2007_1119_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 cul- de- sac would need to meei all three criteria as w�il. The following cuI- de- sacs ar� smaller than 2 SO' diameter (radius— 4�0 ft) or aare � alter�ate design. Location Year Built Design e Alam�da Street 1989 cuI- de- sac, R=2S ft I�uron 1995 Hammerl�ead Lake Street 1995 cuI- deT sac, R-28.5 ft Hand T 997 Hammerhead To Hill Circ�e 1997 cul- de- sac, R= 9.25 �: = 3Q.34 ft Churc�ill Street 199$ cuI- de- sac, R= 10m = 32.8 ft Woodlynn Avenue 1999 cuI- de- sac, R— 8.25 rr� — 27 ft �re�s C� 2000 cul- de- sac, R= 32.5 ft Victoria St N 2003 cuI- de- sac, R= 28 ft A lewood Point 2005 rnodif ed Hammerhead 4 5 None af the exi,�ting c�z�- de- sacs/ turna.raunds met ail three caritexia outlined 'zn Ci�y Code. b 7 Palicy Diseussian: Tk�is �ection oi the code applies to all str�ets newly constructed or reconstrueted. 8 The rriajarity ofthe roads on r�ese lis�s �were reeonstnyctinn �rojects where s�affreco�nr�encied an 9 "alterrzate design" to reduce izx�.pacts to s�rou�di�g praperties. None of t�ese "al�e�ate design" roads 10 �zzeet ail t�se crzteria as described in code. City Sta�f £e��s very stxon�;ly t�at we need to ailow sorr�e 11 flexibility �o recognize extenuatir�g circ�mstances in regards to cu�- de- sac design. Without this 12 �lexibiliiy staff will not be able �o wor� with. praperty owners oz� c�e�eloping a road design that works for 13 bat� t�e Ciiy ar�d the pxaperty owner. Benefits for a reduced cul- de- sac d�az�r�ete�/ alterr�ative 14 turnaround design: xS 15 �7 �8 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 • Long term mainienance �- There is a cost savings in material and time for smaller cul- de- sacs. • R�ductian in hard surface- runoff that falls on hard surface does nnt in�itrate and requires storrn vvater treat�aeni. The City's sta�da�rd cul- de- sac daes not take �azs inta account. �mpacts to surrounding proper�ies- retrofitting a"stanc�ard" au1- cte- sac into a mature z�eigl�borhood can result in tree loss and convert fron� �ards to pavemer�t. It can alsc� require the purchase of right- of way, incrcasing coz�struetio�a costs az�c� creatzng z�on-confornning setbac�s for ex�sting buildings. We �ave discussed ��e court decisinn and the xesults of o�r investiga�ion wiih the Cii� Attorney. He has advis�d the City �o revise �he cod� to con�orm to these previous council decisions. Sta�i feels that a compreher�sive update o� Title I 1 should be pursue€� whic� could talce 6 rnont�s tn a year to camplete. Due io tzz�i�g, we az�e recoamz�aendiz�g that we pursue a code ehange that consolidates refeare�ces fa cul- de- sacs a�d t�arounds. We recqmmend including the camp�renensive update af Title 11 in r�ext year's work plan. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Provide s�aff directian o� revisions to Title � 1 of the City Code. Prepared by: Duane Schwariz/ Debra Bloom