My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 08/21/2001
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Public Works Committee
>
2000 - 2009
>
2001
>
Minutes - Public Works Committee - 08/21/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 9:35:14 AM
Creation date
6/6/2003 11:25:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
08/21/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
west of T.H. #47. Recently there has been a lot of discussion regarding the use of private streets <br />in new developments. The use of private streets is common among townhome developments and <br />generally that is where they are used in other communities. The purpose of this case is to give <br />the Committee some background information on the use of private streets in the City of Ramsey, <br />list advantages and disadvantages for the use of private streets and to give some suggestions on <br />criteria if private streets are allowed. Following is a list of advantages and disadvantages for the <br />use o f private streets: <br /> <br />Advantages: <br />· No increase in cost to City for maintenance (snowplowing, sweeping, sealcoating, etc.) <br />· Decrease in cost to developer due to narrower width allowing more affordable housing <br />· Greater flexibility to cluster housing units <br />· Allow development when physical conditions constrain space <br /> <br />Disadvantages: <br />· No performance standards for review (width, length, etc.) <br />· Less control of required maintenance (sweeping, sealcoating, etc) <br />· More difficulty for emergency vehicle access <br />· No public access guarantees <br />· No authorized traffic enforcement <br />· Increased costs in fi~ture for storm sewer maintenance <br />· Possibility that future residents request snowplowing, sweeping, etc. from the City <br /> <br />In the subdivision examples cited the City did retain a drainage and utility easement for <br />maintaining the storm sewer and drainage ponds and swales. This makes it critical that there are <br />more stringent criteria in the City Code or the development agreement to sweep the streets at <br />least twice a year. Current City forces sweep the 140 miles of City streets twice a year. Once in <br />spring to pick up the sand that has been used over the past winter before it enters into the <br />drainage system. Once in the fall to pick up leaves and debris prior to entrance into the drainage <br />system. Several of the stated disadvantages could be neutralized if standards were developed <br />controlling design criteria. Currently, Chapter 9 of the City Code is under review and it is staff's <br />intent to include the results of the discussion in the City Code. Due to the timing of the request <br />for plat review that have occun'ed recently (Bright Keys, The Ponds, etc.) there needs to be some <br />consensus as to whether or not private streets are to be allowed and if so, what criteria would be <br />used to address the problems that are being experienced with the current townhome projects. <br />Some of the items that need to be addressed are: <br /> <br />Street Width: <br />City standard width-30' <br />Townhomes of Rum River Hills-28' <br />Sunfish Ponds~28' main road; 24' side roads <br />Mallard Ponds-24' <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/August 21, 2001 <br /> Page 7 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.