|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 24, 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; and Joan Felice; with Member Duane Stenlund arriving at approximately
7:03 p.m.
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra
Bloom
Others
Present: None.
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of April 26, 2011Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, approval of the April 26, 2011 meeting as presented.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
City Engineer Bloom noted that
communication item descriptions and project updates had been included in the
agenda packet, to avoid taking up additional meeting time.
Chair DeBenedet noted, and staff
confirmed, that links included in the staff memorandum as part of tonight’s
agenda would provide more detailed information on each project as well.
Miscellaneous discussion among
staff and commissioners included how and when striping was determined to
facilitate efficient and safe pedestrian and bicycle movements for a
particular roadway (e.g. County Road C-2 between Hamline and Snelling
Avenues; Lydia Avenue and County Road C-2) as well as from neighborhood
input, road crowns, existing stripes, lane widths, and whether parking lanes
are available;
Budget Update
Public Works Director Schultz
provided a budget update based on the most recent City Council discussions,
with information from the citizen survey included for applicable
programs/services; with the City Council scheduled to receive a report from
the City Council’s CIP subcommittee on June 13, 2011; followed by the City
Council providing direction to staff to develop the City Manager-recommended
budget and not-to-exceed levy prior to September.
Further discussion on various
public improvement projects programmed for 2012 included staff identifying
those that included MSA funding, as well as those proposed for 2013 and 2014,
noting that this budget cycle (2012/2013) was the first in which a biennial
budget was being developed; potential impacts on City and area projects if
the State of MN failed to come to a budget agreement before a state government
shut-down, with staff anticipating that the Fairview pathway project funds
would be impacted, with plan reviews by state staff not considered essential
services, and staff’s attempt to get the plans approved before any state
shut-down may occur; with local and area City Managers closely following
potential risks and impacts of the state budget impasse.
Staff anticipated the only other
project that may be impacted would be MnDOT testing as the Rice Street
project proceeded; however, Ms. Bloom noted that since that project was
already in process, it may be considered as an essential service. Ms. Bloom
noted that several years ago in a similar situation with the state budget,
they did shut down the Snelling Avenue improvement project. Mr. Schwartz advised
that staff would keep the PWET Commission updated as the process moved
forward.
Organized Collection Update
Chair DeBenedet provided an
update to Members on the status of the Roseville Citizen’s League’s (RCL)
consideration of a fall informational meeting; with his perception being that
there was not strong support for organized collection on the part of the City
Council; and suggested that the PWET Commission “wait and see” as events
unfolded in the City of Maplewood as they pursue organized collection, rather
than to waste additional Commission time with an informational forum at this
time. Chair DeBenedet suggested that Members work with staff to determine
potential impacts on local streets from garbage trucks, similar to that
conducted by the City of Maplewood.
Ms. Bloom advised that the study
referenced by Chair DeBenedet was a research proposal / study being performed
by Mankato State University, in developing a calculator tool to determine
roadway life expectancies based on wear and tear; and noted that she was part
of that research group. Ms. Bloom anticipated study beta tested results
available in late June of 2011 for fall of 2011 publication.
Discussion included how the
streets would be tested based on data entered based on street routes; types
of soils; types of construction material (concrete or bituminous); impact of
fully-loaded commercial traffic and any reduction in street wear and tear;
type of and transparency of this program and the goals of the research in
using tried and true design and engineering standards for bituminous industry
standards, without additional field work required; and anticipated enhanced
Excel spreadsheets; and similar to a previous research study several years
ago done by counties for wind farm construction and the numerous overweight
trucks on gravel roads to determine impacts for policy development.
Ms. Bloom offered to link PWET
Commissioners into the study to see the end products for comparison purposes.
Chair DeBenedet noted a similar
program developed between MnDOT and the logging industry in northern MN with
spring hauling and load limits. Chair DeBenedet noted an assumption had been
made that garbage trucks have significant impact on local streets; and opined
that the data from this research project should clarify that assumption.
Other
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
prior evening, he and Mr. Randy Neprash had presented the proposed Coal Tar
Ordinance to the City Council, with Mr. Neprash providing a brief explanation
and the ordinance’s intent. Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Council
seemed very appreciative, had no recommended revisions and were ready to take
action at last night’s meeting; however, staff had intended the presentation
for information purposes only, and the ordinance had not yet been formatted
and received final review by the City Attorney, so it was proposed for action
at their June 13, 2011 meeting.
