Laserfiche WebLink
2) <br /> <br />3) <br /> <br />specific future rehabilitation projects and bring back recommendations that would try to <br />accomplish the goal of traffic calming. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Zimmerman, Kurak, <br />Anderson, and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Consider Developers Request for Elimination of Emergency Access Gate for River <br />Pines 4"' Addition <br />The Public Works Committee recommended that the requirement to install the emergency <br />access gate for River Pines 4th Addition be eliminated as a condition for the subdivision. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Kurak, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, to ratify the <br />recolmnendation of the Public Works Committee. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Hendriksen stated that there was a great deal of <br />opposition to the development because it would create 1,500 additional trips per day and <br />the adjoining neighborhood objected to that traffic going through their neighborhood to <br />access C.R. #5. The Council at that time chose to mitigate that traffic impact by <br />installing the emergency access gate. Now after some number of years, that protection is <br />going to be denied. He stated that it would have been easy to reposition a lot and create a <br />park instead of the emergency access gate, but that was voted down. The neighbors to the <br />west that fought for the protection will ultimately receive nothing. Councilmember <br />Zimmerman stated that it was bad business to go back on the City's word. He stated that <br />residents will question why they should come before the Council if the Council is going <br />to do what they want to do. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Kurak, and Anderson. <br />Voting No: Councilmembers Hendriksen and Zimmerman. <br /> <br />Consider Interim Private Street Policy <br /> <br />The Public Works Committee recommended that the City Council adopt the interim <br />private street policy to be used as a general guideline during the rewrite of Chapter 9. <br /> <br />City Engineer Olson stated that since the Public Works meeting, the policy had been used <br />in the development of site plans for the Evergreen Point Townhomes, Birch Hill Lodges, <br />The Ponds, Eighty Seven LLC, and ACCAP. The policy has largely been successful <br />except for length criteria. Staff recommended the maximum length of a private street <br />with a cul-de-sac be changed from 300 feet to 600 feet (the same length as a public cul- <br />de-sac). <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that she could agree with needing a longer private street in <br />certain circumstances, and she does not have a problem with what staff presented since <br />the longer drive had another way out of the development, but she did have concerns with <br />allowing 600 feet to a dead end. <br /> <br />City Council/March 12, 2002 <br /> Page 18 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />