Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.b. Private Streets EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Work Session: April 11, 2016 AGENDA ITEM: Private Streets AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director, Patrick Wrase, City Engineer AGENDA NO. 2.b. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Policy, October 20, 2015 Work Session Packet and Minutes, City Attorney Information APPROVED BY: ddj RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Final Direction SUMMARY For some time, the Council has discussed whether under certain circumstances it would be acceptable to take over private roads. The discussion was precipitated by the Westport neighborhood which is a single family development carved out of the original small lot, detached townhouse Crosscroft neighborhood. Upon discussion with the Council, staff provided a draft policy suggesting when the City would consider taking over private roads as public. The intent is to identify under what circumstances the City would consider taking over the roads, without adversely subjecting the public to significant costs associated with the transfer. As noted previously, staff has received requests on and off over the years about taking over private roads and has rebuffed the requests. Generally these requests are to release the HOA from the costs associated with long term maintenance and repair of the private streets. A policy would be clearer and provide the basis for future decision making. In October, the City Council reviewed the draft policy. There was no consensus about whether to adopt the policy or not. The attached draft policy remains the same as previously proposed. The primary issues are: • Adequate right of way must be dedicated to the City of Rosemount • The design, construction, and maintenance of the road must be confirmed to be consistent with City standards • Appropriate access for emergency vehicles is available • Road design meets safety standards • Access from public roads; no traversing over other private roads • Any costs associated with the meeting requirements must be borne by the neighborhood including legal, engineering and testing Staff has since met with representative of the Westport neighborhood and explained the proposed policy. Under the standards proposed by staff, the Westport neighborhood private streets would not be eligible for city take over as the private road is not continuous, and requires traversing a separately owned private road to maintain looped circulation. 2 However, should the Council wish to consider accepting portions of Crosscliffe Path and Crosscroft Place and all of Crossmoor Avenue, there are numerous issues that must be addressed. In discussing this with the HOA representative, he indicated a preference in understanding the Council’s position prior to expending resources to address the criteria for acceptance of private roads by the City. The City would need to assess the road to ensure it has been properly maintained and constructed. If any upgrades would be required to bring it into compliance with the City standards, that cost would be borne by the benefiting homeowners. Similarly, each homeowner would be required to dedicate their interest in the outlot where the current private road is located, along with dedicating additional right of way to bring the total right of way consistent with ordinance criteria. Based upon the County GIS system it appears that each homeowner in the plat owns an interest in the road, Outlots A & B. The neighborhood should verify this information by providing the HOA documentation to the City Attorney, if the Council decides to take over the road. The City Attorney has itemized the process to some extent necessary for dedication. Each homeowner would need to participate or the City would not have full ownership rights. Given that, staff would recommend the City Attorney would coordinate the dedication process and review all deeds to ensure the city’s interests are addressed. It is recommended a date certain be determined by which all homeowners would need to submit their deeds. Should that date be missed, the city would not take over the road. If all deeds from the 35 homeowners are received and in order, the City Attorney would record them all. It doesn’t make sense to record some of the deeds until every property owners is represented. The City should also expect to grant a PUD amendment to recognize the newly created front yard setbacks, caused by the right of way dedication. Not taking action would make the properties non-conforming which may create title problems for individual owners. The discussion of whether to accept private streets under certain