|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair DeBenedet called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Jan
Vanderwall; Joan Felice; with Member Duane Stenlund arriving shortly after
the meeting started.
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz
2.
Public Comments
No one was present to speak.
Oaths of Office
Member James DeBenedet
administered the Oath of Office to Member Jan Vanderwall; and Member
Vanderwall administered the Oath of Office to Member James DeBenedet.
3.
Approval of November 23, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the November 23, 2010 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 3, Public Comment, Correct name of first speaker to Jim
Moncur (Gjerdingen)
·
Page 3, Public Comment, Correct title of Ms. Bloom (Stenlund)
·
Page 3, Correct name of second speaker to John Plumber
(Gjerdingen)
·
Page 5, spelling correction of “regarding” related to Dale
Street Reconstruction Design (DeBenedet)
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
on ongoing 2010 construction projects and anticipated 2011 Work Plan items
and continuation of some 2010 projects.
Those projects included bridge
work at Rice Creek; Midland Hills Pond off North Rosewood Lane by the golf
course property and an added easement to add capacity to address current
flooding issues; ongoing and pending negotiations with another adjacent land owner
owning a wetland lot; 2011 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) projects with the
City ordering the plans and specifications for the Dale Street Reconstruction
Project; preparation of feasibility studies for mill and overlay projects
during 2011 immediately following the reconstruction project.
Discussion included construction
timeline for Dale Street and preconstruction conferences to be scheduled in
the near future and including School District 623 to facilitate summer school
calendar and transportation routes.
Other projects included 2011
sewer lining to meet inflow and infiltration (I & I) requirements with
bids scheduled for opening the following morning, including a segment that
needed to be done in the winter across from Midland Hills Golf Course to
avoid turf damage, with the entire project estimated at $400,000, with some
grant funds awarded through the Metropolitan Council from the last bonding
session to reduce costs and available upon completion of a certain percentage
of the applicable work.
Discussion included types of
sewer pipe in that area identified as larger diameter clay, representing some
of the older lines installed during the 1950’ – 1960’s; and some grant money
allotted for manhole work as part of infrastructure replacement funds.
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
on the Rice Street Reconstruction Project, noting that most of the winter
construction was related to the bridge, and other work would be slow until
spring thaw.
Member Vanderwall noted he and
others shared concerns with whether the temporary drainage mitigation was
adequate once spring thaws began. Member Vanderwall expressed appreciation
for the continuing good access and winter traffic flow from his
transportation role with School District 623.
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
on the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project – Phase II, with signal work still
pending; and no plowing of Phase II due to additional work yet to be
completed; and more excess soils to be removed from site since testing showed
a higher level of contamination than originally anticipated, with a future
Change Order to facilitate that additional cost.
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
on the County Road C Streetscape Project, and the anticipated next steps
between the landscaping contractor and the City in the near future and a work
plan to bring the project up to standards by spring, with those negotiations
between the attorneys and contractor representatives at this time.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council had recently approved purchase of a vacuum street sweeper, as
per the 2011 budget, with anticipated delivery in March of 2011.
Discussion included planned use
and timing, and the types of materials during certain seasons; with Mr.
Schwartz confirming for Members that the City concentrated on areas near
higher priority water bodies, as well as ranking other areas, especially
during spring sweeping efforts.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council had approved a “No Parking” resolution for Ramsey County’s
segment of County Road B-2 from Roseville Area High School to the residential
area to further restrict after hours parking.
Discussion included the City’s
intent to work closely with Ramsey County Public Works on the final striping
and configuration of the roadway to facility drive lanes and shoulders on the
north side based on recommendation of the Traffic Safety Commission,
established by the City Council and made up of the City Manager and Public
Safety Department Heads and having a certain level of authority to make
traffic decisions unless they were referred to the City Council; and
confirmation by Mr. Schwartz that 73% of the residents signed the petition,
and that it wasn’t a controversial issue among residents; with Member
Vanderwall noting that it was also strongly supported by the School District
and bus drivers.
