Laserfiche WebLink
19 4.,0 BACKGROUND <br />20 4.1, Section 1103 .021 D (Cul-de-sac Reductions) of the City Code currently states : Reduction <br />21 In Right Iq fWad Cul-De-Sac Dimensions: If thefollowing criteria are met, the Public <br />22 <br />Works Director may approve a reduced right ofw,ay or alternative cul-de-sac design. In <br />23 all cases, the minimum cul-de-sac diameter shall be eight feet (80 )for purposes of <br />24 emergency vehicle access. <br />251 1. Excessive impact to adjacent properties — encroachment on home an d principal <br />26 structure. <br />27 2. Impact to ponding areas1wetlands — requiring pond or, wetland alteration., <br />28 3'. Restrictions of existing right of — substandard right of way less than standard <br />29 sixty1feiet (60 ). <br />3o 4.2 On October, 81 1 <br />10 20017, Ramsey County District Court Judge 'ssued a. court order 'in regards <br />31 to, Boryczka v. City of Roseville, which stems from a legal challenge to the City's <br />312 treatment of an application by Art Mueller seeking approval of a plat that 'Included a cul- <br />33, de-sac, where one was not required by Code. In this order the judge ruled that the City <br />34 had been incorrectly interpreting § 1103.021 D (Cul-de-sac, Reductions) of the City Code <br />35, in general and as it was applied to Mr. Mueller's application. <br />36 4.3 City staff had been interpreting the code as meaning that:a reduction in the right-of-way <br />37 dimensions, for cul-de-sac could be approved if of the three criteria were met. The <br />38 ud 1. :1 <br />ge's opinion, howeiver, was that all three of'the criteria must be metin order to allow <br />3,19 less-th;zn-standard cul-de-sacw <br />4o 4,.4 The above Ramsey Colan <br />45 4.5 'The larger issue to be resolved by the proposed 'TEXT AMENDMENT pertains to the <br />46 replacement of the inany existing cul-de-sac turnarounds that fiail 1:0 comply with the <br />47 Code as, interpreted in the Ramsey County Court decision. Sections 5 and 6 of this report <br />idntify thsxisting, sub-standard turnarouns and d 11 <br />48 e e e e d <br />iscuss the reasons it 'is important to <br />49 allow certain deviations from the standards. <br />I <br />5o 5'. <br />"VIEW OF EXISTING CUL-DE-SACS <br />51 5.1 <br />Staff has completed a brief inventory of existing <br />cul-de-sacs in Roseville and has found <br />52 <br />that the interpretation of code (as described above) 'is not unique and has been the <br />53, <br />practice for over 40 years. Following is a list o l-de-sacs whose tumarounds were built <br />54, <br />with 80-foot diameters: <br />55, <br />Location Built <br />Location ......,.Year Built <br />56 <br />950 Lydia Avenueaa............. &ae &at* W1965 <br />Rosetown Court ......................... 1997 <br />57 <br />5'00 Lovell Avenue ...................... 1967 <br />3050 Sandy Hook ....................... 1999 <br />58 <br />2211 Irene Street.. ....... . .............. 1988 <br />Farrington Avenue t ............... 001010*01999 <br />59 <br />1650 County Road, C2**4****Wwq*w**#&1989 <br />Maple Lane CoW ...................... 1999 <br />60 <br />16,65 Millwood Avenue <br />Coh arise y <br />61 <br />16,15 Eldridge Avenue............... 1995 <br />Reservoir Woods Circle ............. 2006 <br />62 <br />1417 Rose <br />PROJ'001 I—Cul-de-sacs—RCA-012808 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />