HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PWE 3/11/2010
''I
I
'.
.
.
'.
MEMORANDUM
City of Springfield
DATE: March 10, 2010
TO: Andy Limbird, Planner II
FROM: Jon Driscoll, Transportation Engineer in Training
SUBJECT: ZON2010-00002 Duke and Duke Partition
Development Issues Meeting Public Works Transportation Comments
.
The Transportation Division has reviewed the subject application for the possible
partition of the property at 740 28th Street, which presently has four duplexes being b,uilt.
This also previously was reviewed under site plan as DRC2005-000n.
1. Density question...
o The Planning Dept. will address this.
2. The existing lot is only 70 feet in width. Therefore, a minor variance would
be required to adjust the minimum lot width requirement in the code. The
code requirement is 60 feet, and to keep this as a minor variance, the
maximum adjustment could be an 18 foot reduction (30%). We are
proposing to reduce the width of the frontage 5 feet to a lot width of 44 feet.
Would the City of Springfield support this variance for this proposal?
. The minimum lot width with afull minor variance would be 42 feet, to
which the proposed 55 feet width would comply.
o From Transportation Section's viewpoint, the only likely requirements
would be that:
i. The four duplexes Share a common driveway, which the applicant
has proposed.
ii. Add to the common access easement the area of the fire access
turnaround, as the lot is very narrow.
iii. Project #909 of the RTP (Horizon Year 2025) calls for a street
widening (adding bikelanes & likely widening sidewalks to seven
feet to match requirements for those abutting arterials like 2f1h
Street). The original DRC plan set has different dimensions on it
than the submitted SUB plan (e.g. the building is only showed
24.2 'between the most easterly duplex and the ROW, whereas the
present submittal shows 31.4 '). The SDC minimum width for an
arterial is 70', but we might be able to reduce that to 65 '.
Presently the plans show an existing 54' of ROW Therefore, we
would likely askfor 6-10feet of additional ROW
Note: As is stated in your Development Issues Application: The Development Issues Meeting is not a land use
decision and does not confer any development rights, establish any conditions, or bind the applicant or the City to any
course afaction. The meeting conveys the status of known development opportunities and constraints. The status may
change over time as development conditions or standards change.
Date Heceived:_3/;/O'M'
!
Planner: AL
.
.
'.
3. Since the lot is now LDR, the code only requires a panhandle width of 14
feet. Therefore, we do not believe a variance would ~e required for the
panhandle width. We still will construct 20 [foot] wide driveway in the
easement that was shown on the site review to maintain safe ingress/egress
and for fire safety. Does the City of Springfield agree that a variance is not
needed for the panhandle as proposed?
. The Transportation Section has no objections to this'as long as the
applicant follows through with the irrevocable joint-use access easement
as you have shown AND shows that the site can handle the minimum
parking required on the site. (Check the originalfile of DRC2005-
00072).
4. We did not see any other variances that would be needed to meet code
criteria for a partition. Does the City of Springfield see any other issues
with this proposed partition that would prevent approval?
. See below.
Side Issues if time allows:
. There isa Power line running on the eastern side of the property, and no no PUE is
shownfor it.
. The easements for SS are not shown.
.
. Future research. DRC2005-00072 required a street light improvement
agreement to be executed and recorded It was not in MapSpring. Has it been done?
. The 4' highfence at the NE corner of the property is in the vision clearance triangle.
.
Note: As is stated in your Development Issues Application: The Development Issues Meeting is not a land use
decision and does not confer any development rights, establish any conditions, or bind the applicant or the City to any
course of action. The meeting conveys the status of known development opportunities and constraints. The status may
change over time as development conditions or standards change.
Date Heceived: ./1//,#/0
/ /
Planner: AL