|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jim DeBenedet called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Jan Vanderwall; Dwayne
Stenlund; Joan Felice; and Steve Gjerdingen
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; Recycling
Coordinator Tim Pratt
Others
Present: Ramsey County representative Zack Hansen; several
Roseville residents
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of October 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the October 25, 2011 meeting as presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz noted that updates on various construction projects were included in
tonight’s meeting packet or available on-line at the City’s website at
www.cityofroseville.com/projects, and as detailed in the staff report dated
November 22, 2011.
Mr. Schwartz distributed several
bench handouts entitled, “SUMMARY, Draft Contract between the City of
Maplewood and Allied Waste Services for City-Wide Residential Trash
Collection dated November 22, 2011;” and a copy postcard from “Sustainable
Maplewood” to residential customers providing some facts and announcing its
November 28, 2011 meeting of the Maplewood City Council; both attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Specific discussion included
punch list items remaining and repairs to a damaged signal pole along the
Rice Street corridor and Highway 36 bridge Phase I construction area; status
of Phase II of the Rice Street corridor; status of the proposed County Road
B2 project from Snelling Avenue to Fairview Avenue and potential delays due
to right-of-way issues; and proposed park and ride facility along Rice Street
and Highway 36 and impacts to the facility at Rosedale once it becomes
operable.
Member Vanderwall suggested
available members of the PWET Commission attend the upcoming 2012 Budget and
Levy Public Hearing scheduled for the December 5, 2011 City Council meeting,
specifically related to proposed utility fee adjustments to address CIP
infrastructure needs in the next twenty (20) years.
At the request of Member
Stenlund, Mr. Schwartz advised that he would follow-up to ensure
stabilization of the Fairview Avenue pathway area for winter along the
residential, park and farm field locations.
5.
Ramsey County Solid Waste Policy
Mr. Schwartz introduced Zack
Hansen, Environmental Health Director for Saint Paul – Ramsey County
Department of Public Health located in Maplewood, MN, whose department was
responsible for revisions to the Ramsey County
Solid Waste Management Plan.
Mr. Hansen referred members and
the public to a link to the full plan, as detailed in the staff report dated
November 22, 2011; as well as a copy available through the City’s Recycling
Coordinator Tim Pratt.
Mr. Hansen advised that his
attendance at tonight’s meeting was for the purpose of seeking comment from
the City of Roseville on the required update of the Ramsey County Solid Waste
Management Master Plan. Mr. Hansen noted that the Plan update was required
by law and triggered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA)
adoption in March of 2011, of Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan
for 2012 through 2030, a revision of the previous regional policy plan. Mr.
Hansen noted that the Plan provides guidance to county, municipalities,
industry and solid waste generators; and provides a level of stability to a
dynamic system, such as curbside recycling, and risk management for health,
safety, environmental and economic stability issues.
Mr. Hansen reviewed the Plan’s
key themes, policies, goals and strategies for waste management in Ramsey
County over the next twenty (20) years. Mr. Hansen noted that, with numerous
types of waste and multiple stakeholders and their various roles, public
engagement was proposed through a “Planning Beyond the Garbage Can”
educational process. Mr. Hansen noted the willingness and support for
recycling endeavors throughout the region providing significant potential to
increase recycling and eliminating barriers, while using ideas gleaned from
partnering with communities within the County, specifically on the business
side.
Mr. Hansen highlighted some of
the Plan’s initiatives, including product stewardship; organic waste
management; a greater emphasis on commercial recycling; greater expectations
for municipalities such as in service to multi-family unit recycling efforts;
communication, consultation, and technical assistance; pushing
demolition/construction waste up the hierarchy; and hauler licensing expanded
to non-MSW and recycling collectors.
Discussion among members and Mr.
Hansen included the neutrality of the draft Plan related to organized versus
private refuse collection, with Mr. Hansen advising that this was intentional
on the County’s part; however, he offered their technical engineering
expertise and the County’s role to provide research or background information
to allow cities to make decisions based on the best information available and
as requested, all with the overall goals of helping cities manage their risk
and negotiate good recycling contracts.