5.
Erosion Control Ordinance Updates
Ms. Bloom thanked members for
their comments to-date on revisions to the erosion control ordinance and
revised fee schedule; and presented the latest draft, seeking further member
feedback, as well as removing those areas that were redundant. Ms. Bloom
noted that related to previous PWET Commission preference for a larger
all-encompassing storm water/pollution management ordinance, and in
consideration of recent audit findings, the City Attorney recommended moving
forward with this Erosion Control Permitting Ordinance; and that the one
umbrella chapter (No. 803) be continued on the 2011 Work Plan, incorporating
a drainage plan to incorporate various issues.
Ms. Bloom reviewed individual
Commissioner comments that had been incorporated and how to interpret the
relined version based on that feedback; and noted that the fees would be
included with other City fines and fees that were reviewed annually for any
amendments based on actual costs and staff time.
Ms. Bloom noted that this was the
first step, followed by the Storm water Drainage Ordinance in the near
future, with an Illicit Discharge Ordinance and other related ordinances to
follow. Ms. Bloom further noted that non-compliance, implementation and
maintenance issues would be addressed upon receipt of best management
practices (BMP) information pending from the Ramsey Conservation District.
Member Stenlund arrived at this time, approximately
7:03 p.m.
Discussion included identifying
and differentiating construction versus post construction control provisions
in place for failure to comply and their consistency and/or overlap with
other sections and areas of administrative enforcement; whether those costs
could be assessed if reimbursement was not received; and ability to enforce
action if failure to do corrective work.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
sections mentioned would be further reviewed by staff and a clean copy would
be presented to the City Attorney for review and comment. Members expressed
their interest in receiving a clean copy of the document when available.
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, recommendation to the City Council of the Erosion
Control Ordinance as presented; pending final review by staff and the City
Attorney.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
6.
Discussion of Joint City Council / PWET Commission Meeting
Topics
Mr. Schwartz led Members in a
review of topics discussed in 2010, and potential 2011 topics for discussion
with the City Council at the annual joint meeting with the PWET Commission,
scheduled for Monday, June 13, 2011; as detailed in the staff report dated
May 24, 2011. Mr. Schwartz noted that, in addition to those items, the PWET
Commission’s review and recommendation of a Neighborhood Traffic Management
Policy would be a large undertaking over the next few months.
Member Felice noted she had a
scheduling conflict and would be unavailable to attend the joint meeting.
Chair DeBenedet and Commissioners
were in agreement with those topics suggested by Mr. Schwartz as a good
outline.
Discussion included recent City
Council approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the Cities of Roseville
and Maplewood for engineering staff that would address staffing needs
identified in the Public Works Strategic Plan and anticipated infrastructure
improvements and reconstruction; implementing an improved asset management
program similar to the PMP and other areas thoughtfully managed with in-house
personnel; areas addressed by the City Council on their recently-adopted
2011/2012 Work Plan; inclusion in the Public Works Preliminary Budget request
for an asset management software program and staffing to input and
disseminate data into plain and understandable language; and noting that
reserve funds have not kept pace with returns on streets, necessitating a
review of the existing Assessment Policy and identifying other funding
sources.
Member Vanderwall requested
discussion with the City Council on their individual and corporate interest
in the PWET Commission pursuing organized garbage collection; whether to
continue gathering information that may lead the City in a different
direction than current collection is done; and whether the City Council was
committed to those results and what was best for the City or retaining the
status quo based on a vocal minority in the community. Member Vanderwall
noted that he had worked on the original Solid Waste Commission established
by the City Council in the 1970’s, when recycling was initiated, and opined
that the remainder of the recommendations for organized collection had yet to
be pursued.
Chair DeBenedet concurred, noting
that the PWET Commission had reviewed the situation for the last two (2)
years, and wanted to know if it was still a valid pursuit, or if it should be
tabled.
Member Felice concurred that the
current City Council should be consulted about their interest in continuing
toward a PWET Commission recommendation. Member Felice expressed her
interest in coordinating efforts for issues and further discussion on transportation
related to bicyclists and pedestrians and a tree census and their
implications for pedestrian and biking to area parks.
