|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Jan Vanderwall called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jan Vanderwall; and Members Jim DeBenedet; Joan Felice; Steve
Gjerdingen; and Dwayne Stenlund;
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; City Engineer Debra
Bloom; and Pat Dolan, Public Works Fleet Facility Supervisor and MS4
representative for the City of Roseville
Others
Present: Ron Leaf, Sr. Water Resources Engineer and Rebecca
Nestingen, PE, Water Resources Engineer with S. E. H.
2.
Public Comments
No one appeared to speak at this
time.
3.
Approval of April 24, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Meeting Minutes were not
available for review at tonight’s meeting.
4.
Communication Items
City Engineer Debra Bloom provided
an update on last night’s City Council meeting specifically related to the
Wal-Mart proposal for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. At the request of
Chair Vanderwall, Ms. Boom provided additional detail on the two (2) actions
before the City Council, with the City Council majority agreeing with staff
that development proposal was exempt from a citizens’ petition requesting an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The second item heard by the City
Council was for their approval or denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat,
and related Development Agreement, with the City Council tabling any action
on that issue and a decision still pending.
Discussion among Commissioners
and staff specific to the Wal-Mart proposal included the sixty (60) day land
use approval process and any potential ramifications in that delay; staff’s
analysis of traffic assumptions for the original Alternate Urban Area-wide
Review (AUAR) as well as the entire Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area; assurances
by staff that any development needs to meet impervious surface requirements
and storm water management and mitigation required by the Rice Creek
Watershed District and the City of Roseville; and misconceptions with land
use regulations between the City’s previous zoning code, much of that code
dating from the late 1950’s and the current zoning code.
General discussion included soft
spots in the newly-applied bituminous observed by Chair DeBenedet on County
Road C2 with Ms. Bloom aware of them and scheduled for correction by the contractor
as part of stabilizing the base course. Ms. Bloom advised that this was a
typical experience for most street projects requiring correction, thus the
warranties required of contractors in their contracts. Ms. Bloom announced
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) drainage improvements scheduled for
Skillman Avenue (Fairview ponds).
Additional discussion included
Public Works Director Duane advising that the date for any appeal regarding
the Bond litigation expired tomorrow, May 23, 2012, and if none were
received, Public Works and Engineering staff would proceed with their work
with the Parks and Recreation Department and Commission on trail improvements
plans.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Mr. Schwartz announced and invited all Roseville residents to the
upcoming formal groundbreaking ceremony at the new fire hall site and comments
by City officials scheduled for Monday, June 11, 2012 at 5:00, immediately
prior to the regular City Council meeting scheduled at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Roe
encouraged attendance of residents, and asked that those attending park in
the City Hall parking lot.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the one and
only Ramsey County project in Roseville for 2012 on Hamline Avenue (mill and
overlay) scheduled for the week of June 11, 2012; and noted the significant
number of comments fielded by staff regarding the impacts of MnDOT work
throughout the Roseville area, including Lexington and Snelling Avenues due
to the I-694 work, I-35 and other north/south routes backing up with the
detoured traffic. Mr. Schwartz noted, on a positive note, that the I-35E
lanes should be open within the next two weeks, and the Lexington Avenue
bridge work over I-694 should soon improve.
At
the request of Member DeBenedet, Ms. Bloom confirmed that the contractor had
replaced trees along the County Road C corridor in April (at the contractor’s
expense), with additional median and landscape work by City staff and outside
contractors for maintenance work. With completion of that work, Ms. Bloom
advised that staff was looking forward to finally closing the books on the
County Road C streetscape project in mid-June of this year.
Additional 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 May 22, 2012.
5.
Annual NPDES Storm Water Meeting
In accordance with the NPDES
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program under the NPDES Phase II program for
an annual report at a public meeting, Public Works Fleet Facility Supervisor
and MS4 representative for the City of Roseville
Mr. Pat Dolan provided a summary
on efforts of the City in managing storm water discharge into public waters.
This Report (Attachment B) was entitled the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) and was dated May 22, 2012.
Mr. Dolan noted that the overall
program goal was to reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants entering
surface water from storm sewer systems. Mr. Dolan provided a bench handout
summarizing those efforts, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The City’s prevention program included six (6) measures: public education and
outreach, public participation and involvement; illicit discharge detection
and elimination, construction site storm water runoff control,
post-construction storm water management, and pollution prevention and good
housekeeping. Each of those measures was reviewed and City efforts outlined
by Mr. Dolan and City Engineer Bloom. While there were no members of the
public in the audience, the meeting was telecast.
