|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Stenlund
called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.; and Public Works
Director Schwartz called the roll.
Members Present: Chair Dwayne Stenlund; and Members Duane
Seigler; Steve Gjerdingen; Joe Wozniak; Brian Cihacek; Sarah Lenz; and Joan
Felice
Staff Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz;
Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Marcus Culver; and
Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of June 24, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Member Cihacek
moved, Member Seigler seconded, approval of the June 24, 2014, meeting as
amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 10, Lines 414-416 (Lenz; Gjerdingen)
Correct to
read: “Mr. Culver advised that staff continued to consult with MnDOT on the
potential installation of a sidewalk [on the east side], since
there will be some width gained underneath the bridge that could hopefully
extend [not] [north], with installation under the…”
·
Page 12, Line 508 (Gjerdingen)
Correct to
read: “…accommodate [extended bicycle and] pedestrian
facilities…”
·
Page 12, Line 524 (Gjerdingen)
Correct from
“it” to “if”
·
Page 13, Line 555 (Gjerdingen)
Correct to
read: “… difficult to deal with; and questioned how the [pathway]
[sidewalk on the east side of the intersection] could be extended, …”
·
Page 13, Line 573 (Gjerdingen)
Correct from
“sidewalks” to “crosswalks”
·
Page 17, Line 732 (Gjerdingen)
Correct from
“crosswalks” to “cross sections”
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4.
Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz
and Mr. Culver briefly provided project updates and maintenance activities
listed in the staff report dated June 24, 2014. Mr. Culver also briefly reviewed
the status of current or upcoming work plan projects
Specific to
the Snelling Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRP), Mr. Culver reviewed the final
proposed plan submitted and approved by the Metropolitan Council for the A
Line between Rosedale and the 46th Street Station of the Blue Line
LRT along Hiawatha Avenue. Mr. Culver noted that the final plan had been
revised from that originally presented to the PWETC earlier this year, and as
a result of strong written and verbal advocacy during public open houses for
a station near the Humphrey Job Corp area. Mr. Culver advised that this
change was also recommended following Metro Transit’s analysis of ridership
at locations, including the originally planned Roselawn and Snelling Avenue
stop to accommodate as many riders as possible within a fixed budget and the
number of stations possible within those confines. Therefore, Mr. Culver
advised that, based on current and projected low ridership, the Roselawn
station was being deferred at this point in favor of a station at
Hoyt/Nebraska. However, if bids came in lower than anticipated, or more
funding became available, Mr. Culver advised that an additional station at
Roselawn may be possible, but expressed his doubt that such a result would be
forthcoming.
Mr. Culver
advised that, given this latest information, the City Council – at their July
21, 2014 meeting – had considered a resolution of support for a Roselawn
Station for submission to the Metropolitan Council as originally presented to
the PWETC at their April meeting. Mr. Culver noted that both the Met Council
representative Marie McCarthy and Metro Transit representative Katie Roth
were in attendance at that meeting, and after their review and analysis of
factors and ridership, it was the consensus of the City Council not to adopt
the resolution of support, even though they made it clear to Met Council
representatives that they would prefer not having the Roselawn station
deferred if at all possible.
Mr. Culver
advised that staff would continue to monitor the situation, and as expansion
of the A Line further north was given further consideration, would revisit
the Roselawn station as part of that discussion.
Member Felice
expressed her preference that the Roselawn station be installed now; opining
that the statistics may prove unfair, especially when the current facilities
were among the worst bus stops, especially during the winter months given
their lack of maintenance. While recognizing the need to consider ridership
as part of their decision-making, Member Felice noted that currently riders
were often forced to stand on Snelling Avenue, and therefore they may be
using alternative loading areas or other means of transportation; and opined
that the station would be used much more if the amenities were improved.
Member Felice asked that staff carefully monitor the situation.
Mr. Culver
agreed that there may be a latent demand for people wanting to use it, but
the facilities were not available for them to do so; and opined that it was
difficult to measure that with modeling and projections. Mr. Culver noted
that Councilmember McGehee suggested improvements that would provide some
protection for riders from wind and elements at Roselawn if a station was not
going to happen.
