|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, February 22, 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
Members
Absent: Member Duane Stenlund
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra
Bloom
2.
Public Comments
No one was present to speak at
this time.
3.
Approval of January 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the January 22, 2011 meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 9?, change “land” to “lane” (Vanderwall)
Staff Note:
Not sure if that was reference, but I think they
were talking about lane management at that point – LED reflectors?
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
5.
Annual Recycling Report / Eureka Recycling
Tim Pratt, City of Roseville
Recycling Coordinator
Eureka Recycling
Representatives: Christopher Goodwin, Eureka Director Customer Relations
& Education and Megan Kuhl-Stennes, Eureka Zero Waste Education Manager
The Fifth Annual Recycling Report
was presented to the PWET Commission, with various components of the program
highlighted and noting that the revenue sharing portion of the contract was
showing some recovery.
Discussion with members included
tetrapack and aseptic packaging market trends; participation and frequency
rates; outreach and educational opportunities, including the success of
National Night Out outreach; confusion with holiday collection schedules;
Styrofoam and plastic wrapping materials; zero waste events in Roseville
during 2010 and the successful diversion rates at those events; comparisons
of Roseville with other communities and their collection rates and
demographics; addition of additional materials in 2011 (pizza boxes); quality
of end market materials; organic and compostable materials; the need for
improved accuracy in labeling for consumers; special pick up services for
handicapped or elderly individuals (increasing from 88 to 104 in 2010); and
other outreach materials for multi-family complexes and single-family
homeowners.
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, Mr. Pratt briefly reviewed revenue sharing rates and a comparable
analysis over the last five (5) years.
6.
Forestry Ordinance
Mr. Schwartz advised that part of
the requirements of the Emerald Ash Borer preparedness grant received by the
City in 2010, was updating the City’s forestry ordinance to include Emerald
ahs Borer (EAB) and other forest pests. Mr. Schwartz advised that the Parks
and Recreation Department was charged with forestry issues and their Advisory
Commission had drafted initial changes and asked that the PWET Commission
review it for their feedback; prior to the revised draft going before the
City Council for public hearing and future adoption.
The following input was discussed
among Members and staff.
Page 2
Discussion included rationale for
removal of “diseased tree” language from the Purpose Statement 706.01, Section
D through addition of “pests;” and whether to keep it in (Lines 46-47);
whether to clarify the edge of street as at the “pavement,” or at the
“property line” (Line 39); distinctions for easements and easement
rights-of-way (Line 49) as defined in City Code and based on their location
and how they were addressed in the subdivision and Erosion Control
Ordinances; and common terminology for the understanding of citizens versus
the terminology based on the legal power placed on the city-owned and/or private
property;.
Page 3
Discussion included differences
in distinguishing between shrubs and trees (also page 5 and 11) and the need
for consistency and further definition; various types of hazards to the
public and whether on private or public property, and whether those hazards
impacted the public’s health and safety; plantings that could block
informational signs (stop and speed signs) as well as impacting visibility
around corners and the need to state that the jurisdiction can address those
plantings to ensure the public’s safety (Page 4, Section 706.07, Lines 53-54,
as well as page 6); need to define who shall enforce those issues, noting an
additional reference later in the ordinance when a threat or hazard was
determined (Page 3, Line 41-42) and how that enforcement is coordinated at
the staff level; need to verify the references in this ordinance to those
references to other ordinances (Page 4) with staff’s intent to do so when the
final formatting is ready; the Street Tree Master Plan now in place with the
Parks and Recreation Commission currently updating it to include a diversity
of trees based on types of soil and other area considerations and including
recommendations for certain plantings in certain areas to develop patterns
and diversity and species section by section; and completion of a tree
audit.
Members asked that staff provide
a copy of that Master plan for their reference, if not accessible to them on
the City’s website.
Page 5
Discussion included adding
language for exceptions when directed by the City Forester (Lines 13-27);
consider possible title change (Section D, Line 13) other than “Abuse or
Mutilization” or removal of #2 since it was already addressed under Section
E, Street Tree Permits; distinction between pruning and professional trimming
and the need to keep them in both sections; future revisions of the ordinance
when more than one reference is included and the potential for error in
revising both of those references; classification as “debris” for branches no
longer attached to the tree or shrub; City responses in the case of a storm
beyond that of citizens and how to determine responsibilities; additional
references to safety concerns addressed (Page 12); and without putting the
City in a liability situation by defining a response date certain; and
putting an onus on homeowners to keep trees and shrubs on their private
property trimmed to avoid interference on public pathways.