Discussion among Members and staff
included observations of Xcel Energy projects left open or without
construction site runoff controls, with staff advising that some of those
projects were governed by Ramsey County, and with encouragement from the City
of Roseville, the County’s efforts for enforcement and future requirements
have been increased and are improving (e.g. rights-of-way permits now being
required by Ramsey County for projects).
Additional discussion included
MPCA meetings on permit updates with the deadline extended to the end of June
based on the State Government shut-down and related delays; determining
ownership and maintenance requirements for “outfalls;” pending rewrite of the
City’s storm water and shoreline ordinances as staff time becomes available;
and coordinating with the City of Maplewood Engineer for staff time to tackle
some pending projects, under the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
between the two cities.
Member DeBenedet spoke in support
of the JPA engineering services, noting that he had reviewed the City of
Maplewood’s ordinance, recently revised, and his observations that it was
much more comprehensive and easier for applicants to understand and for staff
to enforce.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff had
been discussing, as part of the City’s Comprehensive Storm Water Plan, a
flyer detailing storm water standards for the City to have available for
developers.
Chair Vanderwall spoke in support
of that effort, and suggested that staff include it as potential future
agenda item.
Member Stenlund pointed out
several typographical errors in the SWPPP for staff.
Member Stenlund expressed his
personal concern that everything possible was being done to ensure temporary
erosion controls were being done and enforced, since this is an MS4 City.
Member Stenlund opined that, whether a large or small project, the City and
entire State of MN needed to have recourse to have those stabilization
standards in place and enforced. Member Stenlund further opined that perhaps
additional education and public knowledge was needed for citizens to help
staff enforce those measures. Member Stenlund spoke in support of that
information made available on the City’s website alerting the public to what
an “illicit discharge” actually was, or through other visuals or contests to
encourage their participation and observation.
Chair Vanderwall suggested a school and/or community organization project.
Member Stenlund suggested another
measure or activity would be to encourage sustainability for construction projects
through re-use of those materials with the goal that a little as possible
ended up in landfills. Member Stenlund referenced a federal Department of
Transportation effort to that effect.
At the request of Member
Stenlund, Ms. Bloom confirmed that the City had cleaned out several ponds
over the last year, including for Dale Street, Williams Street (Oasis Pone
near in partnership with the watershed district that was managed by Capitol
Regional Watershed District). Ms. Bloom noted that the Oasis Pond project
had used the metal filings filter retrofit, as previously presented to the
Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC) to reduce
phosphorus.
Member Stenlund suggested that
educational efforts could include school students making a video of projects;
and further suggested that the PWETC should include the Williams Street Pond
on a future tour.
At the request of Member Stenlund
as to where dredged materials ended up, Ms. Bloom advised that the contractor
had re-used what was possible depending on its ph levels, with some
landfilled at the Dale Street basin; and if it was contaminated it ended up
at a landfill.
Member Stenlund suggested adding
that information to the report.
Mr. Dolan advised that staff had
resolved some copyright issues, and was now initiating work with a vendor for
creating some video projects on those efforts.
Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that
she had just participated in the creation of a storm water video in
partnership with the Ramsey Conservation District (RCD), and that it would be
available on the City’s website, or could be presented on a future PWETC
agenda.
Mr. Dolan expounded on some
education and outreach efforts by staff for parents and children visiting
City Hall related to storm water issues, and educating them about where water
came from and where it ended up.
Ms. Bloom noted that this is also
included in the semi-annual “Roseville University” program.
Member Felice suggested, for
groups doing carwashes that some assistance be provided for them to set up
their washing area properly; and to make that information widely available
since it could make a dramatic impact on runoff.
Member Gjerdingen observed that
individual carwashes were a less significant contributor.
Mr. Dolan advised that staff was
provided education through in-house videos, those situations to be alert to
as they moved throughout the City; with written materials and flyers then
made available to citizens as staff observed areas of concern (e.g.
irrigation systems needing adjustment, grass on the curb lines, illicit
discharges) as part of the public’s education.
Member Stenlund noted, with the
numerous storms in the area this year already, and the significant Maple Tree
seeds, the need to continue to educate citizens on the amount of phosphorus
discharge from those seeds. Chair Vanderwall concurred that the storm water
outflows he’d observed had been astounding.
Member Stenlund noted that he was
not aware of erosion control and other Best Management Practice (BMP) efforts
in the SWPPP, including the Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory SNAFL (SP?)
baffle; with Ms. Bloom advising that those efforts were routine for the City
and therefore not highlighted in the SWPPP.
