2014_1020_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Council, about which staff is unable to provide further guidance. To this end, staff suggested the 33 sketch plan review process as a way for Mr. Mueller to seek feedback from the City Council on 34 some of the larger, policy-level issues at the crux of his new concept that can’t be answered at a 35 technical level by staff. Mr. Mueller has submitted a sketch plan application and paid the 36 application fee to initiate this process. 37 Given the neighborhood interest in Mr. Mueller’s previous submittal, staff has sent out 38 informational public notices to the neighborhood so that they are aware of the item on the 39 agenda. However, it is important to recognize that this is not a subdivision plat public hearing, 40 the level of detail submitted is not adequate to make an approval determination on the plat, and 41 the Planning Commission has not reviewed this concept. The City Council is not expected to 42 take any formal votes on this item; moreover, the City Council is not being asked for, nor should 43 it attempt to indicate a desire to approve or deny the plat in its entirety. Instead, the Council 44 should only provide feedback that it is comfortable expressing at this conceptual stage because 45 City staff has reached the end of its authority to provide feedback on some of the questions for 46 which Mr. Mueller is seeking answers. 47 Private Street Width 48 A particularly important issue about which Mr. Mueller seeks guidance, pertains to the proposed 49 street. The sketch plan relies on a street that is 24 feet wide and privately owned. The 50 Subdivision Code allows for such a street but the acceptance or rejection of it is left entirely to 51 the City Council’s discretion. 52 City Code §1103.021 requires all local residential streets to be at least 32 feet wide from face-of- 53 curb to face-of-curb. Private ownership of streets and narrower widths, down to an absolute 54 minimum width of 24 feet (if signed for no parking on both sides to ensure adequate access by 55 emergency vehicles), can be approved by the City Council. In addition, for a private street, 56 §1103.06E establishes the following conditions: 57 a. \[the street may not be\] gated or otherwise restrict the flow of traffic; 58 b. a legal mechanism \[must\] be in place to fund seasonal and ongoing maintenance; and 59 c. \[the street must conform to\] the minimum design standards for \[all local residential\] 60 roadways as set forward in City Code §1103.021. 61 The long-term seasonal and ongoing maintenance required in condition “b” would need to be 62 assured via a homeowners’ association. The association will also need to require homeowners to 63 collect their mail at, and transport their refuse/recycling carts to, Acorn Road since there will not 64 be a turnaround at the western end of the private road for access by such service vehicles. 65 Drainage 66 Concerns about the existing storm water conditions on and around the subject site and the 67 proposed storm water mitigation plans were cited in several findings in the resolution denying 68 the previous plat. Mr. Mueller had initially developed a storm water system for the revised 69 sketch plan that would have collected runoff from the subject property, as well as its neighbors, 70 in a storm drain connected to the broader public storm sewer system, but such a plan relies on an 71 easement across part of an abutting property; Mr. Mueller has thus far been unable to secure the 72 necessary easement. In the present iteration of the sketch plan, the private street and residential 73 lots are graded to direct storm water to a large retention pond on the western side of the site 74 which would be designed with the capacity to capture and infiltrate virtually all of the site’s 75 storm water—even in exceptionally heavy rain events—by connecting to an underground sand 76 layer. While it may be possible to meet storm water requirements with such a plan, a full 77 PF07-039_RCD_Private_Road_102014 PT markup (2).doc Page 2 of 3