CC_Minutes_2008_0128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 28, 2008 Page lI Councilmember Roe asked the City Attorney to clarify the intent of the proposed ordinance; and whether it related to a specific project (Mueller Property on Acorn Road) that seemed to be of concern to some citizens. Mr. Roe asked City Attor- ney Anderson for clarification on the court ruling; and Mr. Mueller's course of ac- tion should he choose to proceed with a cul-de-sac smaller than that originally ap- proved. City Attorney Anderson clarified that the court had said that the cul-de-sac was inappropriate; and opined that Mr. Mueller would need to come back for approval of another alternative. City Attorney Anderson noted that, contrary to the reading of some citizens, he did not read the proposed ordinance as a "fix" for one in- stance, but to bring the code into compliance with practice on a number of alter- nate cul-de-sac approvals issued for a number of decades. Councilmember Roe provided his rationale for supporting the proposed ordinance amendment; opining that the City was not reducing their standard, based on one particular location, noting that 120' right-of--way remained the standard; and that all that was being proposed was to rearrange where those specifications were listed in City Code, adding temporary language for Public Works, Fire Depart- ment, and Community Development Department staff interpretation, based on the court ruling, in recommending to the City Council if smaller cul-de-sacs are ap- propriate, for their ultimate decision. Councilmember Roe further opined that it was staff's intention to return to the Council in the near future with more compre- hensive language for additional criteria. Councilmember Roe noted that current language didn't match staff interpretation, as ruled by the court, but that the pro- posed ordinance amendment was meant in no way to make sure a particular pro- ject could go forward and flout City standards. Councilmember Ihlan questioned Councilmember Roe's interpretation of this proposed ordinance as a "temporary change;" opining that this was an amendment to code, and noted that the staff memo said it was in response to a particular court ruling, and would clearly benefit Mr. Mueller. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated previously-stated concerns that this action was not a good basis for public policy, based on one court case; and questioned what policy reasons were evident for making this amendment. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the City Council didn't have sufficient information as to whether City Code was consistent with State Fire Code; and needed further deliberation in the context of the prac- tices of other inner-ring suburbs related to cul-de-sac minimum standards. Coun- cilmember Ihlan spoke in support of staffs indication that a more thorough amendment of the Subdivision Ordinance text to eliminate internal conflicts with respect to cul-de-sacs and bring the text in line with the City's long-standing in- terpretation. Councilmember Ihlan noted, however, that she would not support this motion; as it wasn't a permanent "fix" and didn't protect the public's safety or benefit the public.