circumstances has been discussed for over a year. While the issue centers on the Westport neighborhood, the decision should be based upon a policy that does not negatively impact the community while benefiting a few. Staff believes the policy provides good direction and reasonable criteria for evaluation of whether the City would take over a private street. Under the current policy, the Westport neighborhood would not qualify for consideration. Based upon all prior discussion, it would be beneficial for the neighborhood and staff if the Council could settle the discussion. There doesn’t appear to be any technical information lacking; it is really more of a policy decision. RECOMMENDATION Provide staff direction: Adopt policy as written Adopt policy with modifications Do not approve a policy CITY OF ROSEMOUNT POLICY RELATING TO ACCEPTING PRIVATE STREETS INTO CITY STREET SYSTEM Purpose The City Council of the City of Rosemount (City) desires to establish its position on considering the acceptance of existing private streets into the City street system. Background The City has several miles of privately owned streets for which the City provides no maintenance services. Periodically, the private street owners, generally homeowner’s associations (HOAs), inquire about the possibility of having the City assume ownership and ongoing maintenance of their private streets. This policy defines the conditions under which the City Council will consider accepting private streets into the City system. Policy 1. To be considered for acceptance by the City as a Public street, the private street must meet the following minimum requirements: a) Basic Requirements a) Accepting the streets must serve a public purpose. b) The private street must be accessible from an adjoining public street. c) The private street must be capable of allowing for City maintenance activities to occur without the necessity of operating maintenance equipment on other private streets or in non-standard methods, such as having to back up a plow truck to avoid traveling on to a private street d) Each adjacent dwelling unit must be on its own legal parcel or have a separate property identification number (PIN). e) The private street was approved as part of the City subdivision approval process. Driveways or common drives will not be considered as private streets. f) The minimum right-of-way required to be established and dedicated to the City is 60 feet centered over the street g) Structure setback must meet the ordinance required setbacks; the City will not grant variances to properties that do not meet the ordinance requirements. In traditional single family districts the setback is 30 feet from the right of way line. b) Design Requirements a) The private street must have a minimum width of 32 feet in single family residential areas and 28 feet in multifamily areas b) The private street must be constructed with pavement and subgrade sections equivalent to the current city design standard, that being 2” bituminous wear, 2” bituminous base, 8” of Class 5 gravel base and 2 feet minimum of granular material. c) The pavement condition of the private street must have a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 75 or greater as determined by the City Engineer d) Sidewalks must be in place according to city standard. e) Street lighting must be in place at 300’ intervals per city standard f) Private storm sewer serving the public street, including ponds will need to be in compliance with city standards. 2. An agreement, provided by the City and in the City’s format, must be approved by the majority percentage specified in homeowner’s association documents to give public ownership or easement, The agreement must include all private streets which are the responsibility of an HOA. A copy of the agreement is attached hereto and made a part of this policy. 3. Upon receipt of the agreement, the City will perform an Basic Engineering Study on the private streets, examining the private street under consideration for conformance with the policy stated minimum requirements, and identifying condition, maintenance, and safety issues. The cost of the Basic Engineering Study shall be the responsibility if the HOA. 4. If the Basic Engineering Study indicates that the Private streets cannot meet the Basic requirements due to ROW or setback issues, the analysis will be suspended and the private street will be deemed not suitable for acceptance. 