Loading...
7.10. SR 05-17-1993 rei -\) ( )! !l~ ITEM 7.10 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL STEPHEN ROHLF, BUILDING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ~tL- DATE: MAY 11, 1993 FROM: SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, SECTION 1008.14 (5)(j) "LENGTH OF DEAD- END ROADS" BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER/PUBLIC HEARING Overview In 1992, five of nine variance requests were regarding the length of dead-end roads. The five variance requests dealt with eleven different road ways in five plats. The City Council felt this was a significant number of variance requests on one single issue and directed staff to look at possible ordinance amendments. e Staff researched this issue and presented their findings to the Planning Commission. The Commission felt there was more to the issue than the length of dead-end roads. They also considered future extensions of dead-end roads into adjacent, undeveloped property and when to allow cul-de-sacs (dead-ends) in general. Lenqth Of the eleven dead-end temporary dead-ends that developed; three were permanent dead-end roads roads considered in 1992, eight were would be eliminated when adjacent land permanent dead-end roads. The three were less than 700 feet in length. The Planning Commission reviewed ordinances from other cities regarding the total length allowed, how they measured the length, and when they allowed exceptions to the maximum length. The Commission also considered the redevelopment of parcels of various shapes and sizes and how the maximum length of a dead-end road would affect that redevelopment. Lastly, they considered testimony from the Police Chief and Fire Chief regarding any possible safety issues (attachments 1 and 2). The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the length of cul-de-sacs was as follows: e The Planning Commissioners recommended 700 feet be the maximum length of a dead-end, measured from the center line of the street of origin to the center of the cul-de-sac. The City's current ordinance is 500 feet, measured from the center line of the street of origin to the end of the right-of-way of the cul-de-sac. Measuring to the center of the cul-de-sac is more consistent with surveying practices. Commissioner Johnson was absent, and P.O. Box 490 · 13065 Orono Parkway · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Ordinance Amendment, Section 1008.14 May II, 1993 Page 2 ------------------------------------ . Commissioner Kuester voted against the 700 feet. Commissioner Kuester felt 500 feet was more appropriate since the school allows children to walk up to 500 feet to a bus stop. The Planning Commission also recommended that language be added to the ordinance that allows exceptions to the 700 feet without having to go through the variance process. Summarized, that language allows longer cul-de-sacs when they are temporary and would be eliminated when adjoining property is subdivided; or due to the lay of the land, longer cul-de-sacs would be needed to fully develop the property. There are two ordinance amendments attached that reflect this recommendation (ordinance A and B). When To Allow Cul-de-sacs During the review of recent plats, the issue has been raised whether or not these plats contain too many cul-de-sacs. Currently, staff has no guidance in the City subdivision ordinance to recommend against cul-de-sacs unless they are dangerous or adversely impact traffic flow. e Developers argue that cul-de-sacs create neighborhoods and more desirable lots that will accommodate higher valued houses. People that desire lots on cul-de-sacs argue they are safer and more private. Negative impacts of cul-de-sacs include extra maintenance costs (snow plowing), additional travel time for school busses, confusion for addressing, possibly being a problem for emergency response, and poor traffic flow from one neighborhood to the next. Ordinance Amendment A states that cul-de-sacs are undesirable and allows the City to limit their number if they cause negative impacts regarding traffic flow or emergency vehicles. If it is the desire of the City Council to further limit the number of cul-de-sacs, the language in this ordinance amendment that allows cul-de-sacs to exceed 700 feet could be used to state when the City will allow cul-de-sacs in general (when they are temporary or when, due to the lay of the land, they are needed to fully develop the property). This would give staff a rational during concept review to tell developers to redesign their plats and eliminate cul-de-sacs. e Staff is not recommending the City drastically limit the number of cul-de-sacs. Staff feels the benefits of cul-de-sacs outweigh the disadvantages as long as good traffic flow is maintained and cul-de-sacs that create dangerous situations are not allowed. Staff is recommending Ordinance Amendment B. The Planning Commission did not have a clear consensus on this issue. Ordinance Amendment, Section 1008.14 May 11, 1993 Page 3 ------------------------------------ ~ Future Extensions The City typically allows for the extension of dead-ends to adjoining property when that adjoining property is undeveloped. This is accomplished by dedicating right-of-way from a dead-end to the current plat's boundry. People living on these temporary dead-ends typically complain when they are proposed to be extended. The Planning Commission felt it should be the City's policy to prepare the roadway to the plat boundary at least to the point of class 5, making it obvious it is meant to be extended. Lot owners adjacent to the temporary dead-end may still question the extension, therefore, it should be made clear through the plat approval that the roadway is proposed to be extended in the future. Another issue raised was whether or not the roadway should be tarred to the plat boundary. The Planning Commission decided against tarring the roadway due to the possibility of the tar being wasted if it is a long time before the roadway is extended or the