Additional discussion included
progress in the public and private sectors, once MPCA rules and design
standards are completed for composting organics while protecting groundwater;
politics involved in policy discussions; new companies and new technologies
moving in the solid waste field; costs and route density in considering
collection of organic materials; and potential for location of transit
stations in certain areas in the metropolitan area and joint efforts with
other counties.
Mr. Pratt noted that one
recommendation of Ramsey County was for cities initiating residential
collection of organics by 2016, and impacts to the City’s receipt of SCORE
grant funds based on the City’s expansion of recycling programs (e.g.
multi-family property collection of recyclables); and a pilot program
currently underway in the City of St. Paul by Eureka Recycling.
Further discussion included what
would and how to compel current waste haulers to truthfully declare what and
how much they were hauling and the actual destination of the material, whether
for processing of ending up at a landfill; and the necessity to provide
additional education for residents in Ramsey County for the Plan, as well as
specific to municipalities within the County.
Mr. Hansen thanked members for
that comment, and suggested that the Plan could include a reporting
requirement by ordinance at the County level to gather more information on
recycles through cooperation among the haulers and licensing of recycling
firms. Mr. Hansen admitted that the numbers currently being provided for
residential collections is accurate, but not from the commercial side.
Mr. Schwartz advised that cities
with organized collection contracts typically include such reporting
requirements; however, he noted that it was easier to get the information with
organized collection haulers versus private haulers.
Mr. Hansen opined that this
depended on the language of the contract, since state law required public
entities to ensure that those contracts were managed in accordance with the
Ramsey County Solid Waste Policy and preferences that materials are hauled to
the waste-to-energy recovery center rather than land filled. Mr. Hansen
further opined that haulers under organized contract provisions should be
required to take material to Newport, while not as easy to ensure or extend
to residential waste in an open collection system when it was subject to
available market conditions for specific materials.
In conclusion, Mr. Hansen
addressed the extensive communication/education program for Ramsey County
residents (e.g. Green Guide); periodic mailings to residents; availability of
household hazardous waste and need for continual reminders of those
facilities; targeting of businesses; regional and county online sources and
other advertising options. Mr. Hansen advised that the initial expansion of
organic collections would first focus on high volume commercial waste
generators, such as large institutional cafeteria, schools, and hospitals
before moving down to smaller groups and residential users.
Additional discussion the
competitive nature of the landfill business versus the Newport facility’s
neutrality; MPCA offers to measure volumes in landfill; how to regulate
commercial waste haulers as well as picking up from commercial sites and the
destination of those materials; Supreme Court ruling that handling garbage
was subject to an ICC clause in constitutional requirements; woody waste
sites and impacts of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) contaminated brush; and the
majority of but greatest need for recycling coming from the commercial
sector.
Member Gjerdingen suggested that
the Policy (page 3) recommend government events be “zero waste” events; with
Mr. Hansen expressing appreciation for this idea. Member Gjerdingen also
encouraged Ramsey County to make recycling receptacles easier to access or
more visible in government facilities.
Recess
Chair DeBenedet recessed the meeting at approximately 7:28
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:35 p.m.
6.
Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy Review
Mr. Schwartz presented the latest
draft of the neighborhood Traffic Management Program (TMP), based on previous
Commission feedback since the October meeting.
Member Gjerdingen opined that the
title was misleading, since it implied that the TMP implied that the policy
was a comprehensive strategy throughout the City, but he was it as more of a
targeted traffic management policy, and preferred the term “traffic calming”
that was less inclusive. Also, if attempting to complete this draft and
forward it to the City Council by year-end to serve as a cure-all for all
traffic issues within the community, Member Gjerdingen further opined that he
didn’t like the precedent that the TMP would heal all complaints.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
tonight’s discussion focus on the substance of the program.
Page 28, Tools
Member Gjerdingen expressed
confusion about what listed costs for sidewalk maintenance entailed.
Chair DeBenedet noted discussions
at the October meeting about those costs, and the consensus that it was
important for residents to understand when asking for certain
implementations, that they be aware of the initial cost as well as the cost
for ongoing maintenance.
Member Gjerdingen questioned if
the costs were annual or for the lifetime.