5. If the Basic Engineering Study indicates that the private streets meet all of the basic requirements, a Design Engineering Study will proceed to examine the details of the existing design. This will include a review of the original and as-build construction documents, site surveying and measurements and subsurface geotechnical investigations, and pavement condition analysis as required by the City Engineer. The cost of the Basic Engineering Study shall be the responsibility if the HOA 6. If the Design Engineering Study indicates that the Private streets meet all of the design requirements the private street can be considered for Final acceptance. 7. If the Design Engineering Study indicates that the private street cannot meet the design requirements, the private street will require reconstruction prior to acceptance. The street can be considered for Preliminary acceptance at this time. 8. At the time of preliminary acceptance of the private str eet into the City system, the type of reconstruction project to be administered shall be determined as follow: a. For Streets requiring reconstruction due to PCI less than 75 but meeting all other Design Requirements, a) The street must be milled and overlayed according to the specification of the City Engineer b) The Homeowners pay 100% of the total cost of the mill and overlay project; b. For Streets requiring reconstruction due to inadequate street width or pavement and subgrade section not equivalent or greater than the city standards or any other upgrades necessary to meet city design standards, a) The street must be completely reconstructed on order to achieve all required City Design Requirements b) The Homeowners pay 100% of the total Reconstruction project cost 9. The HOA must, by the vote as specified in the HOA documents, grant an easement or fee title for the right-of-way without cost to the City, free and clear of any encumbrances. 10. When accepting a private street as a public street, no special consideration for maintenance ( i.e. snow removal), will be given priority over public street maintenance policies and procedures. 11. The City Council' s final action to accept a private street as a public street shall be a combined action including: a) Accepting the easements or right of way dedication b) Adopting the assessments for street and utility reconstruction. c) Accepting the street. d) Awarding a contract for street and utility reconstruction. 12. The final action will occur after all required public hearings for assessments with notification to property owners. G:\Streets\Private Streets\r2 20150908 WS Private Streets.docx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council Special Work Session October 20, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: Private Streets – Review Draft Policy AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Patrick Wrase, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer AGENDA NO. 2.c. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Private Streets Policy, Private Streets Map APPROVED BY: ddj RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion of the Draft Private Streets Policy ISSUE The Council was recently approached by a neighborhood asking that the City take over their private street, making it public. This is not the first time staff has been approached on this topic. At the Council Work Session on April 21, 2015, staff told the Council we would come forward with a potential policy regarding public acceptance of private streets. Residents of developments constructed with private streets often request that the streets be incorporated in to the city street system due to costs associated with routine maintenance, condition maintenance and reconstruction purposes. BACKGROUND The City contains several neighborhoods that were developed around the concept of private streets. The reasons for a developer to request that a neighborhood be designed with private streets vary but are commonly due to the desire for a higher density development to maximize the number of housing units and to establish an alternate aesthetic feel to the neighborhood. Typically the developments have narrow street widths and reduced building setbacks with street curves and other features less conducive to motorized vehicles and accommodating of pedestrian uses. In the development of private street subdivisions, accommodations are not made for the standardization of minimum design details and for all forms of maintenance activities. Private streets are often designed with horizontal curves that are not capable of meeting regulatory guidance for safe design sight distances necessary to achieve the minimum regulatory speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Compacted right of way ROW) widths do not allow for enough clearance for city trucks, mainly for snowplows to make their routes and the space available for the storage of plowed snow is inadequate, requiring snow to