2008_0128_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

63 5.2 Also, after reviewing the relevant section of the code using the judge's 'Interpretation, it 64 follows that any "alternate design" cut -de-sac turnaround would need to meet all three of 65 the criteria and that any such turnaround that is not round or is less than 80 feet in 66 diameter would not be allowed at all. The following cut -de-sac tarnarounds are smaller 67 than 80 feet, in diameter (radius= 40 feet) or are a non-round design, all of which fail to 68 meet Code standards under the judge's interpretation: Location . . . . ........ .. .. ... Year Built Design ��Re ...... . WA1MqA%$" R a diu S Alameda Street 19819 circular 1 25 ft. .......................... . Huron Street 1995 hammerhead n/a Lake Street 1995 circular 28.5 ft. Hand Avenue 1997 hammerhead n/a 4 T 11 Circle 1997 circular 30.34 ft* Churchill Street 1998 circular �32,8 ft. Woo dlynn Avenue 1999 circular 27 ftV Irene Court 2000 circular 32.5 ft. Victoria Street 2003 circular 28 ft.* ewood Point 2005 modified hammerhead n/a 169 6*0 POLICY DISCUSSION 01 70 6.1 City staff has, discussed the court decision and the results of our 'Investigation with the 71 City Attorney, who has advised the City to revise the Code so as to conform to these 6 *1 dec's' 72 previous councl I I ons, 73 6.2 The pertinent section of the City Code applies to all streets that are to be newly 74 constructed or newly reconstructed. The majority of the roads on these lists were 75 reconstruction projects where staff recommended an "alternate design" to reduce impacts 76 to surrounding properties, but none of them meet all three criteria as described in code. 77 city staff feells very strongly that some flexibility of cul-de-sac design must be preserved 0 q0 78 to recognize extenuating circwnstances. Without this flexibility, staff will not be able to ping 1 % 79 work with property owners on developing road c * tesigms that work for both the City and 80 the property owner. Benefits for reduced turnaround diameter/alternative designs include: 4 81 a. Long ter n. maintenance-, there is a cost savings in material and time for smaller cu1 - 182 de-sacs; 83 bo Reduction 'in hard surface: rain that falls on hard surfaces does not 'infiltrate and 84 therefore requires storm water treatment. 'The City's standard cul-de-sac does not take 85 tai's 'Into account, and; 186 co Impacts to surrounding properties.* retrofitting a "standard" cul-de-sac Into a mature �87 neighborhood can result in tree loss and conversion of front yards 'Into pavement. It 4. 88 can also require the purchase of right-lof-way, signifficantly increasing construction 89 costs. go 6.3 At its meeting of November 19, 2007, the City Council discussed the need to amend the 91 text of the Subdivision Ordinance to address the recent court decision, eliminate the 92 Internal conflicts With respect to cut -de-sacs, and bring the text of the Ordinance in line ith the City's long-standing interpretation. The Counc U concluded this discus i n by 93 w I so 94 directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and recommend a TEXT 95 AMENDMENT that will resolve these issues. PROM I I—Cul-de-sacs— RCS —0 12808 Page "'is of 4