|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, August 28, 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 Steve Gjerdingen; Jim DeBenedet; Dwayne Stenlund;
and Joan Felice
Staff Present: City
Engineer Debra Bloom
Others Present: Ron
Leaf, Sr. Water Resources Engineer and Rebecca Nestingen, PE, Water Resources
Engineer with SEH
Public Comments
2.
Public Comments
Tony Anderson, 1935 Victoria
Street
Mr. Anderson requested
information on the Victoria Street reconstruction project, which had been
delayed several times. Mr. Anderson commended City Engineer Bloom on her
efforts to keep neighborhoods and the community up-to-date on upcoming
projects through the Community Forum website; but questioned how and when
scheduling decisions were determined. Mr. Anderson reviewed the area on
Victoria and discussed neighborhood character, with six (6) private homes off
a private drive; Roselawn Avenue currently has asphalt curbing and the
proposed project will include concrete curbs. Mr. Anderson questioned the
need to update the street now. Mr. Anderson opined that, in his review of
Lexington Avenue with concrete curbs on either side, it didn’t look any
different or have more integrity than Victoria currently does with the
asphalt curbs. Mr. Anderson cautioned that if the road was raised any
higher, they would be unable to access their driveways.
In response to Mr. Anderson and
for the PWETC’s information, Ms. Bloom noted that Victoria Street is a Ramsey
County turnback road from County Road B to Larpenteur Avenue; and is one of
the City’s lower rated streets based on the Pavement Condition Index. Ms.
Bloom further clarified that Lexington Avenue is managed by Ramsey County,
not the City; and that Victoria Street had also been managed by the County,
and their typical maintenance process is to overlay their streets, thus the
raising of the pavement elevation, sometimes causing drainage issues for
properties.
City Engineer Debra Bloom advised
that the project delays were due to a lack of Municipal State Aid Funds, but
the project was now scheduled for 2014. Ms. Bloom noted that one of the reasons
for the delay was also due to staff being directed by the City Council to
move forward with the County Road C-2 connection, causing a shift from focus
on Victoria Street to County Road C-2 and use of State Aid funds for that
project. Ms. Bloom advised that the City sets the street capital improvement
plan by using a number of factors; the street Pavement Condition Index; this
indicator helps staff determines the life cycle of streets; working with
Capitol Region Watershed District on existing drainage issues; and any other
issues that have come forward. Ms. Bloom advised that it was typically a one
(1)-year long public input process for reconstruction projects, with this
project initiated in June of 2013 to begin discussions of the project. Ms.
Bloom anticipated that the final road elevation would probably be lower to
address drainage concerns in the area. Staff worked with Ms. Gale Pedersen
on the Reservoir Woods trail project to try to address drainage issues. Ms.
Bloom advised Mr. Anderson that the stretch immediately adjacent to his home
was repaved as part of that Reservoir Woods trail project, so it was in
better condition than the other segments areas of Victoria. However, Ms.
Bloom reiterated that the pavement condition drove a project’s timing; as
well as needed safety improvements for pedestrian/ bicycle access.
Ms. Bloom noted that the City’s
current Assessment Policy was followed for any assessable costs from
reconstruction projects, as well as other funding as applicable, such as
Municipal State Aid funds. In reviewing the current Policy, Ms. Bloom noted
that affected residential properties were typically assessed 25% of the total
cost, based on frontage served. Ms. Bloom noted that Victoria Street is a
high priority on the Pathway Master Plan for safety concerns, as well as to
connect the existing east/west pathway on Roselawn up to County Road B. Ms.
Bloom noted that the City would also partner with Capitol Region for three
(3) areas for water quality and drainage improvements as part of the
McCarron’s system; but clarified that there would be no storm sewer or
pathway assessments to property owners.
Mr. Anderson noted that of the
six (6) homes, only three (3) fronted Victoria Street even though they all
had Victoria Street addresses.