Member Stenlund and Mr. Schwarz advised
that the correct cost should be $1.14 per foot on an annual basis; with
Member Gjerdingen suggesting that this be clarified by indicating “PER YEAR”
after that cost.
At Member Gjerdingen’s concern
with the amount of time spent on this TMP versus that of the organized
collection issue; Member Vanderwall clarified that organized collection was
an ongoing concern; while this document would be used when a neighborhood
issue came forward, and a potential once-in-a-lifetime solution was sought to
remedy it, creating a much lower incidence of this TMP intersecting with
residents. Member Vanderwall opined that once completed, the TMP should not
require additional Commissioner time except for minor revisions and
adjustments as it was put into practice.
Member Stenlund concurred, noting
that this TMP was related to neighborhood traffic affecting livability in
those neighborhoods, based on the influence of vehicles in the neighborhoods
and safety concerns and control of streets in those neighborhoods. Member
Stenlund suggested that, while the TMP was a car-focused policy and was being
drafted to specifically address that and related problems; future discussions
could be pursued on how to make streets more livable in the future.
Chair DeBenedet note that, no matter
how much care the Commission took in drafting the TMP or how many edits, the
first few times it was used would find things needing further refinement or
other considerations. However, Chair DeBenedet opined that the TMP would
provide guidance and was a good start. Chair DeBenedet noted the need for the
Commission to be respectful of staff time in requesting minor edits.
Ms. Schwartz noted the four (4)
items listed in the staff report dated November 22, 2011, that staff was
seeking additional focus from and direction of the PWET Commission tonight.
Prior to additional discussion,
Chair DeBenedet opened the meeting for public comment specific to the TMP.
Public Comment
Megan Gardner, 1321 County
Road C-2
Ms. Gardner stated that the
“reckless vote of the Roseville City Council last month to open up County
Road C-2” had been infuriating for her and her family; and while having a TMP
for the City made perfect sense, sadly it was too late for her neighborhood.
Ms. Gardner advised that she had several specific questions for the
Commission.
Ms. Gardner noted that tonight’s
PWET Commission agenda appeared to indicate that the TMP was slated for
finalization; and questioned if this was their plan.
Chair DeBenedet responded that it
would be a goal of the Commission to do so if possible.
Ms. Gardner questioned why the
PWET Commission’s August 2011 meeting had been cancelled.
Chair DeBenedet responded that it
had been cancelled due to the lack of a quorum.
Ms. Gardner questioned if City
Council members had available a tentative TMP when they voted on County Road
C-2 five (5) weeks ago.
Chair DeBenedet responded
negatively, noting that the PWET Commission was still in the process of
drafting the document for recommendation to the City Council; and that it was
still in process with revisions and discussion among the PWET Commission and
City staff.
Ms. Gardner questioned if, when
the TMP was put on the City’s website if it was an earlier draft of the draft
currently being discussed.
Member Vanderwall advised that
various drafts of the TMP would have been part of PWET Commission agenda
packet materials provided online; however, he clarified that this didn’t mean
individual City Council members had read those agenda materials. Member
Vanderwall noted that the various agenda materials included model TMP’s from
other communities for PWET Commission review, upon which the
Roseville-specific TMP was modeled.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
that the TMP was still in draft form and a work-in-progress.
Chair DeBenedet estimated that
the first draft was provided by staff to Commissioners at their July 2011
meeting.
Member Vanderwall noted the
numerous comments and revisions since that original draft was provided by
staff.
Chair DeBenedet opined that he
was not aware that there was anything included in any of the TMP drafts that
would have provided guidance to the City Council for the County Road C-2
discussion, whether supporting keeping it open or closing it. Chair
DeBenedet reviewed the intent of the proposed TMP as a tool for neighbors who
feel there was a traffic problem on their specific street; allowing them to
come as a group to City Hall for discussions and reviewing potential options
with staff. Chair DeBenedet reviewed the process for the TMP, once the PWET
Commission provided it and a recommendation to the City Council; and
subsequent City Council review and revisions prior to its potential adoption
as a City policy. Chair DeBenedet noted that if it became a policy, it would
still need funding for studies or temporary measures; and reiterated that the
TMP still had a long way to go before the City Council would make a decision
to adopt it and provide funding for it as a policy.
