the fact that thc drivcway should not get any stceper. The existing driveway has a grade that varies throughout but the steepest grade is 1 1.8% adjacent to the garage apron. The preference from 351 1 is that the driveway be extended straight out of the garage in order to intersect the roadway pcrpcndicular although this is the shortest distance to the road and makes for the steepest drivcway. So, the additional options URS was directcd to investigate were one which extended straight out of the garage and another which was in-betwccn that and the original alignment. · As part of the roadway design at this time, URS was pcrforming an analysis of the profile of Siems Court. The options were to raisc, lower, or maintain the profile of the road. Raising the ccnterline of the road would help driveways to the east but negatively impact the gradc of the driveways to the west (the shared driveway is on the west side of Siems Court). Vice versa, if the roadway centerline were lowered, driveways to the east would have steeper grades while driveways to thc west would bc improvcd. The City directed URS to maintain the existing profile of Siems Court as well as provide a constant 2% cross-slope from east to west in order to hest maintain existing driveway grades. Although, hecause of the introduction of curb & gutter and the concrete aprons some challenges would sti]J he apparent. . February 23,2006 URS completed the analysis ofthree options for 35l 1. The original proposed option which angled to the south had a gradc of7.8%, the perpendicular option produced a grade of 15.1 %, and the middle option had a grade of 12.l %. This information was provided to 3511 and none of these options were acceptable. 35 1 1 again indicated that they prefcrrcd the perpendicular alignment but was not happy that it significantly increased grade of the driveway. It was pointed out that all these options included an apron that cxtended behind the curb 5 feet with a 7.5% grade, a 5 foot tangent section, and then a 10 foot vertical curve to transition from positive grade to negative grade. 35l I thcn requested that the City investigate a 5 foot road shift to the east as well as a lowering of the road to help out grade. It was pointed out that lowering the road was not an option based on our previous analysis but the apron gradc, thc 5 foot tangent section, the 10 foot vertical eurve, and a 5 foot road shift could be investigated. · February 24, 2006 URS completed the property research which indicated there are perpetual driveway easements for four properties in this area including the lot to the south of the 35l I. With this easement in place, the only way to create the separate driveway scenario would be if the four property owners agreed to remove the easement. 35 1 7 then indicated that they still prcfer the shared driveway and would not agree to rcmove the driveway easement. The City then directed URS to design improvements in this area which included the shared driveway with improvements to the retaining wall and stairs. · March 29, 2006 URS completed the analysis of the 5 foot road shift as well as the adjustments to the apron grade and removal of the 5 foot tangent section. A]J this information was presented to the City and it was apparent that the 5 foot road shift had too many impacts on the east side of Siems Court. The property across the street from 351 1 would have three mature trees impacted, the need for a retaining wall, a much longer rcmoval ofthe driveway as well as an increased driveway grade, which was not acceptable to that resident. The City concludcd that thc 5 foot shift was not an option, although, the adjustments to thc apron grade and the removal of the 5 foot tangent section are good options for improving thc driveway grade for 351 l. . - -