Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/13/2003

Home

Sketch Ptan Review: The Village of Sun_fish Lake January 31, 2003 Page 2 of 6 KamseY Comprehensive Ptan designates this area for low denmty single family .residential development not to exceed a net density of townhomes .are proposed as pan of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Therefore. the density Shown on the site plan is acceptable. Access and Streets: The subdivision proposes, two connections wi{h SunwoOd Drive. Street B intersects' at 145~h Ave:., while Street D intersects roughly ha/_fway between 1.46~ Ave. and Potassium Si. In the southeast comer of the plat, Street A'connectx with. the e,'dst/ng stub' of 146~ Ave, west of Potassium St. The submitted preliminary plat does not show a connect/on to the northern extension of Tungsten Way. Since th'at.original submission, staff has received a revised drawing shoWing the Tungsten Way connection being made. A traffic imoact analysis was prepared for this subdivision by Benshoof & Associates. A summary, of findings of the study are contained, herein. The subdivision will generate 1,168-' tr/ps in a 2'4--hour per/od (584 entering and 584 ex. iting) Vehicle trips daily. The majodry.o£' these trips w/Il be handled by Sunwood Drive going eastbound and westbound. The two connections to local streets (Tungsten. Way and t464 Ave.) will' see lit-tie traffic impact. For example, the intersection of TUngsten Way and 145~' Ave. handles 13 vehicles during the peak' morning hour.. The development will increase the peak hour traffic by an additional 6 vehicles. During the afternoon peak hour, 28 vehicles travel through the intersection. This subdi,rision will add an additional 6 vehicles during-the afternoon peak 'hOur. The:intersection of I46* and Potassium currently handle 25 and 30 vehicles in the morning and afternoon peak 'hours respectively. The proposed subdiVision would add 9 and 12 vehicle trips through the intersection during the morning and afternoon peak hours respecti.vely. -16' The City,s En~neering, Public Works, Police, and FLre Departments have reyiewed the proposed road widths serving the development. The submitted plans 'show 26.-feet wide public streets within 50-foot right-of-Ways. City standards are 32 feet of constructed road as measured from back of curb to back of curb and 60 feet of pubLic.fight-of-way. All of these Departments find the 26 feet width unacceptable and will require:the streets to be 32 feet wide for public safety and"tra~c .movement efficiency. 'The proposed 50 fact right of way;... however, is acceptable due to the unique nature of the proposed development. Language wilI need to be contained in the development ~greement that will allow .the CirT's snow plows to. push snow onto the properties of the single-family homes. : · The cottages are shown' as.having a public, road. that.is 26 feet wide' that branches off into 16 feet' wide one-way corridors. ALl' of the City's Departments dealing-W/th public safety find. 'these road widths-unacceptable. You have submitted a plan revision. ~hat shows the co2ages being served by a. private' street 24 feet wide.with 9ne-way· corridors.that are 16 feet'wide. Given' the nature of the proposed development and the fact that. the subdivision is proposed to- be .a PUD, staff finds this configuration acceptable as 'long.as parking is not..permitted on the. private streets. Lot Size and Dimensions: Current regulations require that-urban-Single family homes be located on lots of at least 10,800 square feet [n size. The proposed development shows sing!e family homes being located on lots ranging from 5,460 to 8,500 square feet. tn the