Ms. Gardner opined that, there
was no doubt in her mind that it would be a mathematical impossibility for
the City Council to open County Road C-2 if the existing draft of the TMP was
in place at the time of their decision; and expressed her curiosity as to why
the City Council would take such a vote before a policy had been finalized.
Member Vanderwall suggested that
the PWET Commission could not comment on that question, since it would only
be conjecture on their part and serve to second guess the City Council; and
suggested that Ms. Gardner directly question those decision-makers.
Member Gjerdingen noted that
there was no tool in place to address opening a street, and while there were
neighborhood concerns for residents on Josephine Road as well as adjacent
streets and area traffic concerns, he was unsure if they could have been addressed
under this proposed TMP policy other than to attempt traffic calming options
off Josephine Road.
Ms. Gardner questioned one
neighborhood making a request that impacted other neighborhoods; and how a
mathematical percentage would be addressed.
Member Gjerdingen opined that
such a tool was not measured anywhere, as became obvious throughout this TMP
process; and that only tools were included for closure, but not opening up
streets.
Member Vanderwall opined that it
did address it through identifying affected neighborhoods, immediate
neighborhoods, and other affected neighborhoods.
Mr. Schwartz concurred with
Member Gjerdingen that at this time, there was nothing in the TMP toolbox
addressing making connections to existing streets, street closures, or not
making those connections.
Member Vanderwall expressed
surprise if the toolbox would be restrictive, opining that a study would
allow citizens to consider all possibilities; with professional engineers not
limited to just the tools in the toolbox; and suggested the PWET Commission
may need to consider additional discussion to ensure the TMP language doesn’t
limit studies, but allow them to be a work-in-progress.
Member Stenlund opined that
options and tools would evolve as science continued to improve.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
Ms. Gardner direct this specific question to the City Council, even though he
was under the impression that the City Council had explained their rationale
when making their decision about County Road C-2.
Ms. Gardner asked if the County
Road C-2 issue was the motivating factor in initiating the TMP policy, since
Section 4.0 seemed to be written specifically and in direct response to how
the County Road C-2 issue unfolded.
Chair DeBenedet advised that he
was unaware of any correlation.
Mr. Schwartz advised that
creation of a TMP had been on staff’s list of projects for a number of years;
and it had been moved to the forefront when the Dale Street Reconstruction
Project moved forward, along with a request for street closure in the Wheeler
neighborhood based on redevelopment of the Presbyterian Homes facilities on
Lake Johanna. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff received frequent requests
from residents for speed bumps or other traffic calming measures; however,
there was no mechanism in place for staff to consistently and fairly evaluate
those various requests for approval or denial, causing the issue to build for
a number of years, and prompted by the Dale Street and Wheeler concerns. Mr.
Schwarz assured Ms. Gardner that development of the proposed TMP and events
related to County Road C-2 were simply a coincidence.
Member Stenlund concurred with
Mr. Schwartz summary of what instigated development of the TMP; noting
related discussions for improving storm water quality through installation of
trees for “Complete Streets;” that included their use as traffic calming
measures and efforts to make neighborhoods friendlier and address amenities
to ensure livable community results.
Mr. Schwartz noted that the TMP
was initially brought forward by the City Council to staff in January or
February of 2011, as they asked staff to put it on the PWET Commission’s
annual work plan, requesting them to consider it a priority for providing a
recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Schwartz suggested a review of both
City Council and PWET Commission meeting minutes from the last several years
for the sequence of discussions and charges to the PWET Commission by the
City Council.
Ms. Gardner questioned why the
word “resident” was changed to “citizen” in the TMP; and questioned if that
meant that people living outside of Roseville would be allowed input on
neighborhood streets within the community.
Member Gjerdingen explained that
this was his recommended change, providing his rationale that business owners
who were not Roseville residents could still have input, but used or were
affected by use of Roseville streets.
Ms. Gardner questioned if that
meant that a resident from Minnetonka could make a request as a “citizen of
somewhere.”
