CC_Minutes_2017_0515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 15,2017 Page 20 From a technical standpoint, Mayor Roe asked why this referred to existing private roadways when the subdivision code by its very nature involved new construction and didn't address standards for reconstruction of roadways. Mr. Lloyd advised that it related indirectly to Sections 205 —208 when addressing street width,not rights-of-way for parking arrangements,but minimum road widths in various situations that would remain relevant. As an example,Mr. Lloyd referred to a development application for subdivision made several years ago where new lots would be created along a street with no on-street parking and the nearest avail- able parking would be a block or more away. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that this revised language provided a developer with the expectation of street width to ensure new property owners and visitors would have adequate parking. Mayor Roe opined that he still didn't consider reference to existing streets and sit- uations to be applicable in the subdivision code, nor "reconstruction of existing streets"unless this is the only location in city code that they exist(e.g. design man- ual) and asked that staff reconsider that when platting new land that was not part of this subdivision code and if and where it needed to be addressed. Councilmember Etten agreed with this discussion,noting that he had also been con- fused with the reconstruction aspect. Generally speaking, Mr. Lloyd advised that when talking about a physical street width rather than the importance of rights-of-way, that was the question rather than how and why it was addressed in code; and advised that he and Mr. Culver would discuss that further. Mr. Culver noted that this came into play in several potential situations: when a business reconstructs its parking lot to a certain percentage if not meeting current standards it would now be required to do so; and the same could be said for existing private streets not meeting current standards for parking and minimum width. As it applies specifically to the subdivision code, Mr. Culver advised that if one side of a street has yet to be developed, when a development proposal came forward to do so, an existing street situation may be found substandard to meet the needs of more development in that area. Mayor Roe opined that there needed to be more clarity if that was the intent; whether or not"existing streets"were addressed in the subdivision code versus de- sign standards. In his reading of subdivision code, City Attorney Gaughan opined that it specifi- cally included redevelopment in an area with existing streets. However, Mr. Gaughan agreed that it didn't make sense to use"existing"when discussing recon- struction, and therefore suggested removing"existing" and leaving in language"as constructed or reconstructed."