Chair Stenlund
suggested, if a future station was intended for installation, that Metro
Transit install utility infrastructure now versus ripping up Snelling Avenue
again in the future, which he thought would significantly impact any future
stations even if ridership and/or funding improved.
Mr. Culver
suggested a discussion by City staff with the Met Council for a bid alternate
that would include a Roselawn station; allowing that to be taken advantage of
and preparation of the site now, short of another alternative.
As part of
their construction process, Mr. Schwartz noted the possibility of Metro Transit
installing fiber along Snelling Avenue.
Further
discussion ensued about BRT stops, frequency and timing issues; how BRT buses
operate without a fare box allowing them to stop at every stop along the
route; and transit-oriented development along the Snelling Avenue corridor
that is currently guided for land use.
Mr. Culver
reported that staff would be receiving and scoring proposals later this week
for a consultant for the I-35W Interchange at Cleveland Avenue, with federal
grant funding assisting with those improvements; and anticipated award by the
City Council on a design consultant at their August 11, 2014 meeting with
2015 construction planned.
As a follow-up
to last month’s PWETC discussion on bicycles on sidewalks and whether they
are prohibited, Mr. Culver provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made
a part hereof, of Minnesota State Statutes 169.222, Subd. 4(d), defining a
“Business District” and Roseville City Code, Chapter 1001.10 Definitions of
“sidewalks.” Also, in his quick search of codes in the Cities of
Minneapolis, St. Paul, Shoreview, St. Louis Park, and several other metro
communities, Mr. Culver advised that he found nothing defining or clarifying
higher restrictions for the use of bikes on sidewalks. Mr. Culver noted that
the City of Minneapolis stenciled sidewalk areas in their business districts
where bicycles were prohibited, but St. Paul was silent on that point. In
performing a “Google” search on that issue, Mr. Culver advised that he found
that a lot of people thought bicycles should not be allowed on sidewalks, and
some already thought it was against the law. Mr. Culver reported that there
appeared to be a considerable amount of confusion among the public.
Discussion
included how the City of Roseville defined pathways (separations of multi-use
trails/pathways generally 8’ or wider and blacktop) versus sidewalks (5’-6’
and concrete); differences in recreational and commuter bicycle uses and
needs; whether defining uses and protocol to avoid conflicts for those mixed
use facilities would be a worthwhile public relations initiative by the PWETC
to ensure their safest and most effective use; and the definition of pathways
by Roseville in its 2008 Master Pathway Plan.
Mr. Culver
duly noted the suggested public relations and educational initiative for
sharing in a future City News newsletter and on the City’s website;
with Member Lenz suggesting public education efforts with back to school
articles in the Roseville Review, would also be good timing and would
possibly encourage more users.
Member Felice
agreed with the need for good education, relating some of her observations in
bicyclers not following the rules, creating additional hazards for vehicles
on the roads and at intersections as well as for pedestrians.
At Member
Wozniak’s suggestion for additional signage on trails and/or sidewalks, Mr.
Culver noted the cost of installation and maintenance of signage, and
questioned how to designate differences in why or where that signage would
occur, exceptions and other problematic issues along with State law already
in place defining rights and rules. Mr. Culver advised that State law
dictated that bicycles on sidewalks were under the same rules as pedestrians
and, while vehicles were required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, it
was prudent for pedestrians or bicyclers to verify their safe crossing.
Specific to bicyclers on sidewalks or trails, Mr. Culver advised that they
had the same responsibilities as pedestrians; but when on roadways having a
designated or marked bicycle lane, then the laws and rights were different,
and they were considered another vehicle on the roadway. Mr. Culver
emphasized the need for bikers, pedestrians and drivers all needing to be
aware of their responsibilities. Mr. Culver noted that this was an ongoing
struggle within that industry to be consistent between facilities.
Further
discussion included rationale for Ramsey County’s plan to install a dedicated
east bound right turn only lane versus a dedicated left turn lane on County
Road B-2 at Lexington Avenue as a more efficient traffic movement system than
split phased signal timing.
