Our current NZ planning & land development has moved away from our traditional dead end streets/cul de sacs towards interconnected streets, lanes and walkways.?ÿ More open and interconnected neighbourhoods, with smaller lots.?ÿ
Some projects i've worked on the civil engineering has been difficult keeping all the services within the roadway on twisty narrow roads and lanes.?ÿ More than double the number of inspection chambers at change of directions in sewer and storm water drains.?ÿ The roads fill of service covers (Man Hole lids).
When our subdivision was developed the ordinance required 5 homes fronting on the cul-de-sac or it was just part of the main street. We have four.
I cannot order a pizza without explaining every nuance of the history. We finally gave up and we just pick up from the local pizzeria...
The "boob" portion of Lot 14 is an invitation to cause an issue for drivers.?ÿ The set back should be extended in that area to prevent the erection of something blocking visibility for drivers.?ÿ This is especially bad for the owners of Lots 15 and 16 when they want to make a left turn.?ÿ A solid line of hedges or similar flora would be bad.?ÿ The construction of something such as a gazebo in that area would also be bad.
@thebionicman Me to the delivery guy/gal: "You know, back where all the circles are"
Oh, Lord, no!!!?ÿ Not to the double-lane, circle of eternity!!?ÿ The one where Siri keeps saying "Recalculating, stay left, recalculating, stay left"
This type of "bulb" is usually used to achieve minimum lot frontage and/or minimum lot width requirements. Many times the center of the "sac" is a landscaped island, sometimes not but if that is the case, one creates a large impervious surface necessitating unnecessary drainage infrastructure, parking issues, and on a curve like this, awkward driving patterns.?ÿ?ÿ
I've been using circles representing minimum lot width to design subdivisions since the 80's. You just make a bunch of them and adjust the tangent lot lines to achieve minimum lot frontage and area. Its not hard and you don't need CAD, but that certainly helps.?ÿ
My first impression is that while there is a blob at the end of the centerline (?) there is no other indication that the blob is actually the radius point of the curve comprising the frontage of Lots 14 through 17. This while probably true, drives the surveyor to do a much more through analysis of the math involved to confirm that it is in fact the R.P.?ÿ Note that P.T and P.R.C. are labeled else ware.?ÿ I wonder who the heck puts a reverse curve here except for a lazy computer nerd with not experience in the field.?ÿ
There is so much wrong with this image it makes my head hurt.?ÿ?ÿ
