The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA029 - Council Action Form dated November 24, 2009 ITEM # 27 DATE: 11-24-09 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY PLAT REVISION FOR SIDEWALK RELOCATION IN SOMERSET SUBDIVISION BACKGROUND: This applicant is requesting approval of a revision to the approved Major Site Development Plan/Preliminary Plat for the Somerset Subdivision. The proposed revision is to relocate an adjacent public sidewalk along the western edge of the 22nd Addition. The location of the revision is in the extreme northwestern corner of the Somerset Development, along the backyards of lots 12, 13 and 14,which are accessed on Piccadilly Square (See Exhibit A). The proposal is to shift 300 feet of four-foot-wide public sidewalk from the eastern edge of the George Washington Carver right-of-way, ten feet to the east, within a new public access easement on the three adjacent backyards. The property involved is owned by Erben Hunziker and Margaret Hunziker Development LLC, D&R Furman LLC, and R. Friedrich and Sons, Inc. The zoning of the area is "F-VR" (Village Residential Floating Zone). The affected lots are all vacant. The applicant proposes to provide a 10 foot easement for the four foot wide sidewalk. There are power poles on the property line. A ten foot easement would provide the required two foot clearance on both sides of the walk, as well as allow for additional in-the-field adjustment. The applicant states that there are two reasons why it is preferable to relocate the sidewalk: 1. Topography: If the path were to be installed currently as shown on the plans, a significant amount of grading would need to be done in the ditch to have a flat enough area to build the sidewalk. 2. Drainage of the area could be adversely affected by the grading and fill that would have to be placed in the ditch. The City's Public Works Department has stated that it will allow filling and grading in the right-of-way necessary to install the sidewalk in the originally approved location, should this requested relocation of the sidewalk be denied. However, the relocation would not adversely affect the anticipated sidewalk connections in this area. Therefore, staff is supportive of locating the sidewalk in an easement on private property. Public Works is not interested in acquiring additional street right-of-way to ensure maintenance of the sidewalk because maintenance is the abutting property owner's responsibility even if the sidewalk is within the street right-of-way. Staff also believes that it is preferable not to acquire additional street right-of-way for the 1 relocated sidewalk because it would change the point from which building setbacks are measured. In this case, the four lots are among the more shallow lots in the development, and any change in the street right-of-way line could further limit the buildable area of these lots. The only planning-related issue that may require additional attention is the location of, and landscape requirements for, fences. If fences are installed by the owners of the affected lots, they should be located outside the sidewalk easement to ensure that the sidewalk is clearly visible to and accessible to the public. This means that they would need to be located on the easterly side rather than the street side of the easement. Also, a five-foot landscape area is required for any fence over four feet in height pursuant to Section 29.408(2)of the Municipal Code. The owners would therefore need to locate fences taller than four feet at least five feet away from the easement line to allow room for landscaping outside the easement, or the sidewalk will need to be located in such a manner to provide some of the required landscaping within the easement. The applicant should be aware of this requirement as he determines the exact location of the sidewalk within the easement. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the sidewalk revision proposed to the Major Site Development Plan/Preliminary Plat is consistent with the Village Residential District zoning regulations for the site. Staff also concludes that the proposed sidewalk revision complies with all relevant and applicable design and improvement standards of the Subdivision regulations,to other City ordinances and standards, and to the City's Land Use Policy Plan, provided that it is clear in the easement language that the fence cannot be located in the easement, and provided that fence setback and landscape standards are met. To accomplish this, staff recommends that approval of the plat be conditioned upon easement language specifying that no fences shall be permitted within the sidewalk easement or along the sidewalk easement line abutting the street right-of-way line. Recommendation of the Planning &Zoning Commission. At its meeting of November 4, 2009, with a vote of 5-0, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the sidewalk revision to the preliminary plat and major site development plan subject to the condition that the document establishing the easement shall specify that no fences shall be permitted within the sidewalk easement, or along the sidewalk easement line abutting the street right-of-way line. There were no public comments at the meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can approve the sidewalk revision to the preliminary plat and major site development plan,subject to the document establishing the easement specifying that no fences shall be permitted within the sidewalk easement or along the sidewalk easement line abutting the street right-of-way line. 2. The City Council can deny the sidewalk revision to the preliminary plat and major site development plan and retain the originally approved location of the sidewalk. 3. This request can be referred back for additional information. 2 MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: This revision provides a needed sidewalk connection in a manner that better meets the applicant's needs for this location, and is consistent with the City Council's policy for the Somerset Subdivision or other applicable laws. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative#1, approving the sidewalk revision subject to the condition that the document establishing the easement specify that no fences shall be permitted within the sidewalk easement or along the sidewalk easement line abutting the street right-of-way line. 3 e PREPARED BY: STEVEN K. VENARD PLS. BISHOP ENGINEERING CO. INC. 3501 104TH STREET URBANDALE IOWA 50322 PH 515-276-0467 EXHIBIT A -- EASEMENT PLAT OU TLOT XX W 10.00'WIDE 00' PUBLIC WALK EASEMENT ti��o 1 5 16 14�Co P/c 17 O C� H 4� C'o Q :313 ( 0UTL0 C� _ ww W Q� 12 W -j 10.00' WIDE PUBLIC 0 WALK EASEMENT J r 00. 0 f �.�P CU ® _ o LX. AUG2 5 2009 CITY 01 AIVES,IOWA ru QE 'i:OF PL NNING&HOUSINGru O� r �r r ru C m EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 50 0 25 so too 0 A 10.00 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC WALK EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS A o PORTION OF LOTS 12,13,AND 14 IN SOMERSET SUBDIVISION m TWENTY-SECOND ADDITION,AN OFFICAL PLAT NOW INCLUDED IN AND Han SCALE N FORMING A PART OF THE CITY OF AMES,STORY COUNTY,IOWA IS 1 inch = 50 feet DESCRIBED AS THE WEST 10.00 FEET OF SAID LOTS 12,13 AND 14. v N opnlg 1 to INA u2iiii„ o �Q�oE• cov(•("9y0� C O o OL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LAND SURVEYING DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME AND THE RELATED =o;� STEVEN K.•;to o W RVEY WORK WAS FOD UNDER MY DIRECT PE EN SUPERVISION T I AM A DULY C _ VENARD, P.L.S. ELIENED PROFESIONALLANDSURVEYOR UNDERTHELA OF THETATE OF pWp, =z •�_ f ; No. 9532 ;c_ R „CE„I O O LICENSE RENEWAL DATE:DECEMBER 31, 2009v• oov �\ _,•^-_ DATE: AUGUST 20,2009 %i�J•• '��\� ' � FORLE:SOMERSET DEVELOPERS SIGNED: i,p�uwnA11�1 \\`\\\`\ S STEV K.VENARD, PLS Da a 5KV PROlE NAUE 556 TM9 u lEngineerin Tom pang, 3nu. EASEMENT PLAT FOR PRWECT„0„RER 3501 1D414 9drrr1 PUBLIC WALK IN '08. ors Avines, 3owtt 50322 SOMERSET SUBD. 22ND ADD. 0029 PHONE: (515)276-0457 FAX: (515)276-0217 AMES, IOWA SHEET' IOF1