Chair DeBenedet opined that this
would be a good opportunity to hold that discussion as well, given the
leaning toward going to the public with a bond referendum for park
improvements, when the pathway system never seemed to move ahead effectively.
Member Vanderwall noted that he
attended the Parks Master Plan meeting on pathways and its related Master
Plan, noting that pathways had also received the highest public support in
the recently-conducted random survey, not just in parks, but pathways to
parks or around the City. Member Vanderwall opined that the Parks and Public
Works Department needed to work cooperatively in coordinating efforts.
Further discussion included the
staff-level coordination between the Parks and Recreation Department and the
Public Works Department.
Ms. Bloom advised that she would
be attending a Parks subcommittee meeting in June, and noted how instrumental
Park and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke, and Jeff Evenson had been in
developing the Pathway Master Plan, a city-wide effort, not just that of the
Public Works Department. Ms. Bloom noted the intent of the Parks Master Plan
Implementation group in having her attend their meeting was to serve to
coordinate with the PWET Commission and Ramsey County’s “Active Living”
efforts. Ms. Bloom noted that things were moving farther ahead in
coordinating regional pathway systems and connection due to more effective
advocacy by Ramsey County. Ms. Bloom advised that her emphasis to the
Implementation group would be that the Pathway Master Plan was a city-wide
Roseville effort and everyone should work together on it; however, she noted
that funding was a huge challenge.
Further discussion included value
added considerations for increasing property taxes for amenities such as
pathways; proactive communication between the PWET and Parks & Recreation
Commissions related to trees, drainage and soil erosion; and how to address
funding for maintenance and the need to develop a process or multi-year
schedule for pathway maintenance.
Members concurred on the
advantages of considering a joint meeting of the PWET and Parks &
Recreation Commissions.
Member Stenlund requested a
discussion during the joint meeting alerting the City Council to recent
presentations at the PWET Commission about trees used for storm water
treatment and complete streets, and other applicable learning presentations
held at PWET Commission meetings, perhaps by providing the City Council with
a brief recap of educational and guest speakers. Member Stenlund reiterated
his personal request for the PWET Commission to have an opportunity to review
proposed developments, providing value to the City Council and engineering
staff to incorporate storm water and bike transit. Member Stenlund also
noted the great benefit for field trips for the PWET Commission, such as the
one done to review unsafe intersections.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
would review past agendas and minutes to make sure those accomplishments were
highlighted for the City Council.
Member Stenlund expressed his
interest in doing additional field trips, such as a review of bike trails,
erosion controls related to illicit discharge; and mentioned the benefits to
the PWET Commission in viewing the geothermal fields and being able to
inspect the vacuum street sweeper.
Member Stenlund suggested that
the City Council also be made aware of the PWET Commission’s appreciation of
Roseville staff who have taken their time to share their time and expertise
with the Commission as well as the community at large. Member Stenlund further
suggested that the City Council and PWET Commission have a dialogue on the
PWET Commission’s future role. Member Stenlund recommended that the City
Council be made aware of the erosion of some of the City’s parks, such as the
Frisbee Golf Course; and how to integrate community projects and pathways.
Member Stenlund suggested that the City Council alert the PWET Commission of
any “hot topics” of which they were aware in the near future that may come
under the Commission’s review for recommendation.
At the suggestion of Member
Gjerdingen in further consideration of how utility undergrounding could be
addressed with street reconstruction in the future, Mr. Schwartz advised that
there had been consideration of developing a policy for utility undergrounding;
however, staff had been unable to allot time to move that forward at this
time, opining that the Traffic Management Policy was a higher priority given
several current and pending situations.
Related to that Traffic
Management Policy, Ms. Bloom noted receipt by the City Council at their last
meeting of a petition to close a street; the pending request for speed
calming methods on Dale Street; and the need for a consistent policy to
address various situations, as well as assigning associated costs as
applicable. Ms. Bloom noted that the traffic counts on Josephine Road had
just been completed earlier that evening.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
PWET Commission comments had been incorporated into the Tree Preservation
Ordinance, presented to the City Council at their meeting last night, and
returned to staff for further review following City Council comment at that
meeting.
