maximum length for a cul-de-sac and the lane is longer than 600 feet which is the maximum block length <br />between street connections. (EC references below) <br />9.6820 Cul-de-Sacs or Emergency Vehicle. Turnarounds. <br />(1) Except for streets that are less than 150 feet long and streets that will be extended in <br />the future, all streets that terminate shall be designed as a cul-de-sac bulb or an <br />emergency vehicle turnaround. <br />(2) If a street will be extended in the future, a temporary easement shall be provided and <br />an emergency vehicle turnaround shall be constructed. <br />(3) There shall be no cul-de-sacs more than 400 feet long from the centerline of the <br />intersecting street to the radius point of the cul-de-sac bulb. <br />9.6810 Block Length. Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, unless an exception <br />is granted based on one or more of the following: <br />(1) Physical conditions preclude a block length 600 feet or less. Such conditions <br />may include, but are not limited to, topography or the existence of natural resource areas <br />such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or upland wildlife habitat area, or a <br />resource on the National Wetland Inventory or under protection by state or federal law. <br />(2) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously <br />subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a block length 600 feet or <br />less, considering the potential for redevelopment. <br />(3) An existing public street or streets terminating at the boundary of the development site <br />have a block length exceeding 600 feet, or are situated such that the extension of the <br />street(s) into the development site would create a block length exceeding 600 feet. In <br />such cases, the block length shall be as close to 600 feet as practicable. <br />(4) As part of a Type II or Type III process, the developer demonstrates that a strict <br />application of the 600-foot requirement would result in a street network that is no <br />more beneficial to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic than the proposed street <br />network and that the proposed street network will accommodate necessary emergency <br />access. <br />As an aside, No. 4 above is not applicable because the developer/applicant has not shown that the <br />proposed development (with only one access point) would be more beneficial than incorporating <br />additional street connections on Oakleigh or McClure. <br />In order to maintain safety and provide the proper ROW for a low density residential road, the City would <br />need a 45 ft ROW. If the City were to create the full 45 ft ROW for all of Oakleigh Lane, the front yard <br />setbacks of 18 feet for garages and 10 feet from houses, would be out of confomity with City's R-1 <br />standards for most of the lots on Oakleigh. The cost to the City to purchase the land for the ROW would <br />be significant as well as the cost to the abutting property owners for full improvements (curbs, gutters, <br />sidewalks) at close to $14,000 per 100 ft lineal feet of property abutting Oakleigh Lane. This should not <br />be considered minimal impact, nor should it be considered safe. Also, doubling the number of ADT to <br />an already undersized road will significantly reduce safety and is not a minimal impact. <br />9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria- General <br />(12) The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, including such impacts <br />as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental quality. <br />The decrease in safety would be significant and not minimal. In order to upgrade the lane to proper low <br />volume residential standards, would not be minimal. <br />Page 8 of 20 <br />