CC_Minutes_2017_0619 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June 19, 2017 Page 10 Page 9, line 365 (Title—Chapter 1103.021) City Attorney Gaughan noted that this section had previously been stricken in its entirety. Page 11 Line 408 (Section G: Roadway Standards) Mr. Lloyd noted previous City Council discussion for the provision about dimen- sional standards and how they applied to new and existing streets being rebuilt, found confusion. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd suggested deleting "existing" in this case to apply to all roadways. Mayor Roe recalled this discussion and concern about references to standards ap- plying to roadways, expressing his hope that the subdivision code was not the on- ly place roadways standards were referred to and conclusions from those previous discussions to refer to meeting standards if existing roadways had to be recon- structed as part of the subdivision process. Therefore, Mayor Roe suggested in line 410 after "reconstructed," adding additional language "... as a result of a subdivision." City Attorney Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe's recollection of that discus- sion, noting that he would support that since specificity was good in provisions when drawing more clarity to them. Further, City Attorney Gaughan questioned the need for the preface in line 408 "While not strictly pertinent to rights-of-way..." since this section was not strictly pertinent to rights-of-way. Mayor Roe agreed that the section seemed to be about the width of the road itself and not pertinent to rights-of-way. Mr. Lloyd reviewed staff's intent in that section with horizontal lines that may not necessarily be related to rights-of-way, but also advised that this section was the only part of the subdivision code that addressed it with the earlier section (line 307) referring to roadway improvements for construction versus width and whether parking is allowed at a given width and whether permitted on one, both or neither side of the street. Mr. Lloyd noted that there was an anomaly in the structure of this part of the right-of-way code and lot design and therefore was preserved in code and not relegated to the Public Works Design Standards Manual as many construction and development requirements had been. Mr. Lloyd opined that this information may prove helpful for a subdivision in planning ahead for what facilities are permitted in a right-of-way and provide guidance about its width accordingly, but not specifically speaking to the right-of-way standard it- self. Mayor Roe asked if it was not specified in another part of code when approving plats,but not necessarily road widths.