Further discussion included the
shared parking agreement between Roseville Area High School and Grace Church;
and the need for additional signage to alert those coming for games to make
them aware of parking locations; and possibly flyers alerting prospective
attendees and parents not familiar with the area to avoid negative impacts on
other neighborhoods.
5.
Update on Land Use and Development Review Discussions
Mr. Schwartz advised that,
following a past meeting of the PWET Commission with Community Development
Director Trudgeon, it was determined that there was limited interest in
changing the official land use and development review process at this time,
while recognizing the future need to include the Commission in zoning code updates,
erosion control modifications, or other significant redevelopment projects
that involve their charge from the City Council.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
Community Development staff was finding an increased level of activity from
prospective developers; with companies beginning to review expansion
opportunities as the economy improved; and a potential major residential
project under development of a 13-acre site near Lake Josephine and Lexington
Avenue, with the same developer considering several other housing
developments in the area; and several commercial developments currently under
discussion. Mr. Schwartz advised that when such major projects involving
significant storm water and/or traffic issues came forward formally, the
Community Development Department would seek input from the PWET Commission as
the plans were formulated and reviewed.
Discussion included a staff
update on the status of a tree inventory/preservation ordinance; preference
of Member Vanderwall to comment on roadway designs, particularly cul-de-sacs,
for consideration of school bus and snow plow maneuvering; and Member
Stenlund recognizing the tight land use review concerns, but his preference
to find a way to include collaboration of the PWET Commission on those major
projects.
Further discussion included
clarification by Chair DeBenedet that it was not the intent of the PWET
Commission to review all building permit applications, but to look at larger
developments having significant storm water, transportation, and/or environmental
issues in order to avoid repeating past errors related to such projects.
Members expressed disappointment
that the PWET Commission could not fit into the land use review process; and
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would be alert for those projects coming
forward that had significant traffic and/or storm water components.
6.
Update on Coal Tar Sealant Ban
As part of the agenda packet, Mr.
Schwartz provided additional information researched on coal tar sealants to
address follow-up questions raised by the PWET Commission, and addressing the
previously-presented League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) model ordinance
allowing for some level of coal tar pollution, but those cities having
changed their ordinances to disallow any whatsoever. Mr. Schwarz summarized
several seminars recently attended by staff and the materials provided in the
packet. Mr. Schwartz advised that the recommendation of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) at the seminars was to hold off for now on
adopting the ordinance and wait to determine what the legislative action was
this next round, anticipating that the State may propose a state-wide ban,
with Rep. Bev Scalze co-sponsoring such legislation last session. Mr.
Schwartz advised that staff had discussed the legislation with Rep. Scalze,
who’s fellow legislators opined that it didn’t have a chance of passing this
session due to business-community opposition; however, he noted that she was
willing to push it, but the LMC was not pushing it this year either, and it
would leave it up to the City whether to move forward with an ordinance
banning coal tar sealants.
Member Stenlund recommended that
the PWET Commission recommend to the City Council that they move forward; and
provided an alternative model ordinance from the City of Austin, TX. Member
Stenlund opined that there was no reason not to proceed; as it was costing
the City of Roseville and other agencies and jurisdictions money to dredge
out ponds, and there was no current way available to dispose of the materials
after dredging. Member Stenlund noted that many larger retailers (e.g. Home
Depot and Lowe’s) had already stopped selling products containing those
chemicals, and contractors and those at the home-owner levels needed to be
incentivized to stop using it. Member Stenlund further opined that the
marketplace was mature enough to take responsibility to stop using this, and no
one should be harmed with the cost for a different product being offset by
the benefits to ponds and water bodies. Member Stenlund recommended that the
City’s website be used to alert the public to the code number for coal tar
products so they were aware of and could avoid purchasing those products.
Member Stenlund noted that the Austin, TX model ordinance was simple and
similar to that adopted by the City of White Bear Lake.
Discussion included the City of
Maplewood’s ordinance passed in 2010 and integrated as part of their storm
water plan; the number of alternative products available in the marketplace;
and the need to encapsulate what is already being dredged from water bodies
without further complicating the problem.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City of White Bear Lake was working with the MPCA on a pilot project for
keeping the material on site encapsulated in a berm.