extension is not used when the adjacent property subdivides. The Council should also consider barricading these future road extensions so they do not allow unsolicited access to adjoining property. ~ Staff recommends the bubble portion of temporary cul-de-sacs that are to be eliminated in future phases of the same subdivision, be placed in the next phase, beyond the lots in the current phase. This will eliminate road construction adjacent to these lots when the road is extended. Summary The issues explained in this memo are confusing. Staff will be happy to meet with the Council prior to Monday night's meeting to address any questions, otherwise, staff will bring the research the Planning Commission reviewed to the meeting. e From: Memorandum ~ Steve Rohlf, Building/Zoning Administrato~ Thomas D. Zervas, Chief of POliC~ February 16, 1993 . t. ... To: Dace: Police Department Subjecc: CUL-DE-SACS It has been brought to my attention that you are considering changing the ordinance. that regulates cul-de-sacs. From a law enforcement perspective, whether a cul-de-sac is 500 feet or 1,000 feet isn't that big of a problem. However, if at all possible, I would discourage cul-de-sacs unless there is a demonstrable hardship or it is indicated up front that in the future the road will continue through to another development. I would urge caution in eliminating existing cul-de-sacs unless they were des igned to be through streets in the future. Some citizens are located on a cul-de-sac. for the privacy and safety. If their planned cul-de-sac was replaced with an unplanned through street, this could create hard feelings within the community. I f you have any questions in regards to my pos i tion on cul-de-sacs, please see me. e . 720 Dodge Avenue N.W., Elk River, Minnesoca 55330 · (612) 441-2324 ~ TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RUSS ANDERSON, FIRE CHIEF R 0 FEBRUARY 12, 1993 DATE: SUBJECT: LENGTH OF CUL-DE-SACS The Fire Department would have no problems extending the cul-de-sac length policy to a maximum of 1,000 feet. Listed below are several items we should discuss during concept review meetings. 1. Recommend a policy prohibiting "unnecessary" cul-de-sacs. Unnecessary cul-de-sacs create a jumble of unconnected streets making it difficult for ambulances and fire trucks to move about the City. 2. Review hydrant spacing in cul-de-sacs or dead-end areas (two reachable hydrants for fire suppression). 3. Recommend a policy of 90 foot diameter, tarred surface for cul-de-sacs. 4. Recommend a policy permitting a limited number of cul-de-sacs per the number of lots in a subdivision. e e 720 Dodge Avenue N.W., Elk River, Minnesota 55330 (612) 441-7420 e . . ORDINANCE NO. 93 - @ ........ CITY OF ELK RIVER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1008.14(5) (J) OF THE ELK RIVER CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING CUt-DE-SAC STREETS IN SUBDIVISIONS The City Council of the City of Elk River does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 1008.14(5) (j) of che Elk River Code of Ordinances is amended to read as follows: j. Cul-de-sacs - CUl-de-sac streets, permanencly designed as such, can be undesirable in terms of traffic movement, emergency vehicle access, school bus traffic and sno~lowing. The City reserves the right to restrict the number and length of cul-de-sacs in a subdivision. The maximum length of a 6treet cerminating in a cul-de-sac shall be seven hundred (700) feet, measured from the center line of the street of origin to the center of the cul-de-sac. tonger cul-de-sacs shall not be allowed, except where the City Council determines that: (i) the cul-de-sac is temporary because the screet is designed to extend into adjoining unsubdivided property and connect with a future street; or (ii) it haB been clearly shown that, by reason of unfavorable land form or the irregular shape of the land, a normal pattern cawlot be established or land would be wasted if the additional length ware not allowed. No cul-de-sac will be allowed it to do so would create an unreasonably dangerous situation or adversely impact traffic movement or flow. Section 2. This ordinance shall be eftective upon adoption and publication, according to law. Passed and adopted by the City Council of che City of Elk River, this ____ day of , 1993. Hank Duitsman, Mayor Attest: Sandra Thackeray, City Clerk PKB:IA3s ORDI~rC~ NO. 93 - @i C~7Y OF ELK RIVER . AN ORDIN~~~C~ ~~I~G SEC~!ON 1008.14(5) (y) OF TE~ ELX a:~~~ C!7Y CODE OF ORDINANCES P...E:GA.~ING CU~-DE-S;"C S::-~ETS IN SuoD:-v"::SIONS The City Cc~=cil of t~e Ci~y of Elk ~iver does he=eby or~ain as follows: S t . "" 1 S .. ~ , 00- ,,, I -) ( . ) -..' "1'. ~. C' - ec ~~n . ec__o~ _ ~._~\~ J e: ~ne ~_A ~~ver oce o~ Ord~nances is ~~e~ced to reac as :ol:cws: j . C~l-de-sacs - The ~zxin~u lengch of a stree~ ~erillina~ing i~ a cul-de-sac stall be seven hunc=ed (700) feet, measured fren the center line of the stree: of origin to the ce~ter of the cul-ae-sac. Lo~ger cul-de- sacs shall not be allowed, except where the City Co~~cil determines that: (i) the cul-de-sac is te~p~rary ~:c7u7e the street is cesi~~ec to ex:ena ~~:o aaJo~~~g u~subdiviced property ~~ con=ec~ with a :~ture sc:=eeCi e::- (ii) it has been clea=ly shown ~ha~, by rea5e~ 0: "~_':_::...,-r-.",,,_, _= ~_' Q_ 1:: ~~ ~~"r-:'1 0..... ~~ Q .: ~-:""'1 i .:: - -.- .:~:=. 0 = e ~ _ _ ___._ ___... - Iw..._ ____:~___ :;:,....:--~""':* . . . c~= :a~~, a =c~~~ ;a::e== C~~=~: ce ~2:a=~~s~:~ 0= :a~c ~c~:~ =e ~asc=c I che acd~~~=~a: le~q~~ . . . we=e ~e: a_~~wec. No c~l-de-9ac wi~l ce a:lcwec i: to de sc wc~:= c::-ea=e u~=easonably da~ge::-c~s s:~uation or adve~s;ly :=.;ac= t=affic moveme~~ 0= flew. Sec~ion 2. This o=~~~a~cE publication, ac=crding to law. c::.~ - ~ .. - ...~- - be effective upen --.--,.... .......... e..,-...::- '-_~._ a::.::. Passed anc acopted by e' \000 . '- ...~ver, t__.:.s _ aay c!: "-""'l"C I.. '__ Ci:y Coun=il cf t~e Ci~y , :993. ...- "'- =:1:< ~a~k Dui:s~=, ~2yer Jl.t cas c : Sandra Thackeray, City Clerk .