Page 6
Discussion included noting that
the vision triangle was addressed (Line 7, in addition to Page 4, Section
706); vision triangles addressed in much detail in the City’s new Zoning
Code; how and where citizens can find information referenced (Lines 26-29)
and the need for the City’s website to provide links to those references and
how citizens can identify various problems; and including a two foot (2’)
horizontal buffers as well as vertical buffers (Line 46) from the edge of a
sidewalk; and abatement procedures for private property owners not in
compliance (Page 12).
Page 7
Discussion included making the
ordinance more generic rather than proscriptive regarding stockpiling logs
(Line 7); language to address shade tree pests, those now known or those
identified as pests in the future; and reporting of shade tree pests (Lines
24-26).
Page 8
Discussion included the need for
further review of the timing for appeal of notices (Line 10) and the need to
clarify as how and when notice is serves and allowing for sufficient response
time within twenty (20) days as referenced immediately prior to that; consistency
and clarification for calendar days (Section D) for removal; and the legality
of the notice process and the need to make language revisions following
further review by staff and the City Attorney.
Page 11
Discussion included noting that
the City could make emergency declarations and definitions of pests, as well
as eminent danger situations or hazards for pests or tree branches, etc.
Member Vanderwall suggested that
individual members submit additional comments in writing to staff for further
review.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 8:00
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:05 p.m.
9.
Organized Waste Update
Mr. Schwartz provided a brief
update on discussions currently occurring in the City of Maplewood regarding
organized solid waste collection; and noted an upcoming meeting in Maplewood
on March 28, 2011 for those PWET Commissioners interested in attending as
Roseville continues its review of refuse collection.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed his initial
discussions with the City Attorney and requirements for the City to follow
statutory processes if it was determined to provide non-mandatory collection
options and not a fully-organized collection service. Mr. Schwartz suggested
that the Commission may wish to appoint a subcommittee, including other
residents, for a more fine-tuned review.
Member Vanderwall expressed his
interest in current vendors being able to retain their current level of
business in a more defined area to keep them still operating in any new
system.
Mr. Schwartz advised that Mr.
Pratt had continued to stay in touch with current vendors; and advised that
the City Manager had suggested the benefit of having the City of Little
Canada attend an upcoming PWET Commission meeting to review the process they
used when moving toward organized collection. Mr. Schwartz noted, however,
that state statute has changed since their organized collection was
implemented.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that,
prior to proceeding with a focus group as previously discussed by Members, more
defined information was needed on how that group would operate.
Member Vanderwall noted that the
only people showing up at PWET Commission meetings were haulers, and
suggested a separate hauler focus group from a user focus group; to ensure
that the full story was heard from all parties, not a vocal minority.
Chair DeBenedet reviewed topics
for the March meeting, including:
·
Traffic management policy
·
Undergrounding ordinance
·
Coal Tar Ban ordinance
·
Erosion Control (time-sensitive)
·
Organized Waste Update with Joel Hansen
Chair DeBenedet asked that when
staff could arrange this meeting with Mr. Hansen, that both he and Mr. Pratt
attend to allow a m ore comprehensive discussion on the same evening. Chair
DeBenedet also suggested that staff make specific outreach to a
representative of the Roseville Concerned Citizens (RCL) and the League of
Women Voters (LWV).
Public Comment
Michael Bay, Ace Solid Waste
As a refuse hauler, Mr. Bay
reviewed his perspective of some of the pros and cons from his experience with
other cities undertaking this same study for organized collection. Mr. Bay
suggested that this topic came forward whenever there was an economic
downturn or when City government budgets were tightened and citizens were
looking for someone to blame. Mr. Bay opined that garbage trucks were not
the cause of road wear and tear, but that other local truck traffic was also
to blame, with the main culprit in MN being that of the extreme temperature
variations. Mr. Bay further opined that as a vendor his company worked in a
free market society and the competition was good for residents and provided
them with a choice, rather than relying on involvement from local
government. Mr. Bay addressed how recycling participation grew based on the
ease of that service; how larger national vendors could outbid local
companies; and how local haulers made connections and provided special
services to individual residents. From his perspective, Mr. Bay suggested
that the government stay out of the trash hauling business.