Ms. Bloom advised that in the
case described, the street frontage of the homes that abut Victoria would
typically be divided by six (6), consistent with the standard assessment
formula for homes served by private drives. In response to Mr. Anderson’s question
of one (1) extra lot, Ms. Bloom advised that the actual frontage and
assessment footage assigned to each property would be determined based on who
was served by the private drive. Ms. Bloom indicated that she would be
unable to address all aspects of the project at this time without more
information before her, but these items would certainly be part of the future
Feasibility Report, Ms. Bloom offered her willingness to meet with the
neighborhood even before the project informational meetings are scheduled and
the proposed Feasibility Report is approved by the City Council.
Member DeBenedet noted, as part
of the decision-making processes, the community or Roseville continues to
rate community-wide curbed streets as a high priority, thus the 25% assessment
to benefitting properties. Member DeBenedet noted that the rest of the City
picked up the remaining 75% of the costs; and that this Policy applied to all
residential properties, whether they were actually benefitting from an
improvement at that time or not. Member DeBenedet opined that the entire
community benefited from well-maintained streets.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom confirmed that the Assessment Policy was based on a
standard residential street, whether a road was an MSA road, such as Victoria
Street, with everyone assessed on a thirty-two foot (32’) width and 7-ton
strength; artificially lowering the cost even when roads, such as Victoria
Street, are constructed to a 10-ton standard.
3.
Approval of July 24, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Member Gjerdingen moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, approval of the July 24, 2012, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 3, Lines 117, 121, 124 (Gjerdingen)
o
Line 117: Correct to read “…option to build a bridge across
Highway 36 in the vicinity of Snelling Avenue, but stymied…”
o
Line 121: Correct to read “…bridge across Highway 36,
specifically in the area of Hershel Street, along the Snelling Avenue
right-of-way, but taking into…”
o
Line 124: Correct to read “…further east, near the Rosedale
Mall…”
·
Page 7, Lines 284, 294 (DeBenedet)
o
Line 285: Correct to read “…resurface County Road C from Long
Lake Road…”
o
Line 294: Correct to read “…alignment of the NE Diagonal
Pathway …”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
City Engineer Debra Bloom advised
that many projects were wrapping up for the 2012 construction season; and
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
August 28, 2012.
Discussion included the Terrace
Drive water main lining project and others based on the age of the water main
and road conditions; County Road D reconstruction meeting with residents held
on August 7 was very well-attended by Roseville residents, with minimal
support for a sidewalk along the south side; the consistency of a County Road
D sidewalk with the Pathway Master Plan and City Council goals, and remaining
as a project recommendation to the City Council at the future Public Hearing.
Member DeBenedet asked that a
future agenda include an overview of the lining technologies as an area of
interest of the PWETC; as well as to inform the public on this cost-saving
process.
Member DeBenedet asked that staff
provide the PWETC with a copy of the Strategic Plan recently adopted by the
City Council to review any changes with the addition of the new CIP and
staffing responsibility changes in place; along with the changes based on the
asset management program.
Chair Vanderwall opined that
there were a number of property owners unable to attend the County Road D
meeting; and suggested the PWETC make an opportunity to meet with them.
Member DeBenedet noted that this
(County Road D Sidewalk) remained a high priority project due to safety
concerns and kids accessing area schools along that route.
Ms. Bloom discussed the safety of
children, currently having to walk on the street in a school zone; as well as
public safety with the numerous crosswalks needed to access the school.
Member DeBenedet and Chair
Vanderwall were of the consensus that it would be good for the PWETC to
facilitate such a meeting with residents to discuss safety issues.
5. Comprehensive
Surface Water Management Plan (CWSMP)
Ms. Bloom introduced Ron Leaf,
Sr. Water Resources Engineer and Rebecca Nestingen, PE, Water Resources
Engineer with SEH; who presented DRAFT #2 (dated August 16, 2012) of the
Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP), originally developed in
1990 and last updated in 2002.
Mr. Leaf reviewed the intent for
tonight’s feedback to be incorporated into Draft Plan #3 for distribution by
a target date of September 5, 2012 for agency review (45 days) and then to
the Metropolitan Council and Watershed Districts for their comments (60
days); followed by the City’s response to those comments (11 days) by
approximately November 15, 2012, and ultimate City Council adoption in
December of 2012.
