|
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 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; Member Dwayne Stenlund; and Joan Felice
Staff Present: City Engineer Debra Bloom; Project Engineer Kris Giga
Others Present: Kathy Klink, resident at 535 Ryan Avenue W
2. Public Comments
None.
3. Approval of June 25, 2013 Meeting Minutes
Typographical and grammatical comments and corrections to draft minutes were submitted by Member Gjerdingen to staff prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions incorporated into the approved minutes by consensus; a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Member Felice moved, Member DeBenedet seconded, approval of the June 25, 2013, meeting as amended.
Additional Corrections:
· Page 3, Lines 86-96 (DeBenedet)
At line 89, change to read: “… residents were getting concerns [concerned] in getting items on the boulevard…”
· Page 6, Line 232 (Vanderwall)
Designate “County Road C”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4. Communication Items
City Engineer Debra Bloom provided updates on various construction projects, as included and detailed in tonight’s meeting packet and also available on-line at the City’s website at www.citofroseville.come/projects.
Ms. Bloom noted that the City has primarily finished picking up brush from storms, and was now moving on to stump grinding, anticipated to last several more weeks. Ms. Bloom announced for the benefit of the public that wood chips were located in bins at the Dale Street site and available for residents to pick up and use; with the remainder of the material provided to the use of District Energy.
Member DeBenedet offered his favorable impressions of the due care by the City crews in cleaning up limbs from his personal front yard; with Chair Vanderwall concurring with the comment.
At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom provided a more detailed status report on the complex Xcel Gas Main Replacement Project on the Rice Street Corridor from County Road B and south to downtown St. Paul. Ms. Bloom advised that this involves a 20” gas main/line replacement which was moving along well considering the considerable coordination required among Ramsey County, the adjacent cities, and Xcel Energy and given the close proximity of a water line as well as considerable traffic volume along that corridor. Ms. Bloom advised that anticipated completion date for the replacement by the end of August for the City of Roseville’s portion from County Road B to Larpenteur Avenue. Ms. Bloom noted that the project involves camera and personnel inspection of the line; rebuilding of the regulator building at County Road B at Rice Street; and keeping access open for adjacent business and commercial areas. Ms. Bloom advised that the City of Roseville had coordinated with the City of Maplewood to install two (2) water services on the Maplewood side to transfer services from private well to municipal services. As part of the overall project, Ms. Bloom noted that the City was coordinating a watermain project involving boring near South McCarron’s to complete a loop after completion of the gas line installation but prior to restoration work by Xcel. Ms. Bloom noted that new pathways would be replaced by Xcel in September and includes ADA ramps.
At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom reviewed the coordination between the Cities of Roseville and Maplewood to retain the pathway on the north end from Cub Foods south parking lot access up to County Road B; with Xcel leaving the temporary pathway in place at this time.
Ms. Bloom noted that the 2013 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) work had been completed.
Ms. Bloom advised that the public improvements at County Road C and Cleveland Avenue, as part of the Wal-Mart development had begun in early July, with the project proceeding as planned.
5. County Road B-2/Victoria Street Sidewalk Project
Ms. Giga summarized staff’s preliminary design work to-date for the proposed 6’ wide sidewalk along street segments on County Road B-2 (Attachment A) and Victoria Street (Attachment B). Ms. Giga noted that several public information meetings with residents had already been held (February and June) collectively and on-site for individual issues and concerns; with staff continuing to address concerns where possible.
Chair Vanderwall supported installation of pathways on the north side to take advantage of more sunlight during winter months and the natural benefits of melting on those pathways.
Ms. Giga reviewed those draft plans for various segments, including the north side of County Road B-2 from Lexington Avenue to Rice Street; the east side of Victoria Street form County Road B-2 to County Road B; the east or west side of Victoria Street from County Road B-2 to the flashing crosswalk and the west side from the flashing crosswalk to the existing sidewalk at Prince of Peace Church. Ms. Giga provided the rationale for recommending one side of the street over the other based on alignment issues, easement and rights-of-way available, drainage issues and the addition of catch basins and extending stormwater systems to capture problem areas, grades, existing landscaping to work around, the need for retaining walls in some locations, and width requirements or preferences as applicable. Ms. Giga noted that there were some potential areas for incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP) projects to address and mitigate problem drainage areas.