Member Vanderwall responded
affirmatively, provided that the Minnetonka resident was a business owner or
was developing or redeveloping a business in Roseville. Member Vanderwall
advised that he had initially supported retaining the “resident” language;
however, Member Gjerdingen had made a valid point and by consensus PWET
Commissioners had revised language to “citizen” to allow a business owner
standing.
Ms. Gardner, playing devil’s
advocate, questioned the results if someone made a request but was not a
Roseville resident.
Member Stenlund advised that,
unless a business owner, that someone would have no standing. Member
Stenlund noted the need for Ms. Gardner to recognize that there was also
associated cost participation for neighborhoods or anyone to bring forward a
request, negating many requests unless those requesting a tool were willing
to fund a specific available option.
Member Vanderwall concurred,
noting that part of the process for each request was submission of a
petition.
Ms. Gardner questioned, since the
County Road C-2 vote was “rushed through” on October 17, 2011, and this
policy “conveniently didn’t apply,” at what point would the TMP begin to
apply to County Road C-2.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, like
most policies, the TMP would become effective upon its adoption – and funding
– by the City Council; and would be based on a case-by-case consideration of
requests and their nature, whether for temporary traffic measures, requiring
a traffic study, or other review.
Ms. Gardner questions the process
of the TMP, once finalized by the PWET Commission, at the City Council level.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, once
approved by the PWET Commission for recommendation to the City Council, staff
would introduce it to the City Council, anticipating that this would be
sometime in early 2012; and at that point, depending on the amount of City
Council-level discussion and potential revisions, the process would be
further impacted by whether those potential revisions or other issues brought
up during discussion by the City Council could be sufficiently addressed at a
staff level, or if the City Council would send it back to the PWET Commission
for additional work and resubmission.
Member Vanderwall noted that the
TMP is probably not on the City Council’s highest priority list.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
the many unknowns at this time; and opining that the City Council’s most
immediate issue would probably be, if found to be an acceptable policy, the
TMP could be funded with existing budget resources or if other funding
sources would need to be found for implementation of any of the TMP’s tools.
Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace
Court
Mr. Toogood had provided his
written comments via e-mail dated November 3, 2011; and disseminated by staff
as a bench handout at the meeting, attached hereto and made a part
hereof. Mr. Toogood verbally expounded on those written comments.
In response to Mr. Toogood’s
perspective on inconsistent speed limits in some areas, Member Vanderwall
stated that the PWET Commission’s focus and discipline had been to develop
the TMP aimed at neighborhood streets, not arterial streets.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
that potentially, there may be speed limit inconsistencies; however, he noted
that they would require a more comprehensive review. Mr. Schwartz advised
that speed consistencies had never been looked at comprehensively throughout
the City; since many of them were County roads. In response to Mr. Toogood’s
question if the City could influence the County and request a speed study,
Mr. Schwartz cautioned that the state commissioner would reset speed limits
if indicated following a speed limit study, often resulting in those speed
limits being increased based on an average, and often the opposite of what
most neighborhoods were initially seeking. At the request of Mr. Toogood,
Mr. Schwartz confirmed that standard speed limits, if not posted on roadways,
was 30 MPH.
Mr. Schwartz expressed
appreciation for Mr. Toogood’s observations related to education
opportunities and strategies in area schools to address and become aware of
how traffic flow could be controlled, managed or safer in Roseville.
Member Vanderwall concurred with
the educational piece, noting similar educational efforts undertaken as part
of school bus safety issues. Member Vanderwall noted the multiple pedestrian
safety issues in Roseville and the need to address them, specifically with
the current lack of an adequate pathway system for students accessing
community schools.
Mr. Toogood expressed
appreciation to Mr. Schwartz for clarifying his misperceptions, as he had
brought up some connections and impacts that he had yet to consider.
Chair DeBenedet noted that, if
the TMP became policy, and as different neighborhoods made requests through
the years, the TMP would establish a procedure to evaluate alternatives,
explain current policy, and attempt to achieve consistency among
neighborhoods, and find what works and what didn’t work to further enhance
consistency.
Member Gjerdingen suggested that
as part of the process, by neighborhoods bringing issues before staff and
working cooperatively, a way may be found in the future for citizens or the
City to bring those issues forward to Ramsey County.
