Laserfiche WebLink
#2372 - Haglund <br />May 14,1998 <br />Page 4 <br />How or when the road should be upgraded, or whether the road should be upgraded at all, is a topic <br />for discussion. The gravel road averages 15’ wide and will serv'e as the only access for 7 homes, with <br />the potential for a number of additional homes if the Armstrong propert>' is developed in the future. <br />This road could potentially be continued westward to connect with Co. Rd. 19 or north to Bayside. <br />The City standard for such a road is a 50’ corridor with a 28' paved road w idth, ending in a paved <br />cul-de-sac. <br />With the ambiguous road ownership situation, it would be in the best interests of all parties if the <br />City acquires title to the entire 33' corridor as w'ell as additional r.o.w. on each side of it from <br />adjacent properties as necessary. The City could then make a determination as to the degree of <br />upgrade which would be completed by the City and an appropriate portion of the costs assessed back <br />to the benefitting property owners. <br />A more radical option would be for the City to discontinue maintenance of the road and let the road <br />users form an association to decide what level of road service is acceptable. Staff is not <br />recommending this, given the anticipated additional use this road may have in the future. <br />Access for Existing Residence. <br />The existing residence is served by a driveway directly to North Arm Drive West, which is a local <br />City road with many direct driveway accesses. Because this is a local road w ith relatively low traffic <br />levels, it may be appropriate to allow the continuation of this driveway location rather than force its <br />relocation to North Arm Lane. Applicant notes he may wish to move the driveway to North Arm <br />Lane in the future to eliminate a problem with the grade where the driveway exits onto the road. <br />Summary of Issues for Discussion <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />To what extent should the applicants be required to dedicate additional right-of-way? Does <br />Planning Commission agree with staffs sketch for platting of a partial cul-de-sac? Is there <br />any reason to take the entire cul-de-sac from this subdivision, as opposed to centering it on <br />the existing road corridor? <br />Should the City pursue formal acquisition of the 33 ’ corridor? <br />To what extent should North Arm Lane be upgraded, if at all? By whom? At whose <br />expense? <br />4. Should the driveway serving the existing house be allowed to remain in its current location? <br />5. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns or coments?