Ms. Giga advised that staff continued to meet with Ramsey County to discuss the project in more detail.
In her review of specific segments through display of cross section and aerial maps, Ms. Giga addressed rationale for placement of the sidewalks, their width, and addressed specific questions of members. Ms. Giga advised that overall, with few exceptions, residents were supportive of the proposed designs and locations.
Discussion included variable widths and rationale for those widths in various locations as previously noted; types of drainage indicated at various segments (e.g. above-ground swale or underground infiltration trenches) depending on possible BMP’s and/or impacts to property owners; recognition and display of resident comments throughout the project area.
Further discussion included addressing current drainage issues and sagging driveways; avoiding significant impact for residential parcels or loss of mature trees depending on their species; sidewalks against existing roadways without curb and gutter and how Ramsey County signs and creates a delineator if within 2’ of each other; retention of clear zones (e.g. 6’ sidewalk with 2’ clear zone) for parking and/or snow plowing purposes.
Additional discussion included testing by staff of current storm sewer capacity in conjunction with this project now that a realistic alignment had been completed as part of the preliminary design work; where additional structures and BMP’s were indicated and sizing of pipes to reduce volume and assist pipe capacity through use of BMP’s where applicable.
At the request of Member Stenlund, Ms. Bloom advised that discussion would be held regarding the potential use of pervious concrete or porous bituminous, use of infiltration BMP’s depending on soil conditions in particular areas; but depending to a great degree on cost comparisons for that newer technology.
Next, areas of specific and significant concern to members and staff were discussed for pathways and street and/or driveway crossings; whether some shrubbery in areas with problem visibility were on private property or on easements and could be removed to facilitate safety while addressing concerns of property owners for their existing landscaping; with Chair Vanderwall providing contact information to staff for School District 623 regarding this project and school property.
Ms. Giga addressed access to Central Park by the school, with a proposed bus lane to provide safety and character and remove pedestrians from the street in front of the school, and for construction of an above-ground infiltration system on the median; as well as providing an educational opportunity for students on stormwater management.
Discussion ensued regarding minimum requirements for ADA compliance on new pathways; crosswalk painting; Buckthorn eradication along the project; areas needing retaining walls and/or grading in the rights-of-way; extension and/or relocation of some existing fire hydrants; work with the Parks & Recreation Department on tree replacement to create character for segments of the sidewalk; work with Ramsey County for their approval of the final design and any additional work they may consider or fund as part of this project and as part of their proposed future projects that could be addressed as part of this municipal project, recognizing that County Road B-2 is a road within county jurisdiction, particularly if current traffic counts support restriping the road for a 3-lane versus 4-lane roadway, allowing for restriping accordingly; and whether or not Ramsey County will consider a signal at County Road B-2 at Victoria as part of the upgrades.
Further discussion included areas with existing sediment and sinking issues specified for replacement where indicated and possible; designs based on grades and stormwater drainage issues; and overall budget challenges for the project that was not previously programmed into the City’s budget process.
Additional discussion included rationale in considering cost effectiveness for installation one side versus the other side, as well as safety and continuity considerations; elevation challenges along various segments; and areas that may require landing areas at certain points to facilitate appropriate ADA grades and the grades of adjacent areas and existing pathways.
At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Ms. Bloom offered to review matching the pathway to the park trail in Central Park from Victoria Street; as well as looking at safety concerns for people using the pathways in the park after closing at 10:00 p.m. to address remote areas and lighting availability.
In discussing some safety concerns and clear zones for the pathway crossing at County Road B-2, members noted that those considerations would all be part of staff’s next step in value engineering the project.
Ms. Giga and Ms. Bloom advised that the next steps would be to provide this project update to the Parks & Recreation Commission at their August meeting; and again to the City Council in September for their approval to move forward with final design and construction; anticipating a 2014 construction project. Ms. Giga advised that part of that process would be to fine-tune the designs and develop specific cost impacts; review the health and species of trees in the project area and impacts to existing trees; completion of a final drainage design and proposed BMP’s to present to and meet Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) requirements; and while continuing to meet on-site with residents as requested to answer their questions one-on-one.
Chair Vanderwall thanked staff for their work on the project and tonight’s presentation.
Recess
Chair Vanderwall recessed the meeting at approximately 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m.
