Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />To Roseville City Council <br />January 28, 2008 <br />Cul de Sac: <br />Attached please find copies of several relevant documents which support the following positions. <br />1. Copy of Appendix D of the 2000 international Fire Codes that clearly states that an <br />access road in excess of 150 feet must conform to the Dead-End Requirements listed <br />on Page 361. <br />2. These requirements plainly show the 96' and 120' discussed earlier and are not <br />reflected in the proposed change. Rather, Roseville is taking a requirement of 100' <br />and/or 120' and reducing it to a value out of compliance with state law. <br />3. Further, reduction to the regulations regarding cul de sac size are solely the discretion <br />of the staff and Director of Public Works even though even the Council last <br />discussing this issue appeazed to believe that there should perhaps be more review. <br />4. Copies of Cul de Sac codes from Golden Valley and Maplewood both show <br />requirements matching or approximating State Fire Code. Due to the time constraints <br />presented by having only Monday to collect any information on surrounding <br />municipalities, hazd copies of only these two were readily available. <br />Lot Split Ordinance: <br />On the topic of the "overlay District" being proposed, if the objective is simply to imply that lots <br />smaller than 11,000 sf , if combined, must be reconstructed into lots conforming to current City <br />Code of 85' x 110' and 11,000 sf, why not just deal with those lots which are currently less than <br />11,OOOsf? What is the point of creating an overlay district that includes more than 55% of the <br />city and includes many lots larger than 11,OOOsf? <br />Why not just do the "overlay District" of the 21 % of the lots which currently are less than <br />11,000 sf in total azea? This would solve the problem being addressed, direct the solution at the <br />lots fully out of compliance with respect to area, and avoid any unintended rights being granted <br />should the ordinance change later. <br />The obvious protection of large lots and diversity of neighborhoods and lot sizes is <br />specifically not addressed in this ordinance proposal. What is addressed is an effort to make <br />uniform as much of the city as possible. This does not seem to conform to or even address the <br />