Chair DeBenedet asked that Mr.
Schwartz prepare an outline of the items discussed for the joint meeting and
circulate it to individual Commissioners prior to the meeting.
Member Vanderwall suggested that,
given the multitude of topics, time be reserved for due diligence and
sufficient discussion time at the joint meeting.
Chair DeBenedet noted the need to
keep the review and report of past initiatives and recommendations as brief
as possible to allow for that discussion time, and to avoid losing the
interest of Council members and any questions they may have.
Member Vanderwall suggested that
the majority of the information be provided in writing, with verbal
highlighting of those items of focus.
Chair DeBenedet opined that the
timeliest discussion should be the organized trash collection issue.
Member Vanderwall opined that the
City Council not be given conclusions, since there are many different
opinions within the community and the City Council was not privy to the
background research and information compiled by the PWET Commission’s due
diligence to-date.
7.
Traffic Management Policy
Chair DeBenedet noted the sample
Policies provided by staff as part of the agenda from the cities of Blaine,
MN, Evanston, IL, and Des Plaines, IL.
Member Felice noted another
policy from the City of Kent, WA that she had liked, specifically their
rating chart assigning points for various components.
While noting that such a ranking
process would create more work for staff, Member Vanderwall noted that such a
rating chart would provide a good way to evaluate a project and get direct
participation from a wider group of stakeholders, as well as creating more
support.
Member Vanderwall noted staff’s
previous comment on three requests for such an evaluation already pending;
and questioned whether part of the question for Public Works was whether that
was part of the value for consideration in a ranking process.
Mr. Schwartz noted the increasing
number of requests being fielded for additional enforcement, traffic calming
measures, and other traffic management concerns.
Ms. Bloom opined that, if a
policy was in place, the City would field even more requests, since the
typical staff response for those requests now is that there are insufficient
funds to implement such measures unless a street reconstruction was being
done.
Discussion ensued on how and when
the point system would be used; whether extra points would be applied if
construction was planned or in progress; whether traffic calming measures are
a good investment and safe, or whether they are bicycle-friendly and would
not force them into traffic; benefits of vertical elements and their effectiveness
in slowing traffic; snow plowing and maintenance issues; advantages of
signage; advantages and disadvantages of things to consider during the
analysis process, as facilitated by diagrams of actual use; and how ranking
would be influenced by the origination of the request.
Further discussion included
rationale for developing such a policy and the perceptions of how involved
government should be or not be; other needs that would serve the public good
but can’t be accomplished due to a lack of funding and how such a policy
ranked in the overall priority scheme; residential versus commercial road
functions and issues; challenges of ‘chokers;” differentiations in commercial
areas with truck traffic; and philosophical considerations and opinions.
Ms. Bloom opined that roadway
classification is a major component and the foundation of this discussion.
Additional discussion was related
to safety priorities and consideration of different policies/priorities for
areas near school yards, playgrounds, school routes, and other areas where
children were present in groups; the most effective traffic calming procedure
being police enforcement; and cost factoring as part of the ranking analysis
that included maintenance.
Based on available data, Ms.
Bloom advised the highest vehicle/pedestrian traffic collision areas were at
Lydia and Snelling Avenues and Highway 280 at Broadway Avenue. Ms. Bloom
offered to further research pedestrian and bicycle accidents as part of this
continuing discussion, using staff’s existing mapping tool for data over the
last ten (10) years.
Member Vanderwall noted that the
majority of the City’s arterial streets were not controlled by the City of
Roseville, voiding any potential regulation pattern.
Given the lack of control of many
arterial streets throughout the City, Ms. Bloom advised that the PWET
Commission be aware that this policy was for “neighborhood” traffic
management.
Ms. Bloom noted that there were
two (2) different issues: Complete Streets and Traffic Management, and opined
that neither were mutually exclusive, but neither were they the same. Ms.
Bloom advised that the reality is that some Complete Street concepts were
contrary to a traffic management plan addressing safety concerns. Ms. Bloom
advised that the Pathway Master Plan says that when there were less than
1,000 vehicles on a particular roadway, it was a “share the road” situation;
and questioned how the two concepts could be coordinated.