Member Stenlund noted that videos
of underground management efforts needed to be provided by video to make
citizens aware of those management efforts.
Member DeBenedet concurred with
Member Stenlund in the need to monitor erosion control for smaller projects
especially since they tended to slip under the radar and were too small to
trigger ordinance requirements. Member DeBenedet suggested that those
concerns be addressed as the storm water ordinance was revised; as well
as through education efforts. Member DeBenedet opined that there needed to
be additional education for smaller projects involving home improvements by
individual citizens, contractors and/or builders, since many of those
projects lacked the knowledge of these runoff concerns, or they lacked
initiative to comply with efforts to manage storm water.
Member Stenlund questioned if
there shouldn’t be recourse for projects falling under the 10,000 square feet
of land disturbance threshold, or consideration done on a case by case basis
depending on the topography of the land as one issue.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
could revisit the issue and whether a permit was required by City Code or
not, there could be other ways to address those individual areas of concern.
Ms. Bloom advised that staff
often addressed concerns or issues, outside the regular parameters of City
Code (e.g. Cleveland Avenue) when illicit discharges were observed; with
staff able to use other sections of City Code to address those situations.
However, Ms. Bloom concurred that additional outreach to and education of
citizens was always prudent.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
had already held discussions with the Parks and Recreation Commission on
storm water management and potential BMP education and outreach efforts,
incorporated through the Parks Master Plan and coordination with the Harriet
Alexander Nature Center (HANC), consistent with tonight’s discussion.
As previously noted, no one from
the public was present to provide comment on this program.
6.
Storm Water Management Plan Updated Discussion
Ron Leaf, Sr. Water Resources
Engineer and Rebecca Nestingen, PE, Water Resources Engineer with S.E.H.,
consultants with the City for updating its Comprehensive Surface Water
Management Plan (CSWMP) were available for a brief presentation and to lead
initial discussions with the PWETC. Staff noted that S.E.H. had drafted the
original CSWMP and would be overseeing this update as well, given their
familiarity with the City.
Staff noted that the CWSMP was
originally developed in 1990, and last updated in 2002; and required for
update to maintain consistency with local watershed standards and the
Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (MSWMA). Staff noted that the
City’s overall Comprehensive Plan established the City’s vision and BMP’s for
managing storm water and surface water drainage throughout the City.
Staff noted that the primary
goals of tonight’s meeting was to provide an overview on the update process
and schedule; and to receive input from the PWETC and the public related to
managing water and natural resource areas within the City of Roseville.
Presentation
Mr. Leaf advised that this was
intended to be the first of three (3) meetings with the PWETC as the CWSMP
was updated, with future meetings presenting the draft Plan, and then a Final
Plan for submission to agencies for their more detailed review process. Via
a Power Point presentation, Mr. Leaf reviewed the update process as follows,
with discussion among PWETC Members, Mr. Leaf and Ms. Nestingen, and staff as
applicable.
Goals of meeting
·
Overview of update process/schedule
·
Obtain input from PWETC and the public on plan contents, needs
and opportunities, and desired outcomes
o
Education for residents
o
Storm water/water quality practices
o
Maintenance considerations
o
Funding and cost considerations
CSWMP Update Process
·
Original plan developed in 1990 – updated last in 2002
·
Required part of Comprehensive Plan
o
Met council
o
Watershed districts
·
2012 update includes input from
o
Parks and Recreation Commission (5/1/2012)
o
PWETC
o
Lake Association Representatives
o
Public
o
City Council
CSWMP Update Schedule
·
Draft plan development – May/July
·
PWETC meetings – May/June/July
·
Lake associations meetings – ?
·
Draft plan review by staff – mid-June
·
Agency review – August/September (60-day review)
·
Agency revisions – October/November
·
City Council adopts plan – December
Input from PWETC
·
History of storm water management in RV
o
Storm water “wet” ponds and flood detention
o
Transition to volume control (e.g. rain gardens)
o
Complete streets, parks plan
·
Regulatory derivers
o
NPDES construction permit
o
NPDES MS4 Permit
o
Watershed Management Organizations
o
MID’s, TMDL’s, etc.