It was PWET Commission consensus
for the next step to request that staff bring back to the next meeting a
proposed draft ordinance for recommendation to the City Council; with their
preference being for those of the City of Maplewood with a suggested
technical additional, and that of the City of White Bear Lake.
7.
Undergrounding of Overhead Electric Lines Policy Discussion
Mr. Schwartz provided a portion
of the Feasibility Report recently represented by staff and ordered by the
City Council for the Dale Street Reconstruction Project, and requests from
residents to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities within the
project’s limits. Mr. Schwartz provided results to-date of an on-line survey
developed by staff to garner neighborhood opinion regarding utility
undergrounding.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
PWET Commission had been charged by the City Council to address concerns
expressed by the City Manager in how to make policy-level decisions on when
and where to underground utilities when requested by residents; what types of
projects and what types of corridors should be applicable; and limits in the
amount of surcharges applied to resident utility bills and the maximum amount
allowed. Mr. Schwartz reviewed information received from Xcel Energy based
on the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) process they followed; and upcoming
development of the Phase II portion of the Rice Street project in 2012, that
may be included in such undergrounding decisions as Ramsey County finalized
design work for that phase, even though that area had more residential
properties.
Discussion included aesthetic,
safety and repair savings and benefits, with Xcel Energy disputing that lines
were less costly to repair based on finding the location underground and
access to the lines versus overhead lines; with PWET Commissioners opining
that there has been evidence that buried lines were more reliable in heavy
winds or ice storm events or during wet and heavy snowfalls
Further discussion included the
option of special assessments to facilitate the cost of undergrounding, that
would require a revision to the City’s current Special Assessment Policy, but
requiring 100% of those being assessed to petition for such undergrounding
that would be unrealistic, leaving the option for a city-wide surcharge but
bringing into question whether the entire City could be done cost-effectively
without becoming an undue burden to utility customers and taxpayers.
Additional discussion included
the cost-sharing of the Rice Street Project with Little Canada; expiration of
the surcharge after three years based on calculations per mile and the number
of street reconstruction being done annually; and greater expense of double
feeder lines.
Member Stenlund noted the need to
develop a policy to determine what is eligible and take into consideration
positive and/or negative impacts to bike or walking paths, snow plowing; road
safety; and other eligible criteria and areas that may indicate a higher
priority for undergrounding lines, such as to enhance green space or in those
areas serving as a gateway into a recreational area.
Further discussion included
location of utility poles in relation to trails and streets to facilitate
snow removal, with many locations creating challenges in their design;
related equipment and guy wires for poles; aesthetical considerations for a
community with trees and sheltered places not co-mingling with overhead wires
and poorly trimmed trees near those wires.
Additional discussion how to
categorize streets for priority (e.g. feeder or residential streets) with the
size of the street being considered as part of the criteria; with most
Minnesota State Aid (MSA) streets classified as arterial.
Chair DeBenedet opined that if
the only criteria were that of aesthetics, the City probably couldn’t afford
to include every street in Roseville, and may want to consider collector and
minor collector streets.
Additional discussion included
the reduced frequency of power companies replacing poles creating public
safety concerns and potentials for significant disasters or emergencies from
straight line or tornado-force winds, and the need to get emergency services
through, with collector and arterial streets being of the greatest priority
in those situations given the City’s number one function for public safety;
As part of follow-up discussions,
staff was requested to provide the PWET Commission with an updated street
classification map showing three-phased power lines to see where they
co-locate; an estimate of the number of miles of streets; and traffic volumes
for the streets as part of the analysis, and whether there are existing or
proposed (as part of the Pathway Master Plan) bike/pedestrian paths along
those streets. Further information requests included any evidence on
negative or positive impacts to land values for residential and/or commercial
properties for underground versus overhead utility lines; discussion of the
5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for those streets being considered for
reconstruction during that time period; related consideration of tree
preservation and inventory, with staff advising that the City’s forestry
ordinance was currently being reviewed for revision with the Parks and
Recreation Commission taking the lead, but the PWET Commission having a role
in that review as well; and recognizing that there would still be the need
for street light poles at intersections, even with undergrounding utilities.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, under
the PUC surcharge process, they would not allow any surcharge for work done
on private services; and it was current City Policy to make residents pay for
their costs for undergrounding streetlights up to the host or existing pole
in the street to their homes.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that it
may be reasonable for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to
consider an option to finance such private undergrounding as a home
improvement, similar to a street assessment, since it should add to the value
of the property.
