Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, May 15,2017 <br /> Page 19 <br /> Councilmember Willmus agreed that those auxiliary items provided for in the man- <br /> ual that didn't rise to that level and including some discretion, were more appropri- <br /> ate to the design manual versus those required as mandates in city code. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte expressed appreciation for this discussion and clarifica- <br /> tions by staff and City Attorney Gaughan. <br /> Specific to alleys (Section 200) no longer being permitted, Councilmember Etten <br /> asked if there were not some existing areas in Roseville with alleys and if they were <br /> or were not included in city code. <br /> Mr. Culver responded that there were a few areas that shared private driveways,but <br /> whether they were legally-defined alleys was a good question. However, at this <br /> point going forward (new versus existing), Mr. Culver suggested that the focus be <br /> on whether or not alleys should be considered for any future subdivisions or devel- <br /> opments. <br /> Mr. Lloyd reminded council members that this subdivision addressed rights-of-way <br /> so existing things in older parts of town would involve platted alley rights-or-way <br /> or something similar; but stated that he was not aware of any actual alleys. <br /> Mr. Culver confirmed Mr. Lloyd's interpretation. <br /> Going forward, Mr. Lloyd suggested that developments may include private drives <br /> that functioned as alleys, but would not be regulated as rights-of-way. <br /> Page 4 Section 204 (Chapter 1103.021: Minimum roadway Standards) <br /> As an example in this section, Councilmember Willmus referenced the private road <br /> near Slumberland and Olive Garden that served as a private drive off East Snelling <br /> Service Drive and asked how that was distinguished in conjunction with the Plan- <br /> ning Commission recommendation on bike lanes; or in similar situations where a <br /> private drive may provide access to 3-4 homes built to city standard and including <br /> a bike lane. <br /> Mr. Lloyd opined that the comment was intended in the context of streets in general <br /> rather than specifically in the context of private drives. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that this section states city"and"private roadways and therefore <br /> refers to both. <br /> Councilmember Willmus opined that there should be some level of distinction and <br /> purpose outlined for private roadways and/or drives to avoid significant loss of <br /> front yards to provide a bike lane that may only service two homes. <br />