Laserfiche WebLink
Ordinance Amendment, Section 1008 . 14 Page 2 <br /> February 16 , 1993 <br /> • very short exacerbate the problem because there is less street <br /> adjacent to the cul-de-sac to provide parking. <br /> Chapter 10 does not require a public hearing or Planning <br /> Commission review, however, staff is requesting both. The <br /> Planning Commission deals with cul-de-sacs through plats and <br /> staff felt your review and public input on this issue would be <br /> desirable. An ordinance amendment has not been provided at <br /> this point. Staff will review input when formulating language <br /> for an ordinance amendment. <br /> The following are some thoughts regarding cul-de-sacs to <br /> consider: <br /> 1 . Having 2 standards for the length of dead-end roads; <br /> a longer standard for the urban service area where <br /> hydrants are the source of fire suppression water and <br /> a shorter standard in the non-urban service area <br /> where a pumper truck is the source for water. <br /> 2 . A longer maximum length for temporary cul-de-sacs <br /> (cul-de-sacs that a future phase of development would <br /> eliminate) and another standard for permanent <br /> cul-de-sacs . <br /> • 3 . Allowing extra length for cul-de-sacs when a parcel <br /> is surrounded by developed property, and extra length <br /> allows full development. <br /> 4 . Not allowing cul-de-sacs of any length if there is <br /> some overriding danger factor. An example of this <br /> would be Peterson Addition. The only way in and out <br /> of that area was a road with a railroad crossing. <br /> The possibility of being cut-off from emergency <br /> vehicles for long periods of time was very great. <br /> • <br />