be hauled away from the street or placed on private property. The geometrics of private streets may require that light trucks must be used for snowplowing activities in order to traverse the narrow roadways and tight turning radii. The compacted right of ways require that less horizontal separation is available between underground utilities, adding to difficulty and cost when these utilities are inevitably excavated to perform maintenance and repair. Also of concern when discussing private streets are the long term maintenance requirements necessary to keep the streets at an acceptable condition level. Cities typically have very well defined pavement thickness and subgrade design standards, and regimented maintenance programs. These standards in turn allow cities to maintain public streets in a very efficient manner at a very low cost per mile of public street. As 2 an example, planned out proactive street maintenance activities are estimated to reduce the total investment required over equal analysis periods by up to 30%. When reviewing a request, cities must weigh the public benefit of accepting the private road versus the financial impact of taking over the road. Staff does not want to burden the community with additional infrastructure costs until there is surety that the accepted” road will meet the City defined construction and maintenance standards. When considering the request by residents of private street subdivisions to take ownership of private streets, the following concerns must be adequately addressed: 1) ROW has not been dedicated during the platting process, will have to re-plat the property and establish city ROW. 2) Inadequate ROW and resultant boulevard area for street maintenance activities 3) Inadequate ROW area for utility installation and maintenance 4) Uncertainty of roadway history a. Design of pavement sections (is the street section adequate) b. Inspection/Quality Control (if design is adequate, was the roadway built as designed) c. Maintenance history (proactive maintenance is the key to lowest cost lifecycle) 5) Inadequate design, construction and maintenance will require corrective work that will tend to increase the cost of street system pavement management expenses. 6) Inadequate access area for emergency vehicles 7) Inadequate design for safety purposes a. Sight distance for stopping b. Design speed for curvature likely not meeting 30mph statutory speed limit 8) Connectivity of private streets from the public ROW, i.e., have to drive through other private streets to access or maintain a newly established public ROW 9) Private street residents will be subject to the city’s reconstruction and assessment policy and to city decisions when streets are required to have maintenance and reconstruction activities which may be disruptive. From the perspective of a private street resident, the benefits to be realized if a private street can be incorporated into the city system include: 1) Uniform and consistent maintenance activities. 2) Sustainable pavement condition and related aesthetics to City of Rosemount standards. 3) Residents will be able to take advantage of government bonding to fund street improvements. 4) Property tax payments by private street residents will be used to fund street maintenance. 5) Potential reduction in Home Owners Associations fees and future reduction in financial liability associated with capital expenditures. Community Development staff conducted a survey of area communities regarding their policies related to private streets. Of the eight communities that responded, three do not accept private streets, one is developing a policy, two will accept private streets meeting standard ROW and setback requirements but only after complete reconstruction to current city standards and two will accept private streets meeting standard ROW and setback requirements and meeting pavement condition requirements that could include the possibility of complete reconstruction should the pavement condition warrant. The cities that allow for turnover to the city require that 100% of the associated costs to the point of acceptance by the city are the responsibility of the homeowners. The Plymouth, Minnesota policy is unique in that it will accept a private street only if in need of reconstruction and will then take on the reconstruction project 3 and assess the property owners 70% resident with 30% of the costs coming from the city general fund. Recently, requests have been made by Rosemount residents who are served by private streets for these streets to be assimilated into the city street system. While not every street will be capable of addressing minimum standards, some will, and a framework can be established such that private streets exhibiting minimum standards could be incorporated into the city street system. The criteria and process that have been developed are in draft format and can be finalized should the Council wish to proceed with policy adoption. The draft policy as currently written would allow for private streets meeting various conditions to be dedicated to the city for future maintenance responsibility. