05-24-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2466 Renckens & Winston May 21,1999 Page 9 to Carlson to provide access to Outlot B. Carlson acknowledged to the Planning Commission in 1991 (see minutes of March 18,1991) that he accepts all responsibility for providing it access. The plat approval resolution also makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the developer to acquire access to Outlot B. Applicants have suggested to staff that one of the reasons that Crystal Creek Road was platted ending at the Renckens property rather than continuing eastward within the plat of Crystal Creek, was that the tested draimleld sites within Lot 7 adjacent to Outlot B, would have been obliterated. It is a fact that those sites would have been rendered useless by a 50' outlot along the south end of Lot 7. It is not known whether other sites exist in Lot 7. This topic does not appear to be documented in City files. Mr. Carlson has provided a letter and a number of attachments included in this packet as Exhibit F, supporting the creation of the 50' outlot. Staff has provided 2 sketches showing how access might be provided to Outlot B. The first is a schematic for how Ciystal Creek Road could connect in a horseshoe shape to Wear Lane North and back down to Watertown Road. The second is one of the many schemes that might be drawn up for development (or redevelopment) of the properties betw een Crystal Creek and Old Crystal Bay Road, showing that access to Outlot B might be provided via methods other than an extension of Crystal Creek Road. However, it is not known when/if these properties might further develop. Neighborhood Development, Privacy, Safety The issues biuughl up by the applicants are typical of thoac lalscu by evciy luial icsidential development where the City must balance the residents ’ desires for privacy against the City's responsibility to provide a safe, cost-efficient, emergency-accessible road system. Orono has consistently required that road connections between subdivisions be platted, but has taken the position that those connections are for future use, and likely won ’t be constructed until such time that the residents demand them. Staff doesn't buy the idea that a horseshoe road system creates more traffic and is less safe than a cul- de-sac. The vast majority of traffic will be from the neighborhood, since this wouldn't be a shortcut to an>’\vhere. A majority of residents are not likely to take the long way around the horseshoe to get in or out. And if non-neighborhood traffic enters the horseshoe, it’s going to travel past a given house one time, not twice. A strong public safety case can be made for roads with two outlets as compared to cul-de-sacs. If a disaster strikes and the cul-de-sac is blocked near the entrance, nobody gets in or out, including emergency vehicles. A road with two outlets will still provide access to nearly the entire area.