City Council Agenda and Packet 1973 02 20

Home Browse Search

fir.+�w yrR::r�a4" r a . """ "T `!it • - T ' • • . •.. Pepe Two February 1, 1973 Insofar as there are other sotuttars to This problem, it is our recommendation that the developer further consider the design of their proposed development west of Via Apple Drive and the potential development of the fires adjacent to their west•bounaery. Another problem concerns the provision of SO' rights-of-way for local streets throughout the proposed development. Altnough 30' wide rights-of-way are acceptable in many srees, we recommend that local streets maintain a minimum right-of-wy of 40' Ill width. . A third possible deficiency relates to cul-de-sac lot frontage. It is believed the lot frontage is adequate insofar as many subdivision regulations state that the width of the lot should be a minimum of b0' as mee>iured from the set- back fins. There is, however, a potential on-street parking problem associated with cul-de-sacs which should be remedied If pasible. Another comment concerns the south Franklin Avenue and the South Piece cul- de-sacs and adjacent lot designs, Lot Nine, adjacent to the Franklin Avenue . 'cul-de-sac Is particularly awkward as it provides for a large front yard and a very smell beck yard. This situation also occurs on Lot 43 adjacent to South Place. If possible, we believe these areas should be reconsidered by the developer to detrreine if these are, In fact, the most satisfactory solutions to these areas. We acknowledge the fact that these areas ere difficult to design due to the diagonal Via Appla. The question arose at the previous Planning Co,raisslon meeting concerning access to Tract C which is intended for development as quad units. It appears the provision of access to these units on Lincoln Street, which has barn des- ignated as a collector street, is satisfactory. Tying Tract C into South Boulder Road is undesirable as it would Increase traffic entering and exiting from South Boulder Rood in an undesirable mannor as already occurring with existing aper'tsent development in that area. Providing access from Tract C to Lafayette Street appears undesTrebie as it would needlessly divide the open space greenbelt provided In the development. Moreover, if access were provided to Lafayette Street, traffic would move to Lincoln Street anyway, or would drive the width 0 the development to Via Appie Drive which Is not •fesirable as that traffic would be passing through s'lgle family areas. Three additional comments related to the street system are pertinent. Adams Avenue, which is the only through street In the south portion of the Parkwuod development, may receive higher volumes of traffic than are suitable +or local streets. For this reason, it may be desirable that Adams Avenue be designated as a collector street. It is believed the 400' radius for Via Appia Drive In the north portion of the development is certainly a minimal radius and may, In fact, be lass than desirable. In the past, we have recommended a 300' min'mus radius for arterial streets. Also, temporary turn-grounds should De provided on Lafayette Street and Via Apple Drive on the west and of the devel- opment and on Adams Avenue on the south boundary of the dew 1 opeent. 'AO IN