My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
78-078
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
78-078
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:14 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:45:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN HANSON: I'd like to have the engineer refresh <br />my memory as to why we decided to extend that connecting road <br />south from Nursery Hill. <br /> <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Might I ask Mr. Miller to explain <br />that because he was involved in all of the Planning Commission's <br />work and I was not. I did not attend those meetings. Perhaps Mr. <br />Miller could provide a better answer than I. <br /> <br />MR. ORLYN MILLER, Wehrman, Chapman Associates, City Planners: <br />There were basically three options expressed at the time of the <br />first proposal- and maybe DOn might want to help me with this. <br />(Showing diagrams) In terms of lqt layout, this is basically <br />the same with some modification. The concern is Nursery Hill <br />Lane extends to Hamline on the far left and it would create a cul-de- <br />sac of approximately 1700 feet. The Ordinance limits the extent <br />of the length of a cul-de-sac to 500 feet (inaudible) 18 lots are <br />served, in which case it could be somewhat longer. In this case <br />it's substantially more than 18 lots. I believe something of that <br />nature is already served by Nursery Hill Lane. There was con- <br />cern expressed by ourselves and by the Planning Commission that we <br />search out a way to resolve the circulation problem (inaudible) <br />that length of cUl-depsac. Three different basic options were <br />open. One is to accept - by waiving that requirement at the time <br />of planning - to accept a longer cul-de-sac. Another is to <br />plainly deny any development in which the city gets in somewhat <br />of a vulnerable position in that this area is (inaudible) <br />landlocked by past decisions and we felt we should seek out some <br />way to provide for development for the benefit of the developer <br />as well as the city, and the third option was to seek some way to <br />provide a loop system to Hamline or Amble Road, so we did look at a <br />variety of ways. <br /> <br />Obviously, as you can see on the left $ide of that, the <br />existing homes and the spacing,is such that it would require taking <br />of the developed lands, lots that are already developed. We had to <br />seek out other ways, trying to determine where same of the openings <br />might be. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />There was, at one time, some sort of easement here that showed <br />up on the plat. We did clarify that it wasn't as public as we <br />thought at the time we did these studies. That there is some <br />kind of access easement back here but not a platted street, but we <br />did look at the possibility of extending over there - providing <br />access to Amble Road at the end (inaudible) existing home con- <br />struction, there is a home on this lot at this time and the <br />narrowness of the area just made that somewhat infeasible. <br /> <br />This configuration simply shows how the Amble property which <br />gets landlocked in the process of creating a road (inaUdible) <br />however, if we put it here ,we still had this landlocked property <br />here that could not be subdivided efficiently to get access in that <br />manner. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.