Ms. Rebecca Nestingen then
reviewed various handouts provided to the PWETC regarding specific areas and
content of the Plan:
Plan format and content (see
handouts)
·
Physical environment
·
Goals and policies
·
Assessment of issues/problem areas
o
Flooding areas
o
Impaired waters
·
Implementation and funding
·
Amendments and revisions
Wetland Local Government Unit
(LGU)
·
City is currently the LGU in Capitol Region Watershed District
(CRWD) and the soon-to-be-dissolved Grass Lakes Water Management Organization
(GLWMO)
Development Standards
·
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), Rice Creek Watershed
District (RCWD), Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD)
·
Development standards less than 1 acre
·
NW Area Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)
Maintenance of the system
·
Pond clean out
·
Retrofit opportunities
·
Shoreline, channel, erosion/stabilization areas
Ms. Nestingen distributed two (2)
bench handouts: one comparing standards among the area watershed districts;
and one providing a comparison of goals and policies among the City’s Plans
and those of the area watershed districts.
What are the needs and
challenges that should be considered during CSWMP Update?
Member Stenlund suggested buffers
for construction projects, and emphasizing their importance in the City’s
Plan, specifically keeping green space edges for curbs and water edges. As
addressed during the previous MS4 discussion, Member Stenlund reiterated the
importance of education, both before and after construction projects; and the
need to education citizens with before and after situations and results for
pond clean-out, and where taxpayer dollars for storm water efforts are being
spent. Member Stenlund supported development of a better Operations and
Maintenance (O & M) document, referencing an example from New York) and
keeping maintenance staff and commission members aware of those O & M
procedures as well.
Mr. Leaf referenced the booklet
prepared by Appleton, WI, and adapted from their Management Plan.
Member Stenlund suggested such
efforts for each pond in the City, since they were all part of the puzzle,
with homes around those ponds being made aware of native vegetation,
outfalls, and when failures are observed, they could alert staff, since part
of Roseville’s quality of life was its water resources. Member Stenlund
suggested that the entire community could serve as storm water observers, not
just staff.
Mr. Leaf advised that this Plan
update was intended to move toward an “e-Plan,” rather than a paper binder
sitting on a shelf, making it more available to citizens. Mr. Leaf advised
that the intent was to have the watershed map available on line and you could
click on a particular pond and pull up other documents. Mr. Leaf suggested
that some of the educational and outreach items mentioned by Member Stenlund
could be incorporated into that effort, and available to commissions,
residents and staff.
Ms. Bloom advised that S.E.H. was
working on updating and enhancing the storm water section of the City’s
website as part of this process, making it the “go to” place for regulations,
surface water plans, etc. to move its design from stagnant to more vibrant,
informative and useful.
At the request Chair Vanderwall
regarding the status and future of the GIS web map, Ms. Bloom advised that
she and Chair Vanderwall could discuss that further off line.
Member DeBenedet observed, with
respect to some problem flooding areas, that some areas of Roseville had
developed prior to anyone being made aware of that nuisance. Member
DeBenedet noted that this infrastructure design was based on a fairly low
frequency of rain events; however, now flood protection for 100 year events
were increasing with emergency overflow routes more well-documented.
However, Member DeBenedet questioned if the City of Roseville, and/or its
neighborhood residents had a good idea of those routes to ensure that they
remained open for drainage during major rain events. Member DeBenedet
suggested, as part of this Plan update, to identify those locations where
high flooding had been experienced in the past, or where a potential
existed. Member DeBenedet questioned the status of the U of MN Study
commissioned by MnDOT subsequent to the 1987 “super storm,” to review storm
data and rainfall types and amounts for 100 year events.
Ms. Bloom advised that the
updated “TP 40” will be released soon, and spoke in support of Member
DeBenedet’s suggestion for identify overflow areas.
Member DeBenedet further
suggested a requirement for new developments, based on water quality design
philosophies that those areas retain and continue to mimic natural runoff and
stream flows. While recognizing that there were few areas in Roseville yet
to be developed, Member DeBenedet suggested that this could be pursued when
redevelopment occurs, and should be made key along with WSD requirements to
guide developments to see storm water as an asset and dealt with in a more cost-effective
and environmentally-efficient and friendly manner.
Member DeBenedet also suggested
that the Plan include and promote groundwater monitoring for major
redevelopments having underground infiltrations systems (e.g. Har Mar Mall
and the Rainbow on Larpenteur and Lexington Avenues) so there are no future
surprises if and when the system should fail. Since this continued to be an
evolving and newer technology, Member DeBenedet that the City be proactive
rather than reactive.
Member DeBenedet suggested that
the City’s Plan provide examples of minimum or low impact design standards
(e.g. MIDS) incorporating BMP’s and examples in the area already in use.
Member DeBenedet asked that a future
PWETC agenda include a discussion of design standards that promote a more
sustainable storm water plan; ensuring that sustainability is a standard,
both socially and educationally, for things in Roseville to be built so the
City could maintain them more cost-effectively and efficiently ensuring that
those efforts work like they’re supposed to under the grand scheme.