Commissioner discussion returned
to those items Mr. Schwartz had previously identified in the staff report for
additional focus.
·
Resident cost participation when the traffic study calls for
the use of consultants
Discussion included expertise of
in-house staff versus hiring a consulting engineer for a study based on
competencies; how those costs could best be addressed consistently and fairly
if a study didn’t proceed to construction or installation and could not be
included as part of the overall project cost; and the receptiveness of a
neighborhood to assume those study costs.
Chair DeBenedet opined that such
studies were the cost of government, recognizing that in-house competencies
and expertise were not always going to be available without seeking outside
consultants.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
was fully cognizant of their level of expertise; however, he noted the
importance for the City Council to realistically understand the need for a resource
commitment on their part in adopting a TMP policy.
Member Vanderwall concurred,
noting that the City Council needed to commit to fund studies, even if there
was a potential that there would be no cost-sharing available if there was no
final project.
Mr. Schwartz advised that this
was the rationale for some cities in requiring a date certain for request for
an annual review and prioritization; and questioned if the PWET Commission
wanted to consider that as part of their TMP recommendation.
Member Stenlund noted the
neighborhood petition requirements addressed in the TMP and upfront knowledge
by a neighborhood of the potential costs for a prospective tool. However,
Member Stenlund noted that there was no way to know the cost for assessments
upfront, other than estimates from other recent or similar projects.
Further discussion included if a
maximum cap for outside consultants was prudent, such as a maximum of
$15,000; the level of study required dictating the cost; and how best to
educate neighbors requesting a tool of the costs for studies and their
response upfront, while slowing down the process but keeping the levels of
communication open and transparent.
Exhibit 1 Flow Chart (page 23
of the packet)
Members Stenlund and Vanderwall
suggested including steps that would address the public input, with a
decision tree to move forward; and addition of another box entitled
“Neighborhood Feedback” and “Defining Study Costs” as another loop and where
it occurred during the process.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, under
current procedures, the assessment portion didn’t come in until later in the
process.
Members Vanderwall and
Gjerdingen noted that the additional step outlined in the flow chart would
educate the public on the potential of assessment or upfront costs; and
provide fair warning of those costs.
Chair DeBenedet concurred,
noting that residents would then know the associated costs to proceed to the
next step; and their 75% cost-share for the study if recommended to proceed.
Member Vanderwall noted the need
for residents to understand, as a group, of the necessary commitment to find
an answer to their request as well as being aware of other potential costs
down the road. However, Member Vanderwall opined that allowing the neighbors
to get to Step 8 without a clear and concise understanding of potential costs
would be inadvisable. Member Vanderwall suggested that Step 4 provided
another opportunity for awareness of potential estimated costs.
Member consensus was that staff
should identify potential costs and steps in the initial application, in Step
1.
Further discussion included City
Council funding for studies that didn’t result in a project, as part of doing
business; and a public understanding that when that particular funding
resource is eliminated or significantly diminished, no more projects could be
considered until the next funding cycle.
By consensus, and due to time
constraints, it was member consensus to defer discussion on the organized
collection item on the agenda to a future meeting; with Chair DeBenedet
alerting the public to that deferral.
Page 28 of the Packet / Area
9 of the Document under Table 2
Member Vanderwall noted the
25/75% cost-share, and suggested and suggested an additional sentence related
to identifying non-implemented studies born by fund: “Only studies done up to
available funding levels…” or “funding levels for the process will generally
be determined by the number of studies done in a given year.”
Chair DeBenedet noted those
traffic studies requiring outside consultants and suggested clarification
that: “…at Step __, if the project does not proceed, the cost of the study
will be borne by the City; but if it proceeds, the cost of the study will be
included in the total project cost and potentially be assessable to
benefitting residents.”
·
Process for staff removal of strategies deemed to cause
problems or safety issues identified from temporary strategies; process
involved to remove? (page 14 of the document; page 32 of the packet)
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
procedures should generally be followed as outlined in the program; however,
if removal of the request is initiated by the benefitted area, language should
specify that: “…removal of strategies will be completely charged to property
owners.”
Member Vanderwall questioned why
the first portion of that language was limited to safety/crash complaint
issues for city-initiated implementation or based on pending development, not
existing issues.