Doug Carnival, St. Paul -
Attorney for National Solid Waste Management Association
Mr. Carnival echoed comments of
the previous speaker; opining that competition was the best way to go; noting
that in the 18-20 communities where this issue had come forward, citizens had
clearly expressed their preference to choose their own waste hauler, and that
the choice should continue to be citizen driven versus city driven. Mr. Carnival
opined that the perceived savings on street wear and tear was not as simple as
it seemed, and was based more on weight than frequency.
Member Vanderwall questioned the
weight of garbage trucks and their repeated frequency on streets without any
controls in place at this time. Member Vanderwall expressed his sincere
desire to see real studies and statistics representing actual facts to make
an informed decision for recommendation to the City Council rather than
opinions based on self-serving interests and research.
Chair DeBenedet noted truck
weights and axles and their impacts to roads; however, he opined that there
had to be a better way to collect garbage in the community and to address
ever-increasing prices within the industry and to consumers.
Mr. Carnival offered to provide
the PWET Commission with as much information as possible; and opined that
competition was the best not local government making a determination or
negotiating for this commodity; and questioned the credibility of some of the
studies and their authors.
Chair DeBenedet clarified that,
when it came time for the Commission to make their recommendation to the City
Council, they wanted it to be made on actual facts and costs for services
versus the open collection system; and based on various areas of information
including street wear and tear from experts, and not dealing in speculation.
4.
Communication Items
City Engineer Debra Bloom
provided updates on various projects, including the Dale Street
Reconstruction Project; favorable sanitary sewer lining bids allowing for
expansion of the program and funding through the State from Inflow in
Infiltration funds; Fairview Pathway and the need to pursue Eminent Domain
proceedings to secure easements from Macy’s, making it a two-phase project to
move forward with portions at this time; Applewood Pointe senior housing now
under construction at Langton Lake; Capitol Region project at Williams Street
and tree clearing and other site work to-date; and minor areas finalized at
Oasis Pond in 2011 as weather permits.
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz provided updates on other projects, including the Rice Street Bridge
replacement project; development of Grass Lake Water Management Organization
(GLWMO) Management Plan with goals and policies similar to other area
watershed districts; and invitations for interested PWET Commissions in
attending the third stakeholder meeting with several brief presentations.
Member Gjerdingen presented a
flyer on an upcoming program sponsored by a non-profit advocacy group for
walkways and impacts to local and regional transit, and invited Members to
attend.
7.
Josephine Woods
City Engineer Bloom revised an
application received by the Community Development Department from Pulte Homes
for approval of 28-unit single-family residential subdivision at Lexington
Avenue and County Road C-2 in Roseville; as detailed in the staff report
dated February 22, 2011. Ms. Bloom noted that the application would come
before the Planning Commission at their March 2, 2011 meeting and sought
feedback from the PWET Commission on the development.
Ms. Bloom highlighted various
components of the proposed development noting that this would be the first
subdivision to utilize the City’s new Tree Preservation Ordinance; wetland
locations and their preservation under review by the Rice Creek Watershed
District (RCWD) under the State Conservation Act; proposed public street
locations, their revised configurations, and/or extensions; the five lots
proposed to access and their service lines off County Road C-2; twenty-six
(26) existing homes served by the existing Lake Josephine lift station and
proposed upgrades to facilitate some of the new homes; grading plans of the
preliminary plat; emergency storm water overland flows and other storm water
mitigation; and how the plans fit into the City’s overall Pathway Master
Plan.
Discussion with Members included
verification of the width of the pathways (8’) where no current sidewalk
existed and where it connected to existing segments; identification of
off-road facilities and coordination with private property owners for local
versus regional facilities at County Road C-2 for non-motorized
transportation; the need to connect the pathway on the south side of County
Road C-2 where it dead-ends several feet before the tar near Hamline Ave; and
the need to recognized the value of remaining plats of land such as this to
develop it in an exemplary fashion and addressing environmental issues and
green space to fit the frame of mind of Roseville citizens.