Chair Vanderwall announced and invited the public to attend an upcoming organized waste informational forum on Thursday, July 25, 2013, from 1:30 – 3:00 p.m. at the League of Minnesota Cities building, 145 University Avenue (St. Croix Room), St. Paul. Chair Vanderwall advised that those planning to attend R.S.V.P. to Laurie at 651/215-4004 or laurie@metrocitiesmn.org.
Member Stenlund provided a bench handout for staff and file, attached hereto and made a part hereof, of the Villa Park wetland restoration sediment dewatering facility being done by Frattalone Construction, and providing the use of some amazing engineering technologies for removal of sediment from stormwater retention ponds, part of a Capitol Region Watershed District project.
Staff provided a more detailed synopsis of the process and invited the public to observe the process, cautioning their regard to personal safety in doing so and staying well back of the shredder when cattails were being shredded as part of the work. Ms. Giga noted that the contractor anticipated completion of dredging by the end of August, and completing restoration work in September.
6. Pathway Master Plan Build-out
Ms. Bloom reviewed the updated Pathway Master Plan Build-out, based on PWETC guidance at their April and June meetings (Attachment A). Ms. Bloom advised that she had also met with Ramsey County last week as part of this discussion as well.
Ms. Bloom specifically addressed areas of major revisions since the last meeting; and her development of more refined and realistic cost estimates and updates to maps according to PWETC guidance, with some included on-road or off-road options as applicable.
· #7 County road B from Cleveland Avenue to Highway 280
· #4 County Road C (on road)
· #16 Victoria Street north of County Road C (on-road and off-road)
At the request of Member DeBenedet to connect up to the West Owasso pathway for connecting with the City of Shoreview pathway system, Ms. Bloom advised that the City of Roseville’s existing pathway connected to Shoreview from County Road D on Lexington Avenue. Ms. Bloom suggested that low volume roads share the road for the proposed Pathway Master Plan (e.g. Millwood and Chatsworth) as a cost-savings measure through those neighborhoods, but that on-road options be used for higher volume roads (e.g. County Road C or C-2).
· #15 Lexington Avenue (various segments as detailed)
Ms. Bloom addressed priorities based on the populations served and how to connect a significant number of residents to the park system. Ms. Bloom specifically reviewed the challenges from Dionne to Larpenteur Avenue, and current pedestrian access required through parking lots. Ms. Bloom advised that staff’s discussion with Ramsey County continued to indicate their lack of support for a flashing crosswalk at that connection.
Discussion ensued regarding available room between parking lots and the curb at Lexington Avenue; partial fencing to the south driveway; continued lack of support from Ramsey County over the last 5-8 years in finding a solution; and their lack of support for either an upgraded crosswalk at Dionne or removing a dedicated turn lane for a pedestrian refuge, again recognizing that Lexington Avenue is under Ramsey County’s jurisdiction.
Ms. Bloom noted that Ramsey County was cooperative with the City in many other areas; however, one of the major concerns with this was the close proximity of Dionne to the major intersection at Lexington and Larpenteur Avenues, with any turn lanes eliminated or further restricting traffic movement.
Further discussion ensued regarding safety concerns and lack of ADA compliance in this area, whether on private property (e.g. east side strip mall) or public property.
· #11 Fairview Avenue north of County Road C
Ms. Bloom reviewed her updates and revisions, based on a more realistic approach.
· #5 County Road C (Acorn Park Pedestrian Crossing)
In her discussion with Ramsey County, Ms. Bloom advised that they were interested in working with and receiving a proposal from the City to address safety concerns in this area (e.g. bump outs, middle of the road refuge); but would not consider a median, nor were they looking to reconstruct the road based on their current capital improvement schedule. Ms. Bloom advised that the County was having some positive experience with power washing to remove lines versus grinding off lines; and expressed their preliminary interest in striping the roadway for 3 lanes with a pedestrian crossing at Acorn Park. Ms. Bloom noted that any project would require coordination with the Parks & Recreation Department as part of any future redesign of the park and/or access points as part of the Park Renewal Program for Acorn Park. Ms. Bloom advised that neither City staff nor Ramsey County were against a flasher in that area, but if the road could be narrowed and driveway realigned, it would provide even more safety.