Chair DeBenedet asked that staff
research and provide other official City policies, including the
Comprehensive Plan and Non-Motorized Pathway Plan areas that addressed
traffic that could facilitate this discussion at next month’s meeting. Chair
DeBenedet asked Commissioners to read through the model policies provided by
staff and come prepared for further discussion. Chair DeBenedet opined that
the City of Blaine’s policy seemed to be a good starting point to initiate
those more detailed discussions.
Member Vanderwall opined that the
Blaine policy was excellent, based on traffic pattern considerations and
impacts of a three (3) month test pattern.
Chair DeBenedet suggested
individual members do their own research prior to the next meeting, for
other suburbs, such as the City of Bloomington, MN, as suggested; and to come
to the next meeting with specific recommendations on the most favorable
components to consider for a Roseville Policy.
Mr. Schwartz noted the need to
talk about the process as well; how to review it; whether to use Blaine as a
template or another policy; how to obtain public feedback and the timing and
type of meetings for receipt of public comment.
Chair DeBenedet concurred, noting
the amount of due diligence that would be required by the Commission in
preparing and recommending this policy; and how to avoid getting drawn into
specific issues when attempting to develop an overall policy.
Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that,
while staff was a strong advocate for public participation, they were
attempting to look at this policy holistically, not with passion for specific
neighborhoods or concerns. Ms. Bloom noted that the public needed something
to react to and on which to provide comment to avoid difficulties.
Member Stenlund suggested
consideration be given to two (2) separate rating/point systems: one for new
construction and one for existing situations, with two (2) separate scales to
determine benefit/cost and incorporating ratings for retrofits or new
designs.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the
Comprehensive Plan and the Imagine Roseville 2025 processes both included
considerations for livable neighborhoods and safety issues.
Ms. Bloom noted that, as the
outer suburbs continued to grow, the traffic situation for Roseville would
only continue to grow; and with that increased traffic, consideration would
need to be given for building capacity as well as maintaining capacity, with
traffic pushing into neighborhoods.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
that staff had just received word from the Metropolitan Council that the
City’s Comprehensive Plan may need amendment based on the Met Council’s most
recent system statement related to transportation, and managing versus
expansion, and related impacts to neighborhoods.
Further discussion on model
policies included layout of information and how effective each component was
in the overall picture; and the credibility of the conclusions.
Ms. Bloom advised that a
well-respected international traffic consultant had developed the City of
Blaine’s Traffic Management Plan, with an emphasis to Complete Streets and
traffic calming.
8.
Storm Water Ordinances
As noted in the staff report, Mr.
Schwartz advised that the City of Maplewood had performed a comprehensive
rewrite of their storm water ordinances last year, including a specific
environmental section that incorporated all of their regulatory goals related
to the City’s storm water management plan, and currently addressing areas of
the City of Roseville’s health, safety and welfare section of City Code,
Section 400. Mr. Schwartz noted that air pollution and noise were also contained
in that environmental chapter of code. Mr. Schwartz opined that, at this
time, this would be a very large undertaking for Roseville.
Chair DeBenedet noted his initial
rationale for combining all storm water-related items into one section made
some sense in an effort to tie definitions together, and providing
consistency among permitting and enforcement actions. However, he recognized
the limited staff resources available at this time to accomplish such an
undertaking.
Staff noted other departments
with sections of code applicable to their specific areas but also addressing
environmental issues; and difficulties in interpreting and/or enforcing
comprehensive ordinances, and those areas under the purview of the Planning
Commission and portions needing detached for their review.
Ms. Bloom noted that in utilizing
City of Maplewood engineering staff, and the process of reviewing and
possibly revising regulations in 2012, the comprehensive rewrite may be
addressed as part of the comprehensive surface water management plan and in
concert with the three (3) watershed districts for the City of Roseville.
Further discussion included
rewrite of the City’s MS4 Permit in 2013 and how that fit into the overall
picture; state and federal requirements; and how waiting for those
particulars may address timing of this ordinance rewrite.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – June 28, 2011
Items for the next meeting
included: the traffic management study; review of the joint City
Council/PWET Commission meeting; Assessment Policy depending on the feedback
from the City Council; and the future role of the Planning Commission as a
sounding board for the Public Works Department and how to serve as a bridge
with and between other advisory commissions, including any areas of overlap.
10. Adjournment
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:25 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|