Ms. Nestingen reviewed the Table
of Comments and highlighted those sections with significant revision or
additional content based on input received at the last presentation to the
PWETC.
Several typographical and
formatting issues were noted, with Ms. Nestingen advising that the final PDF
document would be corrected once the next draft was updated.
Section 1.2 Organization and
Scope (page 2)
Member DeBenedet noted that 2003
was inconsistent with the staff memorandum stating 2002; with Ms. Bloom
advising that the staff memorandum date was incorrect, as that was when the
process initially started.
Section 2 Physical Environment
(page 4)
Member Stenlund questioned where
the “Roseville Complete Streets” was included; with Ms. Bloom responding that
it was included as a bullet point in the Goals section.
Member Stenlund suggested that it
also be included in Section 2.3 under the Sustainability area, as he
preferred that it be introduced fairly early in the verbiage before it became
lost in the reading of such an extensive document.
Mr. Leaf and Ms. Nestingen
suggested that it be included in the Introduction area or as a topic
of the Executive Summary as a sustainability theme to call out. Mr.
Leaf noted that the Executive Summary had yet to be completed and/or
presented to the PWETC.
Member DeBenedet concurred with
Member Stenlund, opining that it was also worthwhile to specifically state
how this document ties into the Comprehensive Plan and the prior Imagine
Roseville 2025 community engagement document. Member DeBenedet opined
that that should be brought in and developed as a goal or aspiration, not
simply because a higher authority is making the City of Roseville do it, but
having the support of the community and its residents. Member DeBenedet
concurred that this needed to be addressed early in the document before a
reader lost interest.
Chair Vanderwall, with
concurrence by Member DeBenedet, suggested adding language similar to that
found in it to that found in Section 8.10 of the Comprehensive Plan
(Purpose/Sustainability).
Ms. Bloom noted that it was also
addressed under sustainability issues in Section 4.7 of this plan.
Member Stenlund questioned how
and where to include new rain data (updated TP-40) rather than the old
numbers, noting that they were available, even though not yet official.
After some discussion, Ms. Bloom
and Mr. Leaf suggested that, another table or tickler be used to reference
including the updated rain event data; updating these numbers is also
included in the implementation portion of this document. Member Stenlund
suggested a footnote.
Member DeBenedet opined that his
concern is if the old TP-40 data is used for development and design plans,
with money spent on that predication but knowing it was already outdated, it
would make the City look short-sighted.
Member Stenlund concurred; and
opined that the document needed to deal with the kinds of rain events
currently being experienced. Member Stenlund sought to make sure when the
City Council adopts this and others review it, that those significant design
changes are acknowledged.
Ms. Bloom suggested an additional
column be added to Table 1 (page 5) to include anticipated 2013 numbers.
Members concurred, with Member
Stenlund noting that this would be prudent, since this document will be used
as a planning document in the future, not for past planning scenarios.
Member DeBenedet opined that it
made sense to put an Appendix in the document with a one-page discussion on
what may happen, with a footnote in this section to reference that appendix,
rather than creating a document that would become out-of-date as soon as or
before published; particularly acknowledging that the website would need to
be continually updated.
Mr. Leaf addressed broader policy
issues than can currently be anticipated as the pond and easement design storms
are updated and what that meant for City policy; or if Best Practices should
be designed for 5.9 inches today and analyzed for larger storms, as long as
any overflow was addressed; whether large or small.
Chair Vanderwall opined that this
was more than simply a statistic; and suggested that overdesign may need to
be part of the process rather than something we don’t yet know.
Ms. Bloom read the design
standards in the Implementation Plan (page 33) and suggested it be
highlighted with a hyperlink; with Member Stenlund suggesting referencing
Footnote #1 to check data as updated.
Mr. Leaf suggested either a blank
column or including an additional column.
Member DeBenedet noted that
dealing with emergency overflow and high water was also necessary for
property protection and public safety.
Member Stenlund used Cleveland
Avenue as an example for consideration, and planning ahead for designing for
significant rain events.
