My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 02/08/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2005
>
Agenda - Council - 02/08/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 1:40:16 PM
Creation date
2/7/2005 7:58:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/08/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
436
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Past practice has been to construct a trail along one side of State, County and MSA roads <br />(Primary Route). Traffic on these iroads has increased and will continue to increase. <br />Staff has been looking at requiring trails on both sides in the interest of public safety. <br />Specific guidelines such as Average Daily Traffic count levels have not been found to <br />provide a basis for requiring the second trail. Factors that should be considered when <br />adding a second trail along a Pr/mary route should include number of adjacent residents, <br />destinations cmmected to trail, traffic counts and existing crossihg geometry. <br />Providing a trail on both sides can reduce the number of times users are required to cross <br />the highway, which translates to fewer cai' pedestrian interactions that can result in <br />accidents. A sidewalk or .path is'req{tired on one side of public streets townhouse <br />developments. Discussion during Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings <br />while reviewing these projects has focused potentially requiring a path Or trail on both <br />sides of the main Public street in the development. The justification would be the higher <br />density of units, residents and v~hicle traffic when compared to single family <br />developments. <br /> <br />Trails should be placed in trail easement~ outside the right:of-way where ever possible, <br />especially in new developments.. Trails placed in the right-of-way may need to be <br />relocated when the road is widerred. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: ' <br /> <br />Staff recommends adopting a performance specific~ation for bicycle paths and trials. The <br />stm~dard will be given to all developers as projects are submitted to the City. <br /> <br />Staff recommends requiring all new 4evelopments adjacent to Primary romes to provide <br />trails along both sides. This includes residential and commercial properties that go <br />through the platting process. The trail adjacent to the development should be in a 12 foot <br />trail easement inside the property line. Trails on property not under the developers <br />control would be placed in the right-of-way. · <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Action based on discussion. <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br />Assistant Director Public Works <br /> <br />Public Works: <br /> <br />01/18/05 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.