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT POLICY RELATING TO ACCEPTING PRIVATE STREETS INTO CITY STREET SYSTEM Purpose The City Council of the City of Rosemount (City) desires to establish its position on considering the acceptance of existing private streets into the City street system. Background The City has several miles of privately owned streets for which the City provides no maintenance services. Periodically, the private street owners, generally homeowner’s associations (HOAs), inquire about the possibility of having the City assume ownership and ongoing maintenance of their private streets. This policy defines the conditions under which the City Council will consider accepting private streets into the City system. Policy 1. To be considered for acceptance by the City as a Public street, the private street must meet the following minimum requirements: a) Basic Requirements a) Accepting the streets must serve a public purpose. b) The private street must be accessible from an adjoining public street. c) The private street must be capable of allowing for City maintenance activities to occur without the necessity of operating maintenance equipment on other private streets or in non-standard methods, such as having to back up a plow truck to avoid traveling on to a private street d) Each adjacent dwelling unit must be on its own legal parcel or have a separate property identification number (PIN). e) The private street was approved as part of the City subdivision approval process. Driveways or common drives will not be considered as private streets. f) The minimum right-of-way required to be established and dedicated to the City is 60 feet centered over the street g) Structure setback must meet the ordinance required setbacks; the City will not grant variances to properties that do not meet the ordinance requirements. In traditional single family districts the setback is 30 feet from the right of way line. b) Design Requirements a) The private street must have a minimum width of 32 feet in single family residential areas and 28 feet in multifamily areas b) The private street must be constructed with pavement and subgrade sections equivalent to the current city design standard, that being 2” bituminous wear, 2” bituminous base, 6” of Class 5 gravel base and 2 feet minimum of granular material. c) The pavement condition of the private street must have a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 75 or greater as determined by the City Engineer d) Sidewalks must be in place according to city standard. e) Street lighting must be in place at 300’ intervals per city standard f) Private storm sewer serving the public street, including ponds will need to be in compliance with city stormwater standards. 2. An agreement, provided by the City and in the City’s format, must be approved by the majority percentage specified in homeowner’s association documents to give public ownership or easement. The agreement must include all private streets which are the responsibility of an HOA. A copy of the agreement is attached hereto and made a part of this policy. 3. Upon receipt of the agreement, the City will perform an Basic Engineering Study on the private streets, examining the private street under consideration for conformance with the policy stated minimum requirements, and identifying condition, maintenance, and safety issues. The cost of the Basic Engineering Study shall be the responsibility if the HOA. 4. If the Basic Engineering Study indicates that the Private streets cannot meet the Basic requirements due to ROW or setback issues, the analysis will be suspended and the private street will be deemed not suitable for acceptance. 5. If the Basic Engineering Study indicates that the private streets meet all of the basic requirements, a Design Engineering Study will proceed to examine the details of the existing design. This will include a review of the original and as-built construction documents, site surveying and measurements and subsurface geotechnical investigations, and pavement condition analysis as required by the City Engineer. The cost of the Design Engineering Study shall be the responsibility if the HOA 6. If the Design Engineering Study indicates that the Private streets meet all of the design requirements the private street can be considered for Final Acceptance. 