Section 2.3 Soils and Geology
Member Stenlund addressed getting
down to percentages specific to Roseville to assist in design; and opined
that, while all accurate, this section needed to be more to the point.
Mr. Leaf concurred that this was
a good point, and suggested a table could help summarize that data.
Sections 2.4 and 2.5
In Section 2.4 (pages 6 – 7),
Member Felice suggested education not only at established center, but out in
the community as an additional bullet point.
Member DeBenedet shared a
photograph he’d recently taken in St. Louis Park showing laminated graphic
signage along ponds and explaining native vegetation surrounding the pond;
suggesting that this would be a good way to educate and make people aware of
those amenities.
Chair Vanderwall asked that
Member DeBenedet provide an electronic copy of the sample graphic for staff
to include as part of the record.
Ms. Bloom noted that Section 4.4
(Public Education and Outreach) was also included in the implementation plan;
and suggested it be expanded upon there.
Throughout the document, Member
Stenlund noted that “dual use” opportunities (e.g. soccer fields and storm
water runoff areas) be addressed as “active green space.”
Ms. Nestingen noted that this was
addressed as an implementation item.
Member Stenlund spoke favorably
of including Table 5 (page 10 showing MPCA impaired water bodies’ summary.
Ms. Bloom noted that, at their
recent presentation to the City Council, the Ramsey-Washington Metro Area
Watershed District had advised that Bennett Lake TMDL was on their upcoming
work plan. Ms. Bloom opined that Mr. Aichinger did a good job of starting to
incorporate issues from the former GLWMO area.
Member DeBenedet expressed
appreciation, opining that the area didn’t get much attention in the GLWMO.
Chair Vanderwall opined that he
thought Section 2.6 would include more bullet points; and suggested that it
be entitled, “Select Group” or “Sample;” duly noted by Ms. Bloom; as well as
her noting that the proper title for McCarron’s Lake needed to be verified.
As a way to maintain things in
the future, Member Stenlund suggested an “Adopt a Pond” or similar program
for storm water infrastructure similar to “Adopt a Highway” programs to
engage the community and educate them on and address areas for how engineer
green infrastructure and its impacts on everyone.
Mr. Leaf noted it certainly
impacted wildlife habitat areas; with Ms. Nestingen noting collaborative
efforts were discussed later in the plan, to involve service groups, and it
could be revised to include such a program as well.
In noting the many lakes with
homes surrounding them, Member Stenlund questioned if there were any natural
lake edge communities remaining, with Ms. Bloom advising that there was a
section around Lake McCarron’s with shoreline and no homes; but that the
homes across the street owned the shoreline and beaches. Member Stenlund
opined that there were a lot of lake resources and when looking at natural
communities, the lake edge served as a wetland, but to the typical layperson,
they were not necessarily seen as shallow water habitats of buffers, but
should be captured as a wetland component. Member Stenlund noted that the
next phase of the EPA permit is to have a much larger buffer component.
Ms. Bloom noted that another
natural area is North Central park, east of County Road C and Victoria Street,
which was basically an untouched area of Lake Owasso shoreline.
Member Stenlund noted parts of
Lake Owasso’s shoreline were also natural, with that vegetated area part of
the forest and wetland community; but opined that those buffers and edges
remained special.
Mr. Leaf concurred.
Section 3.1 County, State and
Federal Agencies (page 12)
Member Stenlund suggested that in
Metropolitan Council’s bullet point, sewage be listed last, not first in
order not to lose potential readers, since that is only a portion of all the
things they did.
Ms. Bloom and Mr. Leaf suggested
starting out with “monitoring.”
Mr. Leaf noted the need to
reference documents at that point as well
Chair Vanderwall noted the need
to reference or link to other documents beyond the MPCA; with Mr. Leaf
concurring and the intent to have this electronic document available in a
user-friendly format.
Member Stenlund asked that
Section 3.1 include MnDOT as an agency, since the specific standards that
everyone was to follow originated with them; and while regulated, they
provided resources and state-wide specifications for the engineering
community to use, especially Roseville with several large regional roadways
intersecting the community.
