HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-21; City Council; N/A; Improvements Hemlock Av, .; \ CITY IF CARLSBAD - AGENDA-‘,ILL
($? ,J
RHA : mmt
AB# TITLE: IMPROVEMENTS ON HEMLOCK AVENUE
MT& g/2 l/82 FOLLOFIUP O!d APPEAL OF CONDITIONS
DEPT. ENG FOR MLt-!oR SUBDLVLS~ON NO. 583 (PORTER) CITY MGR.-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Find that the staff recommendation for an access easement over the driveway to
serve as an interim hammerhead and a future offset cul-de-sac is a feasible and
acceptable solution to improvements on Hemlock Avenue.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 17, 1982, Council heard an appeal--requested by Mr. Porter--of a
condition to require a cul-de-sac at the end of Hemlock Avenue. Council directed
staff to see if a hammerhead design was feasible and, if not, to require the
cul-de-sac at City expense. Staff was to return to Council so that they could
make the determination of the feasibility of the hammerhead.
Staff investigated four possibilities:
. .
p
2
e I5 8
Alternative A: Cul-de-sac at end of street. A request for staff for a‘precise
estimate from S.D.G.&E. to relocate the electric vault put the cost at
$3500, not the $1000 we were originally told. This would bring the additional
cost of this alternative to $5750--to be borne by the City. Additionally,,
the design time required would delay the applicant.
Alternative B: Cul-de-sac shifted west to reduce impact on Mr. Porter’s property.
This solution avoids the expense of the electric vault relocation, but
requires a relocation of a storm drain inlet and more existing curb removal
than above. Since this cul-de-sac would involve four properties--two on each
side of the street --construction would be deferred until further development
occurred. The City would be required to absorb the costs for the portion on
Mr. Porter’s property.
Alternative C: Hammerhead street. A design was developed to provide a pocket
20 feet deep and 20 feet wide as part of the public street to provide a turn-
around. Although this was feasible, it would put the curb within 5 feet of
Mr. Porter’s driveway gate and encroach into the front yard further than the
cul-de-sac. Mr. Porter does not like this design and would prefer a cul-de-
sac to this.
Alternative D: The recommended solution. Place a public access easement over the
concrete driveway, This will provide a turn-around as large as a hammerhead
with curb around it without the impact of a public street. This would really
be an interim solution. There is adequate room to construct an offset cul-de-
sac bulb to the south in the future. The property there is nearly three times
as large as Mr. Porter’s and the improvements would affect only one owner.
Since this property is currently undeveloped, the cul-de-sac could be required
as a condition of development.
r . .
Page -2-
IMPROVEMENTS ON HEMLOCK AVENUE
FOLLOWUP ON APPEAL OF CONDITIONS
FOR MINOR SUBDIV~SLON NO. 583 (PORTER)
g/21 /82
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALT. A: Add
borne by the
itional costs to construct est
City.
ima ted to be $5750--to be
ALT. B: Additional costs to construct estimated to be $4500 of which
about half would be borne by the City.
ALT. C: Additional costs to construct roughly $2000. Mr. Porter would
expect that the City would pay this, but Council would need to agree
that this was the
ALT. D: No addit
south would incur
future of roughly
EXHIBITS:
r intent.
onal costs at this time. The property owner on the
some additional costs for a larger cul-de-sac in the
$2000.
A. Proposed Access Easement
B. Location Map
C. Future Offset Cul-de-sac
4
I- AccESS lXEMElr(;T 1
20’ x20!-> 4
1
V I - ..’ t.v.. c a -.o. *-‘ )” s’IR&w~-LkI :;“;- :: ; : *f 1.’ .,C. d
E)qS‘T PA EPl GN
6
i,‘*: I;**
---mm
6 .‘9 l = l : ioiJ~i;
l . pf?jv&- ‘* 0
‘*9* ’ l ’
’ ;.
p-d ’ ’ , l c,
* O’-‘0:: . .*
7 I I I II I t
% 7
HEMuck ‘tl 1 AiE 6
PROPOSED ACCESS EAzmwsf-r -- ._._. ---_--
pW?3--E R
EKHlE3lT “A’
z 4 w
i
u ? 0.
I. ii G 6
JUNIPER
REowooo AVE.
i
4AKAC.K j-. AVE.
LotiTION m,qp
. EXHIBIT “8”
. .,- . . ; . .
HE
FU-l-iiRE. OFFSET CUL-DE-SAC
Em l&7- “C”