2017-10-11 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 Stantec September g e 17 Dallas Larson Page 2f4 Reference. rf r 1111,hfates f. The proposed layout allows for a minimum ' of drivewayn the curb and garage door®more than enough for even large is trucks without overhanding the curb. sidewalks s Ion street. is a proposedsidewalk n boardwalk, he ,connecting the end of the cul-de-sac to Brian Drive.This is a positivecin and additionthe sidewalk trail network in the Ci allowing cc ss for the new developmentneighborhood like AcornCreek and Tracy McBride. h. Side setbacks are a minimum " to the lot lines or 1 n homes at the narrowest point. i. Visitor parking is shown in two places bumped out from the street. In addition, in could l of the str tn r several segments f _ street r u tadditional n® r in spaces could accommodated.be We suggest that 1.0 spaces it of visitor parking is appropriate,whichis layout provides if on-street parking is assumed. . The densityis consistent With, lower than,the densityenvisioned in the Comp Plan, even though the Its are smaller than typical si il . k. Most of the homes back up to wetlands,which in some cases leaves v little rear yard space,whichis undesirable ncould dangerous. It is reasonable minimum rear yard depth of ' for all homes. In the proposedlayout it appears that all but three Its meet this minimum-Lets 16,2 1®and 22. If this is a concern, the plan should adjusted to create r yard space r lots should removed. 1. There was considerable isc si in r Zvi us meetings about whether the new street should in a cul-de-sac or be a continuous through street connecting Drive. A through street,extending a network of connections vsd s,is almost always preferable.Making a throughstreet here woulda through additional wetlands and be disruptivethe current i n Drive.The cul-de-sac i5 about ' in length,ti 's subdivision code notes a maximumf 800' length, is modified i i D. m. Access between the units to reach rear yards i t vehicles, emergency vehicles, etc.is providedin a few places, It itiaccess points would be desirable.At the access point between Lots 16 and 17 it might difficult to gett the for sideof the pond behinda 1 .There is a retaining proposed the west side Lot 18 whichmight make accessi h t unit difficult, meaning that the only reasonable acc ss point to the rear of Lets 1 is from the yard si Lot 24.There is a significant distance between access points from Lets 6 through 1 .Some adjustment to the plan may be appropriate to provide better utility i ten c cc t several locations. 2. General Construction Planrets Design with cmmunity In rrind its c\ \t n aia\ [\ $ tl ii parwy Rntemet \c i9nt, k V1 npna79\ es prelm pb%M7174=