Mr. Leaf concurred.
Member DeBenedet concurred, noting
that MnDOT and the Ramsey County Highway Department managed a significant
portion of impervious surfaces in Roseville; and how they managed that storm
water was vital.
Member Stenlund questioned if it
was sufficiently clear in the MPCA bullet point in this section of the
minimum measures and permits required for documentation to ensure compliance,
noting the importance of this compliance when new permit requirements are
updated.
Ms. Bloom noted that it was
called out in Section 2.5, but could be repeated in this section as well.
Member Stenlund noted that it was
embedded in the NPDES Section, but post construction was on the MS4 side.
Chair Vanderwall noted the TMDL
acronym, noting that it was talking about the amount of water taken out by
this facility, but questioned if this was also applicable coming into water.
Chair Vanderwall noted the need to better define TMDL to remove confusion.
Ms. Bloom referenced a similar
explanation (page 10) discussing impaired waters, but suggested expanding the
description of impairments.
Sections 3.2 Watershed
Districts, Section 4 and Section 5
Ms. Nestingen noted that in the
Goals and Policies, an introductory section had been added to each, including
sustainability.
In referencing Policy, Mr. Leaf
suggested adding the 2013 updated rainfall data in Section 4.1 again.
In Table 7 Watershed District
Standards Summary (page 18), Member DeBenedet addressed Item 4
(freeboard) and suggested a better explanation was needed for the general
public’s understanding.
Chair Vanderwall concurred that a
better explanation and definition would be helpful; with Mr. Leaf concurring,
and suggesting that some graphics may also help in that explanation.
With Mr. Leaf explaining the
calculations in determining those freeboard elevations, Member DeBenedet
opined that he wasn’t confident that they were all that conservative. While
there was always the potential that a rainstorm would exceed those estimates,
Member DeBenedet opined that once the new storm design numbers were released
next spring that would become even more evident.
Ms. Bloom advised that this
challenge had been a discussion internally, regardless of changing a table to
comply with new rules; and current infrastructure designed around previous
designs storm numbers and concepts. Ms. Bloom opined that the challenge was
the ripple affect; creating the need for an updated plan. Ms. Bloom advised
that enforcing freeboard calculations with existing numbers created no
compliance issues; however, with the new numbers, it created a lot of issues
in the community; and would need considerable review.
At the request of Chair
Vanderwall regarding creating liability issues for the City, Ms. Bloom noted
this was why staff was currently hesitant to address the issue at this time,
since there were bigger policy issues once those numbers were published.
Member Stenlund noted the
“grandfather clause” and differing rules based on which plan was in effect at
a given time; and making sure future plans are well aware of the updated data.
Discussion ensued regarding 100
year events; emergency overflow (Item 6) and undeveloped modeling at this
time; and designing of facilities based on best available information at the
time.
Based on liability concern
issues, Member DeBenedet suggested, with review and approval by the City
Attorney, that Policy #6 be revised to read: “For newly constructed storm
water retention ponds, the City shall require an emergency overflow spillway
to safely convey flows in excess of the 100-year (1% probability) event.[…to
the maximum extent practicable.]”
While most lift stations
throughout the City work just fine under typical events, Ms. Bloom noted that
things, such as mechanical failures, could happen.
In response to Chair Vanderwall’s
question as to whether words become meaningless under practicable
application, Member Stenlund noted that “Maximum Extent Practicable” was a
legally defined term at the EPA level.
Section 4.0 Goals and Policies
(page 17)
Member Stenlund suggested that
“Surface Water Management” be clarified, as well as “plan” and “SWWP” to
define which actual plan is being discussed to avoid redundancy and/or
confusion by the reader.
Mr. Leaf advised that he would
review the document to ensure consistency throughout.
Ms. Bloom clarified that the City
of Roseville consistently used “Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan”
in other documents.
Section 4.3 Groundwater
Protection (page 20)
On Table 9, Member DeBenedet
noted that the PWETC had previously asked to include ground water monitoring
for commercial sites.