8.
Traffic Management Policy Discussion
Mr. Schwartz introduced another
request from the City Council for PWET Commission discussion that had come
forward as part of the public information process for the Dale Street
Reconstruction Project, that of a potential policy defining the types of
traffic calming and management tolls the City should consider. Mr. Schwartz
noted the intent was for the Commission to consider broader traffic calming
issues city-wide beyond speed tables that would establish ground rules for
various treatments. Mr. Schwartz provided additional websites for further
research by the Commission to facilitate that discussion.
Discussion included the use of
such traffic management tools by the Cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis and
personal observations on their effectiveness by individual Commissioners;
repeated requests received by City staff for electronic speed signs; use of
narrowing streets and speed bumps and other traffic calming efforts; use of
chokers on Roselawn between Roseville and Falcon Heights; and related plowing
issues versus their benefits.
Further discussion included
traffic calming impacts on bikers and pedestrians; and current snow mounds
impacting safe pedestrian access.
To facilitate further discussion,
individual Members were to review the websites provided by staff; incorporate
the street information that staff would be providing as part of the
Underground Utility Policy as it related to collector streets and traffic
numbers and those needing traffic calming mechanisms; request by Member
Felice for a presentation on Complete Streets to provide input on how to plan
for safer roads, particularly for pedestrians; and consideration of newer
technologies (such as sensors) as signal light standards rather than needing
to access a button to gain access; as well as funding impacts.
Member Stenlund advised that
MnDOT had done a lot of work to-date on context-sensitive design and
solutions, and community visualization for roads and traffic management for
aging neighborhoods and streets; and suggested that staff solicit a
presentation from them at a future meeting to facilitate this discussion; and
provided contact information for staff.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
Complete Street concept went hand in hand with traffic management.
Member Vanderwall suggested that,
as part of having MnDOT representatives present to the PWET Commission, it
should be advertised to the public as part of the PWET Commission’s
educational goals, and receive input from the public as well as those experts
in the field.
Chair DeBenedet concurred with
Member Vanderwall.
Additional discussion included
the number of streets in Roseville having speed issues; varying speed limits
along certain corridors causing additional confusion; the length of streets
causing increased speeds; and the need for more vigorous enforcement of
speeders but their awareness of those areas under more stringent patrol.
Staff was requested to provide
additional information for further discussion, including Police Department
data showing complaint levels in various neighborhoods with complaint,
ticketing, or tracking and mapping where available requiring limited staff
time, and addressed by memorandum from the Police Department identifying
those areas where they received more complaints and any guidance they could
offer to the PWET Commission for this discussion.
Mr. Schwartz advised that,
historically, staff had information on those areas of significant complaint,
which were those areas with fewer intersections, trees and having longer
stretches.
Member Felice suggested that
during Member review of the websites, there might be obvious criteria to
facilitate further discussion and consideration.
Mr. Schwartz advised that such
information on those websites, included application for traffic management,
specific criteria from their Traffic Management Policies; certain treatments;
and funding resources.
Member Vanderwall noted that the
most obvious area of concern was on County Road B-2 due to the number of
children; and referenced the Rochester website that provided a map of streets
with traffic concerns, based on complaint-driven data. Member Vanderwall
noted that for longer-term analysis, radar trailers gathered statistics as
well as reading the speeds to oncoming traffic.
In an effort to involve the
public in this discussion at the PWET Commission level, Member Vanderwall
suggested that a follow-up to tonight’s discussion be summarized as an
article for the Roseville Review, announcing further discussion would
be held at a future date, as a way to initially alert those members of the
public having any interest. Member Felice concurred, opining that it should
be of vital interest to bikers and walkers at a minimum.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that,
prior to inviting the public to a meeting the Commission should have further
discussion in order to focus their message.
