78-078 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . This way we were just looking at (inaudible) might provide some access for some additional lots that way. It certainly did not reflect the best road layout (inaudible). We would gain nothing relative to the cul-de-sac lane. In fact, it would be greater, but if this were cut off at this point we would have gained access to Amble property for potential future develop- ment which would have been a more desirable (inaudible) the two owners combined in a plat to resolve the entire problem in the area. We encouraged them to do that, but have no power to force that situation. We then looked at some of the options of carrying through and all we ended up with in the final analysis was just a hybrid of this (inaudible)access agreement here that could apply to a third lot. We were just studying some (inaudible) al ignments to develop which would reflect the best circulation. It was our intention to design a system that would not encourage traffic, but provide another outlet. Those two are basically the same with minor variations, and yet another would have, in this manner, served the Amble property with the potential of creating four lots instead of three by bringing the right-of-way down so it could be expanded into this property, or constructing the cul-de-sac on this, but providing by land trading something that would have been required that both owners enter into the plat at this time. Of course, that didn't happen so the final we ended up with is what you were looking at first. Basically, to reiterate the three options, to accept the long cul-de-sac, which I pointed out is not the only one like it in the city although it's not in a situation where we have an abundance of those nor should we - there's one on Oak Avenue that's serving a similar amount of lots, somewhat less, but over 18. There are other longer cul-de-sacs beyond 500 feet, but not too many of them serve beyond the 18 units. That being one option. The second is to just not. allow it to develop until a variety of property owners could get something together, and the third (inaudible) to force a connection somewhere. This seemed to be the most logical. COUNCILMAN CRICHTON: I think Oak Avenue was installed before the (inaudible). MR. MILLER: That could be. COUNCILMAN HANSON: One other comment. These alternatives that have been presented on the slides, none of which showed Nursery Hill Court ever going directly out to Amble? MR. MILLER: No. No, because we eliminated that option because of the developed lots and we pursued this other - first the one far on the right to the end of Amble Road because we thought there might be part of a right-of-way there, and when we found out not, then we pursued this route because there was the tax delinquent 6