Additional highlights provided by
Ms. Bloom and discussed with Members included plans and profiles for the
proposed improvement with elevations and goals preserving trees and green
space; ensuring that preservation of trees be fully addressed with the
exception of those areas where stormwater management requirements precluded
preserving trees and as guided by the City’s Subdivision, stormwater and
erosion control ordinances; and practicalities of building homes on this
challenging terrain with staff opining that the developer had done a
reasonable job in protecting and preserving those various green spaces in
recognizing that it added value to the properties as well.
Ms. Bloom, in addressing concerns
of Members with storm water management and the terrain, noted that the entire
area would be within a stormwater management plan and covered by a bio-filtration
system for the twelve (12) homes to be impacted, with no fences allowed and
signs placed along the entire stormwater easement to educate property
owners. Ms. Bloom noted that there would probably be individual maintenance
agreements with each property owner and the City to provide an understanding
of their vital role in stormwater maintenance, even after their purchase of
the property to understand specific restraints.
Additional discussion included
traffic control measures and concerns based on grading; retaining the County
Road C-2 easement while not recommending connecting it as a through-street at
this time or as part of this proposed development; standard residential
streets at 32’ for MSA roads and parking on only one side based on MSA
classified road requirements for the new streets (Fernwood Street and
Fernwood Circle); and delineation of the actual 50’ setback requirements for
wetland protection.
Ms. Bloom suggested that
additional comments be provided by individual Members to staff prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
Chair DeBenedet noted that this
stormwater eventually made its way to Lake Josephine where there was a public
swimming beach; and the need to protect that water body, and improve its
water quality, not further diminish it; thus making it vital for new
homeowners to be fully aware of the buffer zoned and their role in protecting
water quality.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
drainage swale and easement were not consistent at this time, and she needed
to further address that with the developer’s engineer.
Further discussion included
location of retaining walls and protection of existing mature trees and
grades.
Member Vanderwall noted his
concern in ensuring construction activities not impact Oak tree roots; and
overall, spoke in support for the development in increasing the City’s tax
base and brining new residents into the community. Member Vanderwall opined
that it was a great advantage to have existing mature trees already available
for property owners, but that the City and developer needed to ensure their
protection.
Additional discussion included
future maintenance of and access to public private areas and easements;
location and width of pathways based on the Pathway Master Plan and location
of private property; potential for any future widening of Lexington Avenue by
Ramsey County and changes to sidewalk locations and widths; easements applied
to specific uses, not multiple uses to avoid trespassing on private property;
and the need for the developer to change references on their documents to the
appropriate City and project; and Steve Gjerdingen mentioned the need for a
fence along Lexington Ave.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the traffic
study performed by the City’s selected traffic engineering consultant (SRF)
with Pulte paying for the study; and addressed current and projected
conditions and impacts at five (5’) intersections during a.m./p.m. peak
periods per day; and related distribution of vehicles immediately after
construction and in 2030, both showing minimal impact. Ms. Bloom anticipated
additional discussion from the Josephine Road neighborhood on traffic issues
at the upcoming Public Hearing. Ms. Bloom advised that staff had sought no
discussion or provided any directive to the Traffic Engineer to consider
extending County Road C-2, as such a proposal would require a much larger regional
discussion and how it would impact a much larger area.
Chair DeBenedet noted that he had
been serving on the City’s Planning Commission when those discussions had
previously held (1988); and staff suggested that he provide his input to them
after the meeting and provide that historical perspective and rationale.
Reference was made to correspondence at that time, not currently available in
staff’s research of City records; and a prior City Council motion to vacate
the County Road C-2 easement, and its subsequent failure on a 2/3 vote.
Members recommended preservation
of the right-of-way.
8.
Erosion Control Ordinance
Deferred to a future meeting.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – March 22, 2011
Topics were again reviewed for
the next meeting. Member Vanderwall advised that he would be unavailable for
the March 22, 2011 meeting, and asked that the organized trash collection
discussion be deferred to a future meeting to allow his participation in that
discussion.
Chair DeBenedet asked individual
members to review the Erosion Control Ordinance prior to the next meeting and
come prepared to discuss it; and also asked that staff make Member Stenlund
aware of that discussion as well.
11. Adjournment
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the
meeting at approximately 9:45 p.m.
|