7. If the Design Engineering Study indicates that the private street cannot meet the design requirements, the private street will require reconstruction prior to acceptance. The street can be considered for Preliminary Acceptance at this time. 8. At the time of Preliminary Acceptance of the private street into the City system, the type of reconstruction project to be administered shall be determined as follow: a. For Streets requiring mill and overlay maintenance due to PCI less than 75 but meeting all other Design Requirements, a) The street must be milled and overlayed according to the specification of the City Engineer b) The Homeowners pay 100% of the total cost of the mill and overlay project; b. For Streets requiring reconstruction due to inadequate street width or pavement and subgrade section not equivalent or greater than the city standards, PCI less than 35, or any other upgrades necessary to meet city design standards, a) The street must be completely reconstructed on order to achieve all required City Design Requirements b) The Homeowners pay 100% of the total Reconstruction project cost 9. The HOA must, by the vote as specified in the HOA documents, grant an easement or fee title for the right-of-way without cost to the City, free and clear of any encumbrances. 10. When accepting a private street as a public street, no special consideration for maintenance (i.e. snow removal), will be given priority over public street maintenance policies and procedures. 11. The City Council's final action to accept a private street as a public street shall be a combined action including: a) Accepting the easements or right of way dedication b) Adopting the assessments for street and utility reconstruction. c) Accepting the street. d) Awarding a contract for street and utility reconstruction. 12. The final action will occur after all required public hearings for assessments with notification to property owners. O'LEARY'SPOND WENNSMAN POND ERICKSON POND WACHTERLAKE VALLEYOAKPOND SHANNONPOND HAWKINSPOND COPPER POND SCHWARZPOND MARE POND BIRGERPOND KEEGANLAKE MAREPOND KEEGANLAKE MCMENOMYPOND WILDELAKE KIRSCHNERMARSH GERONOMIE POND MISSISSI P P IRIVE M e a d o w s P ark CentralPark InnisfreeParkSpringLakePark(Dakota County) BirchPark B lomfildPr ClaretPark EricksonParkCarrollsWoodsPark RMSPark Old City Hall Park Charlie's Park JayceePark LionsPark ShannonPark Winds Park w iPudle K idr P arkB iscayne P ark ConnemaraPark Schwarz Pond Park w iPudle DallaraPark Innisfree Park Schwarz Pond Park FamilyResCtr ChippendalePark CamfieldPark BrockwayPark BrockwayPark AmesSoccerComplex UMoreBallPark Prestwick PlacePark FlintHillsAthletic Complex WiklundPreserve STH 3 160TH ST W (CSAH 46) B IS C AY N E A V E CSAH 38)MCANDREWS RD W 160TH ST E (CSAH 46) C L A Y T O N A V E ( U S 5 2 ) O D D 145TH ST W 145TH ST E (CSAH 42) E V E RM O O PKWY 155TH ST W DODDBLVD 1 5 1 S T S T W B L A IN E A V E ( C S A H 7 1 ) N 160TH ST W (CSAH 46) R I C H V A L L E Y B L V D THSTW ( CSAH42 ) D I A M O N D P A T H ( C R 3 3 ) COURTHOUSE BLVD S ( STH 55) E M A R DODD BLVD 160TH ST E (CR 48) B IS C A Y N E A V E T R L D I A M O N D PA T H ( C S A H 3 3 ) TRL ( STH3 )150 140TH ST E D O D D B LV D A C H IP P E N D A L E A V E S O B E T T L DODDBLVD S R O B E R T T R L ( S T H 3 ) MARA STH3 ) B L A IN E A V E A K R O N A V E ( C R 7 3 ) B L U S 5 2 / S T H 5 5 160TH ST W (CSAH 46) B A C A R D I A V E EVERMOOR 145TH ST E (CSAH 42) AUTUMN BONAIRE PATH W 145TH ST W S H A N N O N 160TH ST E (CSAH 46) P ATH 142ND STEAUBURNAVE A K R O N A V E ( C R 7 3 ) 145TH ST E (CSAH 42) SROBERTTR TRL C L A Y T O N A V E ( U S 5 2 ) P K W Y CONNEMARA COURTHOUSE BLVD ( STH 55) 145TH ST W SH A N N O N P KWY 125TH CT CON A K R O N A V E 145TH ST W (CSAH 42) 160TH ST E BLOOMFELDPATH TRL 140TH ST E BONAIRE PATH E CONN SROBERT 150TH ST W (CSAH 42) B IS C A Y N E A V E PKWY p ØA@ G±WX A@ SÈ GÑWX G¸WX GªWX G¥WX p ØA@ G±WX G±WX A@ p A@ O'LEARY'SPOND WENNSMAN POND ERICKSON POND WACHTERLAKE VALLEYOAKPOND SHANNONPOND HAWKINSPOND COPPER POND SCHWARZPOND MARE POND BIRGERPOND KEEGANLAKE MAREPOND KEEGANLAKE MCMENOMYPOND WILDELAKE KIRSCHNERMARSH GERONOMIE POND MISSISSI P P IRIVE M e a d o w s P ark CentralPark InnisfreeParkSpringLakePark(Dakota County) BirchPark B lomfildPr ClaretPark EricksonParkCarrollsWoodsPark RMSPark Old City Hall Park Charlie's Park JayceePark LionsPark ShannonPark Winds Park w iPudle K idr P arkB iscayne P ark ConnemaraPark Schwarz Pond Park w iPudle DallaraPark Innisfree Park Schwarz Pond Park FamilyResCtr ChippendalePark CamfieldPark BrockwayPark BrockwayPark Ames SoccerComplex UMore BallPark PrestwickPlacePark