Loading...
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