Ms. Bloom questioned if that
included assuring staffing levels to implement those items included in the
storm water plan.
In order to implement the Plan,
Member DeBenedet opined that staffing levels were required to meet water
quality and flood protection goals; and part of that implementation would be
to determine if the City had enough staff to keep the City’s infrastructure
functioning and sustainable.
Member Stenlund noted that asset
management was part of this as well.
Member Stenlund, again referring
to the educational aspect, opined that systems needed to be developed for
snow melt management and storage without using ponds being used for “black”
snow. Whether that involved developing snow melt systems for storage or for
melting, Member Stenlund opined that the Plan needed to incorporate
regulations and screening for industrial sites to reduce “black” snow
entering the storm water system.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Member Stenlund noted that most of what was built was done so for
the summer, or the first snow or rain, without consideration given to winter
being a large part of our reality, whether for natural or mechanical melting
of snow. Member Stenlund opined that there had to be a better BMP’s and
places to melt snow than storing it on corners with curbs and gutters, on via
ponds or other typical situations in the past.
Chair Vanderwall noted the
balance in using chemicals to melt snow to make roads and paths safe versus
keeping that material out of the storm water system. Chair Vanderwall
questioned if, rather than building an entire new network for storm water and
melt water, could they enter into the same system, and use baffles for
clean-out once they were captured by that system.
While improvements were being
made, Member Stenlund opined that the materials were still salt, and the
choice was to use it or not use it; but it still ended up on the ground or a
lake; and the only alternative was to use less or a different materials.
Member Stenlund noted that the ponds needed to be cleaned out anyway, and
that the entire residue was not salt. Member Stenlund noted the benefits of
cleaning ponds closer to the tail of discharge or close to the source of
discharge. Member Stenlund noted another solution would be in street
sweeping BMP’s or chasing course material somewhere other than typical;
another educational effort for citizens to determine where they plow snow, as
well as routes used by the City. Member Stenlund questioned the end costs
environmentally and ramifications in providing dry pavement in the winter
within four (4) hours for its citizens and those using area roadways.
Chair Vanderwall noted that this
was a huge discussion, and also involved the impact to vehicles through rust
and potholes.
Member Stenlund suggested
creation by the City of a database of example BMP’s as part of its investment
in water quality, and providing a geocache of those opportunities for
children to research; making that part of their education for future water
quality efforts.
Chair Vanderwall suggested
additional public education in the Plan through enhanced interfacing with
schools.
Mr. Leaf framed tonight’s
discussion, opining that the SWPPP for the MS4 program and its regulatory
requirements overlapped this Surface Water Plan update, with the overriding
goals and policies of the Plan (e.g. clean water, promote good practices for
snow storage and management) creating standards for day-to-day operations.
Mr. Leaf advised that the Plan will set a framework of goals and policies,
with ordinances applied to ensure compliance of others and the City, and
incorporating and based on the regulatory programs assigned to the City as an
MS4 City. Mr. Leaf opined that the PWETC feedback was great and S.E.H. and
staff would now put it together to develop proposed policies, without the
Plan undermining or usurping the MS4 regulations.
Ms. Bloom noted that Mr. Leaf’s
outline provided what S.E.H.’s contract with the City included for updating the
Plan (e.g. goals and policies). Ms. Bloom advised that a number of the ideas
brought forward would be incorporated into the Implementation Plan, with
priorities, budget, resources, and staffing addressed as part of
accomplishing that implementation. Ms. Bloom advised that Mr. Leaf’s
outlined provided the framework or foundation for what the Metropolitan
Council required in the Plan; with the Implementation Plan over the next ten
(10) years developed to implement those ideas.
Member Felice spoke in support of
more public involvement and interactive programming with schools (e.g.
students analyzing water); with consensus from members for this idea.
Additional discussion and ideas
included identification of existing drainage issues and the need for the City
to be alerted to those areas in case they’re not already on the radar;
options such as school students monitoring water; and outreach for
cooperative efforts and monitoring with community or church groups or public
service agencies on specific projects and/or creating more awareness in
neighborhoods.
Ms. Bloom suggested that those
efforts could be included in the Implementation Plan in “seeking partnerships
to implement BMP’s.”
Member Stenlund volunteered to
participate in any guest lecture series developed as part of RAHS curriculum
and related to Roseville water quality efforts; and suggested funding may
already be available via a nation-wide funding system for those efforts.
Chair Vanderwall suggested staff consult with the School District Coordinator
as to the availability of such funding.