Member Vanderwall suggested MnDOT
representatives could be consulted to assist the Commission on how best to
define the program.
Member Stenlund spoke in support
of moving forward to develop a policy for traffic management to be delivered
as part of future construction projects, further streamlining costs for
various types of management and simplifying the process.
Members concurred for both
traffic calming and Complete Street concepts.
Additional discussion included
philosophical differences between communities and their emphasis on
pedestrians, vehicles, or all users; the need to address long-term traffic
management, not just for certain residents petitioning and after some years
determining they were ineffective; new and promising technologies for lane
guidance such as LED reflectors; Complete Street presentations; and taking a
step forward following the Randy Neprash presentation and what traffic
calming means to Roseville.
9.
Other Future Topics Discussion
Commissioners discussed
long-range agenda items beyond the next month’s meeting agenda.
Items included modifications to
the City’s Erosion Control Ordinance; concerns of City Manager Malinen that
the current Assessment Policy was insufficient to sustain the City’s future
infrastructure funding and seeking PWET Commission review and recommendation
to the City Council; whether gas tax dollars could be used to expand or
maintain the City’s pathways and streets long-term; whether there should be
an Assessment Policy for trails/sidewalks or consider funding trail
construction based on the Pathway Master Plan.
Further discussion included
whether a policy should include moving forward on pathway projects when
opportunistic grants were available, noting the substantial loss on federal
funding for County Road B-2 Pathway assistance; and how to provide for
flexibility allowing the City to move forward when such funds become
available, by having projects ready to take advantage of them.
Discussion ensued on trail and
pathway connections expressed as a major concern in the recent Parks Master
Plan process and subsequent goals for implementation; and how to develop a
policy to address and incorporate recent zoning code increases for impervious
surfaces that would implement Best Management Practices (BMP’s) at 30% or
less and how to certify and recertify them.
Member Gjerdingen brought up
pathway snow removal policies, with Commissioner consensus being that this
was developed by and should remain part of the responsibility of the Parks
and Recreation Department, including any updating.
At the request of Member Felice,
a brief update was provided by Mr. Schwartz on the status of the Fairview
Bike Path project, with it in final plan stage ready for MnDOT review, with
two difficult easements still under negotiation.
Member Vanderwall suggested that
the Commission annually review the intersection data compiled by the Ramsey
Citizens League (RCL) and presented by Mr. Toogood and the subsequent tour of
those problem intersections.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
was continuing to work on the issue of organized trash collection, with the
RCL having approached the City several months ago; and current discussions as
to whether consideration should be given to offer an alternative rather than
mandatory approach for participation; or an alternative city-managed contract
offered through Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) with different participation
levels and prices. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was awaiting a City
Attorney opinion on State Statute and such a contract; and that it would be
part of future discussions.
A brief discussion was held on
the request by the GLWMO for someone from the PWET Commission to participate
in their upcoming stakeholder meetings as they developed and updated their
Ten Year Third Generation Water Management Plan.
Member Stenlund noted the
expiration in 2013 of the current storm water permit, and advocated Minimum
Impact Design Standards (MIDS) be adopted; with the Erosion Control Ordinance
reflecting that future direction, both pre and post construction. Member
Stenlund suggested that it made sense for the PWET Commission to know more
about the next version of the permit, and recommended several contacts for
that additional information for staff.
10.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – February 22, 2011
Topics considered for the next
meeting include a draft coal tar sealant ordinance; further information to
continue discussion on undergrounding overhead electric lines; potential
appointment of a PWET Commissioner to the Grass Lakes Water Management
Organization Water Management Plan; further discussion on a Traffic
Management Policy; communication items to include PMP and sewer lining
project bids; and discussion of the pending residential project application
if it is received by staff by then for comment by the PWET Commission prior
to the March Planning Commission meeting.
11. Adjournment
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the
meeting at approximately 8:35 p.m.
|