Laserfiche WebLink
<br />broad. It was suggested that additional qualifying language would help contain future adjustment reviews <br />to those involving "slightly" more than 600'. <br /> <br />Response: Staff suggests a revision to the proposed exception to read as follows; <br /> <br />9.6810 <br /> <br />Block Length. Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, <br />unless [the developer demonstr3tes that a block length must be greater than <br />600 {-eet because of the existence of} an exception is granted based on <br />one or more of the following [conditions]: <br /> <br />(4) As part of a Type II or Type III process, the developer <br />demonstrates that a strict aDDJicatJon of the 6oo400t reauirement <br />would (theT resultfi!1IJ] ina street network lwilfnot ereate <br />eXGeSsivetravellengths and' that is no more beneficial to <br />vehicular. oedestrian or bicvcle. traffic than the groposed street <br />network and that the proQosed street network will accommodate <br />necessary emergency access. <br /> <br />Staff believes the revised language limits the extent of future requests in that the applicant must shm\! that <br />there would be no additional benefit by providing a shorter block length. <br /> <br />#59; EC 9.6820: Cm-de-sac requirements. Council discussed two separate amendments affecting cul- <br />de-sacs. First, concern was expressed with the proposed elimination of subsection (4) which limited cul- <br />de-sacs to 400 ft. in length. Second, Council asked for clarification on the proposed change to subsection <br />(5), which addresses the provision of public accessways from cul-de-sacs. The current language <br />"requires" public accessways. The proposed language states that they "may" be required. <br /> <br />Response; Staff's primary intent regarding this code section is to provide a more understandable set of <br />provisions regarding cul-de-sac standards. In doing so, staff looked to consolidate the provisions into <br />more discreet statements. Adding back the 400 fl. limita:,lion on cul-de-sac length would not affect this <br />intent. T1terefore, stqffrecommends that subsection (4) be added back. This would also necessitate <br />adding back a reference under subsection (6) to allow an exception to this standard (as is currently <br />allowed). <br /> <br />9.6820 <br /> <br />Cul-de-Sacs or Emergencv Vehicle Turnarounds. <br />(1) Except for streets that are less than 150 feet long and streets that will <br />be extended in the future, all streets that terminate shall be designed <br />as a cul-de-sac bulb or an emergency vehicle turnaround. <br />(2) If a street [qualifies for an exception under section (1) beC3use it] will <br />be extended in the future, a temporary easement shall be provided and <br />an emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed[..ffi..a.R <br />alternative location]. <br />(3) [If a street qualifies for an exception under section (1), a hammerhead <br />turnaround shall be substitLfted where possible. <br />(4}] T#)ere shall be no cul-de-.sacs more than 400 feet lono from the <br />centerline of the intersect/no street.to the radius Doint of the cul- <br />de-sac bulb. <br />(~ [The planning director shall require p]Public accessways to provide <br />safe circulation for pedestriansf bicyclists and emergency <br />vehicles may be required from a cul-de-sac or emergency vehicle <br />turnaround longer than 150' in length whenh] measured from the <br />centerline of the intersecting street to the radius pOint of the cul-de-sac <br />or to the center point of the emergency vehicle turnaround[.t:e <br /> <br />Page 3 of7 <br />