Consensus of members was to
include that language: “if removal is initiated to accommodate new
development or redevelopment, the developer is responsible for costs, not the
City.”
Mr. Schwartz noted that this
should clarify that those costs were not charged back to citizens when they
paid for the initial installation; and the unfairness of them then having to
pay again for its removal.
Discussion included
justification for removal or mitigation impacts for removal; emergency or
safety hazards; and cost responsibility for those initiating the process as
part of a neighborhood effort and discussion.
·
Discussion of traffic circles and roundabouts
Discussion included whether
roundabouts were included in the TMP, with examples provided; consideration
of small roundabouts to manage traffic, such as use of a planter base that
wouldn’t change an intersection but calm traffic; practicality of installing
roundabouts based on the significant amount of right-of-way required; snow plowing
considerations; identification on page 15 of the TMP of traffic circles;
potential of the roundabouts on Prior Avenue and Twin Lakes Parkway and their
status as local residential streets if multi-family housing developed in that
immediate area; and differences in developed versus undeveloped areas or
retrofitting existing neighborhoods addressed in the TMP.
It was the consensus of members
that traffic circles and roundabouts had a place in the TMP; with Member
Stenlund opining that traffic circles could be installed internally.
Further discussion included
roundabouts included in the definition section of the TMP (page 18/page 55);
and changing the definition to “raised island” to “island,” whether flushed
or raised.
·
Definitions
While having no additional
additions or comments on the definitions, members asked it a clean copy could
be provided to members for a more refined review.
Member Stenlund expressed his
willingness to move the document toward recommendation as presented with
those minor revisions as addressed.
·
Funding Sources / Commitment
Mr. Schwartz noted that, if the
TMP moved forward for recommendation to the City Council, PWET Commissioners
should be mindful that the TMP currently had no available funding source for
such a policy or its implementation strategies; and questioned if the PWET
Commission’s recommend should include further discussion on a recommendation
to the City Council on first-year funding for implementation of such a
policy.
Member Gjerdingen suggested that
“street closure” be removed as an option in the TMP; or to add “street
opening” as another tool option.
Chair DeBenedet and Members
Stenlund and Vanderwall opined that that did not apply to the TMP.
Member Vanderwall recognized the
rationale of Member Gjerdingen; and in balancing whether or not a street
should remain open, it wouldn’t hurt to leave it in the TMP if it should come
up.
Mr. Schwartz advised that, when
considering whether or not to open a street, it dramatically changed the
original intent of the TMP policy up to this point in addressing strategies
and tools in built-out neighborhoods. Mr. Schwartz advised that this could
then create significant changes to neighborhoods, using County Road C-2 as an
example; and would involve a broader public policy discussion. However, with
closure, Mr. Schwartz noted that a temporary measure could be initiated as a
strategy, such as at County Road D and Wheeler.
Member Vanderwall concurred with
the original consensus to not include language about opening a street to
avoid changing the intent of the TMP; and suggested that the consensus
appeared to be to leave “street closure” in the TMP; but not to include
“street opening” at this time unless it was later found to be needed as part
of the TMP’s practical application.
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Vanderwall seconded, recommending to the City Council the Neighborhood
Traffic Management Plan as amended through tonight’s discussion and including
those points brought forward by Mr. Schwartz in the staff report for additional
or clearer focus.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
7.
Organized Trash Collection – Continued Discussion
Due to time constraints, this
item was deferred to a future meeting
8.
Change of Date / Possible Items for Next Meeting – December 27,
2011
Chair DeBenedet polled
Commissioners on their preference for a December meeting; their availability;
and other scheduling commitments.
By consensus, Commissioners concurred on holding a December meeting; however,
it was suggested that it be moved forward one week from December 27 to
December 20, 2011.
To avoid a lengthy meeting, Chair
DeBenedet suggested that the agenda be kept to a minimum of content,
including those items identified by staff in their report dated November 22,
2011; with the majority of the meeting addressing the organized trash
collection issue.
Member Vanderwall moved, Member
Stenlund seconded rescheduling the December regular meeting from December 27
to December 27, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
9.
Adjourn
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:58 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|