Additional discussion included
clarifying goals and policies versus implementation activities; with some of
the implementation activities identified as BMP’s in individual neighborhoods
to reduce street widths (e.g. Matilda Street) as part of complete streets or
Green Steps program over the next decade’s generation of road construction
and design versus continuing to build wide streets and in consideration of
multi-model transportation models; and development of educational elements
for good and bad BMP’s based on their day-to-day use and/or more modern
technologies.
Ms. Nestingen questioned if the
City was interested in maintaining their status as the LGU and permitter for
the Wetland Conservation Act or move to one of the WSD’s as the LGU, such as
the R-WMWD who serves as the LGU for most of their member cities.
Ms. Bloom advised that, while her
review as the LGU staff contact is usually limited to about one (1) review
annually, with the review consisting of delineation and mitigation efforts in
accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act and City Code, it did require
staff time. Ms. Bloom noted that when Roseville has a project with wetland
involvement, they used the Ramsey Conservation District as the City’s LGU,
serving as an independent party for that review. Ms. Bloom noted that area
advantages and disadvantages for the City to continue as the LGU; with the
WSD’s being the experts and up-to-date on rule changes, creating a positive
for transferring LGU responsibilities. However, her concern in transferring
that LGU role is lack of notification when WSD’s (e.g. CRWD and RCWD)
performs reviews with their staff experts in-house, they fail to notify her.
Ms. Bloom advised that the City did need to be aware of permits filed and
issues to ensure City Codes related to wetlands are adhered to; and suggested
a solution would be if a partnership could be initiated with those WSD’s for
the process. Ms. Bloom suggested that could be a goal or policy, as well as implementation
activity, of the Plan to develop those partnerships and transfer LGU to
WSD’s.
Member DeBenedet opined that it
seemed to be only common sense if all storm water plans were supposed to be
reviewed and coordinated by those agencies, if the City’s Plan went to those
agencies as well, that they, as an LGU should be required to communication
all wetland decisions to applicable parties and cities. Member DeBenedet
suggested calling that out as part of the Plan update; with the WSD’s needing
to agree with that portion of the Plan, or demand a change in the Plan.
Chair Vanderwall noted the
demands on staff time, and suggested that if this was an area that was not
our main focus and by eliminating it could free up additional time for other
things, the WSD’s should be allowed to use their expertise as the LGU and
tasked with the responsibility for reporting it to the City as part of the
updated Implementation Plan. Chair Vanderwall, with PWETC consensus, spoke
in support of transferring that LGU role since they had in-house water
management staff.
Member Stenlund opined that
“streamline” should be the overriding emphasis of the Plan, whether through
transferring LGU responsibilities, as well as WSD’s communication
responsibilities to the City, not through adding another regulation or
another bureaucratic layer, but through “streamlining” the process.
Regarding development standards,
discussion ensued regarding at what point the City should require storm water
compliance, if different than the current 10,000 square feet minimum
threshold for erosion control as previously discussed.
Ms. Bloom advised that the City’s
current BMP practical practice is requiring compliance for any new impervious
surface over 5,000 square feet or any disturbance over ¼ acre. Ms. Bloom
questioned at what point that became a requirement, not a practice (e.g. home
additions, porches) and staff’s perspective that they needed a vehicle for
enforcement and public information that was consistent rather than arbitrary,
via a standard policy. Ms. Bloom noted that, in the past, there were no
storm water requirements for single-family residences unless they were
exceeding the impervious surface threshold.
Discussion among Commissioners
and staff included the need, while problematic, of properties on a hillside
or having unique topographical circumstances and hoe to implement regulations
without being arbitrary; how to set up a framework for case by case review,
with special cases, as a goal.
However, Ms. Bloom advised that
this was staff’s BMP over the last ten (10) years, but it was not working
well as many developers found it to be arbitrary, and didn’t necessarily
recognize staff’s rationale if a property was flat versus having a unique
topography.
Mr. Leaf suggested that this
discussion may require additional and substantial discussion and suggested
that it be rolled into the Implementation Plan for a potential ordinance
update.
Regarding drainage standards and
City Code, Ms. Bloom questioned the intent, as Roseville was one of the only
cities in the Capitol Region WSD that implemented standards for properties
under one (1) acre, and the City of St. Paul was currently fighting that
standard, especially related to commercial developments. Ms. Bloom noted
that the City of Maplewood also had similar standards.
Member Gjerdingen observed that
there was typically more impervious surface for commercial versus residential
parcels; with Member DeBenedet advised noting there was also considerably
more vehicle debris and runoff.