· #20 Dale Street Trail Connection
Ms. Bloom specifically reviewed the off-road and on-road options for this segment and cost comparisons, premature to any significant review of grade challenges in the area on the west side of Dale Street.
Discussion included realities to address significant grade differentials; tunnel option; limited rights-of-way; most affordable option pending further refinement of value engineering analyses; restrictions on the east side of Dale Street in this area due to the location of the graveyard, and staff’s review in 1999 of the exorbitant costs to relocate the existing fence and close graves; with Ms. Bloom advising that staff was not interested in approaching such an option, noting that the cost of relocating the fence alone was cost prohibitive.
Chair Vanderwall noted the importance of this public discussion to provide the public with rationale for considering only one side of a particular roadway, using this as example.
Ms. Bloom advised that the remaining items (page 5 of 5 of Attachment A) represented all new segments with scores under 90, and were included based on previous feedback and request by the PWETC.
· #33 Cohansey Street to HANC Connection
At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom advised that there were no existing easements in place. Chair Vanderwall opined that if there was something already available, and no private property owner was interested in giving up any land, the PWETC or City should not spend time evaluating the options. Chair Vanderwall further opined that, this segment didn’t actually provide that much of a shortcut.
Member Gjerdingen noted that it would provide an option to avoid County Roads C or B-2; with Chair Vanderwall noting that there was an existing off-road pathway on County Road B-2 that would allow park access. Member Gjerdingen opined that, the existing pathway near the shoreline had a significantly steep grade, and the dirt trail was in bad shape, dissipating into nothing.
Ms. Bloom suggested that this discussion be brought to the attention of the Parks & Recreation Commission to determine if it had been brought up during conversations with residents during the Park Renewal process.
· #30 Villa Park Connections
Ms. Bloom addressed the significant topography challenges, and the steep drop of 30’ into Villa Park for this segment. Ms. Bloom questioned what could be accomplished with a pathway connection at this location; and whether the installation of stairs, given the lack of intrusion or erosion concerns as long as ADA accessible, was even an option. With the requirement for switchbacks to meet ADA requirements, Ms. Bloom noted the considerable width would be an issue.
Ms. Bloom suggested that this was another area to seek input from the neighborhood to determine the importance for them of a connection, recognizing the need for connectivity to the park. Ms. Bloom suggested that this was another discussion topic for the Parks & Recreation Commission and their discussions with residents during the Park Renewal process.
· #2 County Road C-2 (west of Snelling)
Ms. Bloom noted that this was a very challenging segment; and noted her various on-road and off-road options. Ms. Bloom noted that each of the options fit with the Park Constellation Plans.
Chair Vanderwall noted that the problem was the bridge.
Ms. Bloom concurred, noted that demand for this was not as high as for County Road C or the NE Diagonal connection; however, if it could be done, she opined that it would provide great access.
Ms. Bloom noted that the County Road C-2 sidewalk between Hamline Ave and Lexington Ave was seeing significant use.
· #29 Lovell to Minnesota Street Connection
· #27 Heinel Drive Connection
Ms. Bloom noted that this would be an alternative to the railroad crossing, and run parallel to the railroad line.
· #28 Judith to Iona Connection
· #23 Langton Lake Loop
Based on the fact that this was a low-volume road, Ms. Bloom opined that signage on the road could achieve the same thing as a pathway versus the cost as part of the Park Renewal Program plan for access around the lake.
· #24 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area Connections
Ms. Bloom recommended deferring this connection, opining that wherever it was built now would end up in the wrong place depending on future development. Ms. Bloom suggested that these connections wait for redevelopment and be made part of those projects.
· #32 Eustis to St. Croix Connection
Ms. Bloom noted that this was a challenge with 200 homes having a disconnect; and opined that having a full loop would be advantageous. Ms. Bloom noted that the original Pathway Committee had wanted to include the segment for a full walking loop with County Road B, Eustis and Cleveland Avenue. At the request of Chair Vanderwall, Ms. Bloom advised that the area is wooded, including some Buckthorn, but was actually quite attractive.
Ms. Bloom sought additional direction from the PWETC.
Chair Vanderwall noted that staff did as asked and provided as many options as possible for decision-making.