Ms. Nestingen advised that this
was added to the implementation plan to consider such a policy.
Member Stenlund questioned the
term “explore” and suggested that the City should have an actual “policy.”
Ms. Bloom clarified that the term
“explore” was used throughout, as discussions ensued regarding what it would
take (e.g. staffing) and how to pull it together, steps involved, similar to
the recognition program also brought up by the PWETC, and also included in
the implementation plan.
Member Stenlund suggested that
Table 10, Goal 4, identify the purpose to prevent the spread of noxious,
aquatic vegetation for Goals 4 or 5.
Ms. Bloom suggested adding it as
an additional bullet point to Section 4.5 and incorporating it into Table 11.
Member Stenlund asked that it be
included in pollution prevention/maintenance, not just recreational, but
public works and residential as a decontamination protocol.
Mr. Leaf noted that this was also
a required standard for contractors working near lakes or other water bodies.
Member Stenlund opined that this
was an emerging issue that needed to be addressed. Member Stenlund noted
that, by adding this to Table 11 (Pollution Prevention and Maintenance), it
emphasized that the City was not only trainers, but trying to be leaders.
Chair Vanderwall noted while it
may not be as specific as Member Stenlund was referencing, it was included in
the Coordination/Collaboration Section.
Member Stenlund strongly
emphasized the need for the City to be educated and to be leaders; and to try
to teach others and add to that knowledge.
Table 13, Goal 7
Sustainability (page 26)
Member Stenlund suggested a need
to reward someone using site materials to stabilize controls (e.g. recent building
project next to Lake Johanna) rather than considering them a nuisance and
having them hauled away. Member Stenlund suggested this be included in
sustainable ways that could celebrate and recycle or re-use items rather than
throwing them away, and could also be a beneficial soil use. Member Stenlund
opined that it was a shame not to use trees to celebrate sustainability of
site conditions.
Chair Vanderwall questioned if it
added to the cost to make sure things were not contaminated; whether this was
a water quality issue or a sustainable practice.
Member Stenlund opined that the
forest floor could be used to manage construction; and best management
practices minimizing silt and clay throughout Roseville as part of subsoil
management.
Ms. Bloom opined that this was
more of a practice than a goal; and suggested that it be considered as a
sustainable construction practices.
Member Stenlund concurred;
however, he opined that it was part of Policy to take advantage of site
materials versus importing word; and using organics to make fluffier soils
(Policy #2, Table 13, Goal 7).
Chair Vanderwall suggested
language addressing “take advantage of site materials;” with Ms. Bloom noting
that Policy #2 stated “incorporating construction practices.”
Mr. Leaf advised that language
would be revised in Policy #2 on Table 13 to address the City encouraging
that practice.
Ms. Bloom suggested that the
language also be incorporated in the narrative immediately above the table.
After further discussion, Chair
Vanderwall opined that the plan language needed to be sensitive to not
putting too many things in that would make it hard for anyone to do anything.
Member DeBenedet opined that the
plan was simply stating that it was “encouraged” and people were “discouraged”
from bringing in other materials by truck.
Ms. Bloom noted that Table 12,
Policy #5 also addressed this; and would further enhance this effort for
water quality and landscaping efforts.
Ms. Nestingen noted that Policy
#5 in Table 12 also addressed multi-use green space as noted by Member
Stenlund for dual use areas.
Section 5 Issues Assessment
(page 27)
In Section 5.1, Mr. Leaf
suggested additional pictures to show past examples; with Member Stenlund
offering examples of before/after pictures from the South Owasso Boulevard
project that he had monitored.
In Section 5.2, Member Stenlund
noted the ongoing issues, such as unfunded pond clean out and what to
dredge. Member Stenlund advised that there could potentially be millions of
dollars in liability depending on out the sludge is classified.
Mr. Leaf noted that Section 5.2.3
discussed this, and since it was so significant, suggested that it be
modified to further highlight that potential.
Member DeBenedet suggested that
something more descriptive be used about the cost difference.
Mr. Leaf suggested obtaining
information from the City of White Bear Lake as an example of the potential
cost.