Ms. Bloom suggested additional
discussion related to impervious thresholds for commercial, as well as
residential.
Member Stenlund questioned if the
rest of the City should continue to pay for storm water runoff from his
property in order for him to maximize his use of that property rather than
containing and/or treating it on his own lot. Member Stenlund questioned
that rationale for the City to pay for treatment versus individual
responsibility.
Member DeBenedet opined that the
bottom line was that each property owner needed to be cognizant that they
don’t have the right to harm their neighbors by discharging sediment onto
adjacent properties or city-wide.
With PWETC consensus, Ms. Bloom
advised that staff would pursue revising the standard to under one (1) acre.
Further discussion included the
parameters of S.E.H. for their scope of services, with Ms. Bloom clarifying
that they were tasked with developing or revising goals and policies, with
thresholds; along with an implementation plan.
Member DeBenedet opined that over
the years, the thinking of Roseville residents has evolved in what they want
the City to look like, and cleaning ponds was part of that; with Member
Stenlund opining that the ponds needed to be cleaned-up or maintained to
avoid further deterioration.
Mr. Leaf, referencing handouts
comparing standards among the City and area WSD’s questioned if the Plan
should attempt to move toward consistency with WSD standards to provide
standards throughout Roseville no matter in which of the three (3) WSD’s a
property was located.
Chair Vanderwall noted that this
would provide streamlining and easier implementation; with Ms. Bloom noting
it would also positively impact staff time and expertise.
Member Stenlund spoke in
preference of a state-wide standard, with a set of rules and budget rather
than each WSD dictating different standards, with the goal to streamline the
process, as well as not being capricious or arbitrary. Member Stenlund
suggested review of the MIDS standards to see if they could be overlaid with
those of the WMD’s, whether for above or below ground systems.
Mr. Leaf thanked the PWETC for
their comments, and asked that they relay any additional thoughts or ideas to
staff or S.E.H. at rlead@sehinc.com or rnestingen@sehinc.com. Mr. Leaf
reminded Commissioners that the draft was intended for presentation and
review by the PWETC at their June meeting.
Chair Vanderwall, in the PWETC’s
effort to set an example for paperless meetings, encouraged S.E.H. to provide
electronic versus paper materials for the next presentation.
Mr. Leaf thanked the Commission
for the reminder.
Ms. Bloom advised that moving
toward electronic versus paper was written into the S.E.H. contract and
scope; with the effort to have a sustainable Plan.
Member Stenlund suggested, as
part of engineering wetlands and public education efforts, animals be
included in wetland amenities.
Recess
Chair Vanderwall recessed the meeting at approximately
8:26 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:30 p.m.
7.
City Council Annual Discussion Items
Mr. Schwartz provided a draft
outline for discussion points for the annual joint meeting of the PWETC and
City Council scheduled for June 11, 2012. Mr. Schwartz noted that this
format was now being used consistently among all commissions meeting jointly
with the City Council to facilitate their discussion.
Members provided input on each
area for staff’s incorporation in the outline.
Activities and accomplishments
·
Development and recommendation for the Neighborhood Traffic
Management Policy (TMP). Staff advised that the City Council had their first
look at the TMP and staff would be returning to the PWETC with their feedback
for revisions sometime this summer. Member Gjerdingen sought clarification
on whether funding sources had been identified.
·
Draft Underground Electric Policy
·
Draft Resolution for Organized Collection and Policy
Recommendation. Chair Vanderwall noted that this item remained pending at
the PWETC level with no formal recommendation to the City Council due to
ongoing discussions with haulers and their legal counsel.
·
Green Step Cities Program. Staff noted that U of MN students
had evaluated the City’s current measures and those remaining that needed
implementation to move toward that process.
·
Roseville Infrastructure Evaluation as part of Member
DeBenedet’s Master Program.
·
Annual Recycling Report received by the PWETC
·
Storm water Management NDPES Annual SWPPP Report
·
Ongoing coordination with and joint meetings of the PWETC and
the Parks and Recreation Commission for implementation of the Master Plan
·
Recommendations for the City’s CIP Infrastructure Schedule
Work Plan Items for the Upcoming
Year
·
Organized Refuse Collection
·
Assessment Policy Review
·
LED Street Lighting
·
Complete Streets / Green Steps Cities
·
Storm Water Management Plan update and Public Hearing Process
·
In accordance with the City Council’s Strategic Plan, work with
and coordinate ongoing work of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
process/implementation (e.g. Pathway Master Plan build out)
Questions or concerns for cc
·
Organized Refuse Collection
·
Outreach to Community Groups – City Council plans to fit into
that effort to build stronger ties for community outreach/information and get
the public more aware of water quality issues, input on transportation
issues; Complete Streets; and how to continue good community conversations as
related to PWETC efforts.