FlintHillsAthleticComplex WiklundPreserve STH 3 160TH ST W (CSAH 46) B IS C AY N E A V E CSAH 38)MCANDREWS RD W 160TH ST E (CSAH 46) C L A Y T O N A V E ( U S 5 2 ) O D D 145TH ST W 145TH ST E (CSAH 42) E V E RM O O PKWY 155TH ST W DODDBLVD 1 5 1 S T S T W B L A IN E A V E ( C S A H 7 1 ) N 160TH ST W (CSAH 46) R I C H V A L L E Y B L V D THSTW ( CSAH42 ) D I A M O N D P A T H ( C R 3 3 ) COURTHOUSE BLVDS ( STH 55) E M A R DODD BLVD 160TH ST E (CR 48) B IS C A Y N E A V E T R L D I A M O N D PA T H ( C S A H 3 3 ) TRL ( STH3 )150 140TH ST E D O D D B LV D A C H IP P E N D A L E A V E S O B E T T L DODDBLVD S R O B E R T T R L ( S T H 3 ) MARA STH3 ) B L A IN E A V E A K R O N A V E ( C R 7 3 ) B L U S 5 2 / S T H 5 5 160TH ST W (CSAH 46) B A C A R D I A V E EVERMOOR 145TH ST E (CSAH 42) AUTUMN BONAIRE PATH W 145TH ST W S H A N N O N 160TH ST E (CSAH 46) P ATH 142ND STEAUBURNAVE A K R O N A V E ( C R 7 3 ) 145TH ST E (CSAH 42) SROBERTTR TRL C L A Y T O N A V E ( U S 5 2 ) P K W Y CONNEMARA COURTHOUSE BLVD ( STH 55) 145TH ST W SH A N N O N P KWY 125TH CT CON A K R O N A V E 145TH ST W (CSAH 42) 160TH ST E BLOOMFELDPATH TRL 140TH ST E BONAIRE PATH E CONN SROBERT 150TH ST W (CSAH 42) B IS C A Y N E A V E PKWY p ØA@ G±WX A@ SÈ GÑWX G¸WX GªWX G¥WX p ØA@ G±WX G±WX A@ p A@ P a th : T :\ G IS \ C ity \ M ap s \ D e pa rtm en tal M a ps \ P u blic _ W ork s \ P riv ate \ P riva te S tre ets . m x Rosemount Street Map 3,000 01,500FeetPrivateStreets (10.63 Miles) TextText Text July 2015 EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2015 2.C. Private Streets – Review Draft Policy Public Works Director Wrase gave a summary of the topic. The draft policy was written in response to a request by Council and lays out the recommended standards necessary to be able to make a private street into a public street. Mr. Wrase outlined a number of concerns with the construction of private streets the City needs to consider when considering requests by residents to make their streets public. He outlined a few benefits that might be perceived by residents and what a few neighboring communities have done. Based on the draft policy Mr. Wrase and Community Development Director Lindquist feel there are few, if any, streets that would qualify to be made into public streets. Council members and staff discussed various neighborhoods, whether the policy has merit, and whether private roads should be allowed during development. Council members Weisensel, DeBettignies, and Nelson are not in favor of the policy. Council member Demuth is in favor of the policy, to support Ms. Lindquist when she gets calls on the subject. Mayor Droste would like more information. 477884v1 MDT RS215-4 Kennedy Mary D. Tietjen 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 & Graven (612) 337-9277 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax mtietjen@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com C H A R T E R E D MEMORANDUM To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director From: Mary Tietjen, city attorney Re: Conveyance of Private Streets Date: April 7, 2016 You asked for a brief overview of the process for conveyance of private streets to the City. The streets in the Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd Addition are identified as Outlot B on the plat. The current assumption is that each individual property owner owns a portion of Outlot B. Based on this assumption: ● City will need to determine how much area is needed for public streets and whether it will need additional land beyond what is currently designated as Outlot B; City may need to conduct a survey of the properties in order to determine whether the street and any utilities meet City specifications; ● All property owners will need to agree to this in order to make it work; ● Each property owner would need to convey its portion of Outlot B to the City, either by a deed (preferable) to the City or conveyance of an easement for right-of-way purposes; ● City attorney would draft deeds/easements as appropriate, along with consents/releases; ● Each property owner would need to sign off on deed/easement and obtain either a release (in the case of a deed) or a consent (in the case of an easement) from the mortgage holder on the property prior to conveyance; this process can often take several months and can be costly to the homeowner – ranging from $500 to $2,000 (some local banks may not charge); ● City Council then accepts deeds/easements to the property and City records documents; ● City assumes responsibility for streets. ** If the Homeowner’s Association solely owns Outlot B – without the individual lot owners having an interest – the conveyance process is simplified.