Member DeBenedet noted that, as part of the charge by the City Council to the PWETC, their task included sifting through the options to make recommendations for the build-out over the next ten (10) years based on value engineering and scoring. Member DeBenedet used Lexington Avenue as a good example and what was the appropriate rationale for building a sidewalk/pathway on another side of the street when one already existed on the other side; or whether it was more vital to complete other connections without any existing pathway or sidewalk at this time. Member DeBenedet requested additional time to review the revised information provided by staff beyond tonight’s meeting.
Chair Vanderwall suggested that individual members look at each segment and set their personal priorities and available alternatives; and take resulting collective rankings forward as a recommendation to the City Council.
Member DeBenedet concurred that would be the next logical step. However, Member DeBenedet questioned how to set a realistic annual dollar amount for build-out; or whether to consider a program similar to the CIP that looked for that build-out over a period of years. Member DeBenedet suggested that individual rankings be brought to the August PWETC meeting, and cost per year; at which time the PWETC could determine the most realistic annual amount to determine the logical build-out plan. Member DeBenedet opined that the City Council was looking to the PWETC to determine the priority segments and identify a realistic funding level to make it happen.
Chair Vanderwall opined that the PWETC should prioritize the build-out plan on the most applicable segments that would serve the greatest number of people and realistic annual funding to do so; whether that represented a 10 or 15 year plan, taking inflation into account. Chair Vanderwall suggested that the first step should be individual member priorities based on their personal judgment; whether that was high traffic considerations or serving the greatest number of people; or a mix of both considerations. Chair Vanderwall anticipated disagreement among members; however, he hoped that would facilitate further discussion and refinement of a future recommendation to the City Council.
Member Stenlund addressed various options and funding for those options; and rationale for addressing the low-hanging fruit versus areas having safety and other concerns.
Ms. Bloom suggested members keep in mind that the PWETC could ask the City Council to leverage funds; however, if comparing this to the strength of the PMP, having that information available allowed preparation as projects moved forward.
Discussion ensued on standard criteria for individual members in their analysis and ranking process, including cost-effectiveness; number of people affected in areas with highest traffic; improved safety for the greatest number of people; off-road and on-road options and where and how appropriate in priority ranking; and a realistic balancing of costs with needs.
Further discussion included different needs and safety issues for commuter bikers versus recreational bikers; criteria consideration and individual advocacy for bikers and pedestrians; similarity of costs for concrete and bituminous application; and lack of availability for approval for any pathways crossing railroad lines, suggesting other options should be supported.
Member Stenlund expressed his personal support for a boardwalk to access Victoria (#28) and his support for #27 option that didn’t require crossing the railroad tracks.
At the request of the PWETC, Ms. Bloom offered to provide an Xcel spreadsheet to members via e-mail to make their individual sorting easier. Ms. Bloom offered to provide any additional information or resources to members as requested for this exercise.
7. Possible Items for Next Meeting – August 27. 2013
· Pathway Master Plan Recommendations
Ms. Bloom suggested that the PWETC think about when they wanted to receive input for the Pathway Master Plan before recommendations went forward to the City Council.
Chair Vanderwall expressed his preference to receive input at any and all PWETC meetings; however, he anticipated that the Commission’s recommendations to the City Council may serve to incite commentary at the City Council level and make people more aware of the process. Chair Vanderwall recognized that differing opinions and priorities may remain, but opined that the important thing was for everyone to be informed and have an opportunity to provide comment.
Member Stenlund opined that there may be more consensus than thought as individual members ranked their five (5) priorities on the spreadsheet.
If not, Chair Vanderwall expressed his confidence that the Commission would arrive with a spirit of compromise and find that consensus.
· Member DeBenedet noted that Recycling RFP Interviews were scheduled August 12, 2013; and staff may want to provide an update in the Communications item for that meeting
· Natural Resources aspect of the NRATS Committee
· Interim Pathway Signage/Wayfinding
· Pavement Manager Plan (PMP) Discussion
· Tour
If a tour of city pavement was anticipated, Member DeBenedet suggested it happen soon to allow sufficient daylight; opining if it was delayed until September there would not be a lot of daylight left. Ms. Bloom suggested a tour of approximately one (1) hour.
Chair Vanderwall asked that staff set priorities for agenda items with the goal of concluding the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m.
8. Adjourn
Member Gjerdingen moved, Member Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:41 p.m.
Ayes:
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|