Discussion included where the
Public Works Department stood from a budget and resource allocation
standpoint in terms of the CIP moving forward with half of the utility rate
increase applied in 2012 and the remaining half to be applied in 2013.
Mr. Schwartz reminded
Commissioners of the joint meeting on Monday, June 11, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.;
encouraging all PEWT Commissioners to attend.
Chair Vanderwall solicited Past
Chair DeBenedet for assistance in that joint meeting and reporting on past
accomplishments in particular.
8.
Complete Streets Policy Discussion
Mr. Schwartz introduced this
topic, and provided a copy of the Policy developed by Ms. Bloom in her work
with and for the City of Falcon Heights under JPA provisions.
Ms. Bloom reviewed the purpose of
a Complete Streets Policy or a “Statement of Purposes,” providing a commitment
by the City to pursue green or sustainable initiatives for any project to
adhere to the City’s values, while allowing some flexibility based on
individual projects, resident values, but applying some type of baseline or
foundation.
Member DeBenedet advised that his
research had found invaluable information online at the website: mncompletestreets.org
and their numerous links and resources. One item of note mentioned by Member
DeBenedet was their “tool kit” and he encouraged individual members to review
the website before the next meeting. From his perspective, Member DeBenedet
opined that Roseville was already accomplishing many of these things, from
his awareness of engineering projects designed over the last few years, and
Pathway Master Plan development. However, Member DeBenedet expressed his
personal frustration that the Pathway Master Plan that he had helped to
develop almost thirty (30) years ago, remained incomplete. Member DeBenedet
expressed his hope that the implementation of the Parks Master Plan process
would serve as a catalyst to complete this effort; noting that this continued
to be a high priority heard from Roseville residents, that they can safely
move from one area to another in Roseville as a pedestrian or biker.
Member DeBenedet expressed his
interest in pursuing a similar Complete Streets Policy in Roseville similar
to that of Falcon Heights with a few tweaks, opining that he was supportive
of a policy that was even more aggressive. Member DeBenedet opined that a
Policy could be available for recommendation to the City Council within a few
months; and suggested that the PWETC provide an advocacy platform for
testimony for such a Policy.
Chair Vanderwall noted that the
testimony needed to hear both sides of the issue from the public for
providing guidelines for such a policy.
Member Gjerdingen noted that the
Cities of Bloomington and Woodbury had proposals, including street
configurations done by segment for the Bloomington model.
Mr. Schwartz cautioned the PWETC
that those policies addressed new developments; but Roseville’s situation was
more challenging since it was already a fully developed suburb and everything
done was a retrofit, not “one size fits all.
Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that
a concern in adopting such a policy was to allow enough flexibility
recognizing that the Cities of Bloomington and Woodbury had also fielded a
significant amount of resistance to this type of implementation.
Member DeBenedet noted the need
for this type of standard to always have an exception clause; however, he
opined that it was important to get the concept out there and strive for its
implementation to provide for all users in a multi-modal world. Member
DeBenedet stated that his first criteria was to get people where they wanted
to go safely; and opined that the TMP touches on some of these issues as
well, as does the Comprehensive Storm Water Plan. Member DeBenedet noted
comments regarding narrower street, traffic calming features or parking bays.
Member Stenlund spoke in support
of staff drafting a policy, using the Falcon Heights model, as a framework
for discussion by the PWETC at a future meeting.
Staff noted that initial
discussions would need to be broader, and suggested using the “Tool Kit”
referenced by Member DeBenedet as part of that broader discussion to break
things down into detail.
Chair Vanderwall noted his
research of the Portland, OR model as another model for individual
commissioners to review; and suggested this item as a future agenda item.
Chair Vanderwall expressed appreciation for the Falcon Heights model
since it was a community adjacent to Roseville with similar values.
Member DeBenedet suggested a City
Policy would fit perfectly with that of MnDOT and Ramsey County.
Member Gjerdingen suggested a template
to review before determining which of the recommended models for review would
work best for Roseville; and by consensus, was referenced to the different
policies available on line for his individual research.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – June 26, 2012
Commissioners and staff reviewed
potential items for the June meeting, including Assessment Policy revisions;
draft Comprehensive Surface Water Plan review; Complete Streets draft by
staff; and a discussion of the joint meeting with the City Council.
10.
Adjourn
Member Stenlund moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:02 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|