Member DeBenedet suggested that
Mr. Leaf contact Mike Thompson at the City of Maplewood for their detailed
study he completed as part of his Capstone Project.
Member Stenlund suggested
including examples of problem areas as well.
In Section 5.2.4 Education and
Outreach, Chair Vanderwall suggested a different title, since other
agencies could also be involved, and to emphasize collaboration to imply that
people need to work together.
Member Stenlund reiterated his
idea for partnering with watershed districts, and getting the High School
curriculum involved in these efforts as well.
Section 6 Implementation Program
and Funding (page 29)
Chair Vanderwall noted the need
for table column headers to be reformatted.
In response to Member
Gjerdingen’s question on Table 14, Policy #8 regarding the Rosedale Mall
area, Ms. Bloom clarified that this would need to be explored with the Rice
Creek Watershed District for a project similar to that built at the Maplewood
Mall. Ms. Bloom noted that this would be a future collaborative effort.
Ms. Bloom encouraged PWETC
members to the Open House at Maplewood Mall scheduled for September 15, 2012,
being hosted by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District.
Regarding Member Gjerdingen’s
concerns with regional zoning and borders, Ms. Bloom noted that each area was
different, and when approached, staff was happy to consider options.
Mr. Leaf noted that the reason
the Maplewood Mall area project was able to proceed was due to the planned
upgrades on the property, all under one owner, and cost savings to
incorporate landscape and storm water improvements as part of that project.
Member Stenlund expressed
appreciation for including shoreland in the Surface Water Protection portion
of the implementation plan (page 34).
Section 7.0 Plan Adoption and
Amendments (page 35)
Chair Vanderwall noted that the
process was well-defined, as further noted in Section 7.2.2 Staff Review
(page 36), providing for a process with some flexibility. However, in
Section 7.2.1 Request for Amendments (page 36), Chair Vanderwall questioned
who could bring forward a request for an amendment, and how time-consuming
this potential could be for staff.
Mr. Leaf reviewed the actual
process, and noted that staff’s response would determine whether or not a
request would move beyond the PWETC or City Council; and legal requirements
for administrative appeals and a process yet to be defined.
Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that
this was under discussion and would be further reviewed at the
staff/consultant level; based on legal considerations and requirements. Ms.
Bloom advised that she didn’t envision an amendment to the plan without it
first coming before the PWETC.
Mr. Leaf reviewed the remaining
process in developing Draft #3, based on tonight’s feedback, opining that he
didn’t see any changes of substance in the plan; and would confer with staff
on edits to get the next draft out for agency review and keep the process
moving forward toward adoption by year-end. Mr. Leaf noted that additional
graphics could be added at any time, not necessarily during the review
process. Mr. Leaf thanked the PWETC for their hard work in reviewing this
document and providing good feedback.
Chair Vanderwall thanked Mr. Leaf
and Ms. Nestingen as well.
6.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – September 25, 2012
·
Pathway Master Plan Build-Out Discussion
Ms. Bloom sought direction from
the commission on whether to bring in outside groups (e.g. Sierra Club) for
their input to the full commission or whether they wished to create a
subcommittee; with further discussion suggested with Public Works Director
Duane Schwartz. Ms. Bloom noted that Parks and Recreation Commissioner
Doneen had expressed interest in having a pathways subcommittee; and
suggested a cross-over discussion at some point in the near future.
·
Master Plan process.
·
Complete Streets Policy Discussion
Ms. Bloom advised that this
Policy was in final format, with the addition of further edits by
Commissioner DeBenedet as discussed at the previous meeting.
·
Water main lining
Information item
·
Updated strategic plan
Information item
·
Lighting Item (October 2012?)
Member DeBenedet suggested having
SEH make a presentation on streetlight options versus Xcel Energy.
·
Outdoor Field Trip(s)
Member Stenlund suggested
outdoor field trip(s) before the weather changed (e.g. Josephine Woods Lift
Station; Turn lanes, and/or other examples recently completed).
7.
Adjourn
Member Stenlund moved, Member
DeBenedet seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:37 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|