Chair Stenlund
expressed his support for moving forward with the educational process and
clearly defining “pedestrian” via the State Statute narrative in defining
bicycles versus pedestrians, with pedestrians retaining a different level of
protection and bicyclers having a higher level of responsibility. Chair
Stenlund opined that signage didn’t necessarily make a route safer.
While Member
Gjerdingen supported making a statement that bicycles were allowed on all
sidewalks, but spelling out walkways for commercial areas, Member Cihacek
opined that it would be better to remain silent in case development changed,
thereby not requiring a repeal or change of City Code; with that silence
dependent on State Statute.
Member Lenz
noted that her only area of concern was on the north side of Larpenteur
Avenue, with the commercial so close to the sidewalk.
Chair Stenlund
expressed concern with rain gardens along County Road B-2, opining that soil
was being lost to them as the compost log was not sufficient given the amount
of rain recently experienced. While not sure of whose jurisdiction they were
under, Chair Stenlund asked that staff protect the vault systems under
construction.
Chair Stenlund
further noted the excessive dust floating into the St. Paul side of
Larpenteur Avenue due to the concrete rehabilitation work being done. Chair
Stenlund expressed his disappointment in the efforts of the contractor,
opining that the situation was completely unacceptable for those living or
for public spaces in that area; further opining that he had never seen such
poor dust management, and being familiar with that contractor, knew they
could do better. Chair Stenlund asked that staff notify the company.
In addition to
those items covered in the Communications report from staff, Mr. Schwartz
advised that, at their July 21, 2014 City Council meeting, City Manager
Trudgeon had provided his 2015 budget recommendations. For the benefit of
newer members to the PWETC, Mr. Schwartz advised that the recommendation was
for the most part status quo, with only general inflationary increases across
the board for tax-supported funds and utility budgets. Mr. Schwartz advised
that the only thing outside that status quo budget was the recommendation to
add a position for a right-of-way specialist paid from fee-supported
activities to address right-of-way permits, private utilities and related
issues. Mr. Schwartz advised that the proposed budget anticipated a $20,000
increase from 2014 for street supplies, basically for increased winter
maintenance and ice control materials; and an additional $5,000 for contractual
maintenance in street sealcoating. Mr. Schwartz advised that the City
Council would hold a public hearing in August to hear public comment on the
proposed budget, followed by subsequent discussion before the 2015
Preliminary Levy was adopted in September and then before final 2015 Levy and
Budget adoption in December of 2014.
Mr. Schwartz
reported that the City Council, at that same meeting, had adopted a
resolution supporting the City of Roseville’s participation in the GreenStep
Cities program, with the City’s Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson
appointed as the City contact who would be communicating with the PCA to get
the GreenStep website information up-to-date and additional data entry
requirements met. Mr. Schwartz noted that the City of Roseville was now a
GreenStep 1 City, and once that additional data input was completed, they
should reach Step 2. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would walk through the
process and inventory with the PWETC as appropriate in the future. At the
request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Schwartz noted that the State PCA and
Metro/CERTs ran the GreenStep program, with involvement by the League of
Minnesota Cities in encouraging Minnesota cities to reduce their carbon foot
print.
At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Schwartz advised that the bituminous delamination issue
had not yet been resolved, with control section analysis currently underway
and metro-wide conversations continuing. Mr. Schwartz advised that future
consideration to upgrade the City’s overlay program would be taken.
5.
Raingardens and Other Stormwater BMP’s
Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson provided a presentation at the request of the PWETC
on the use and design of rain gardens and other storm water best management
practices (BMP’s) in Roseville.
Mr. Johnson’s
presentation of “Rain Gardens 101,” attached hereto and made a part
hereof, reviewed the what’s where, sand types of rain gardens, and
what was or was not a rain garden, whose purpose was for infiltration of
stormwater into amended soils and plantings. Mr. Johnson reviewed locations
and their treatment values in capturing sediment, organics, and
atmospheric-borne metals; and provided various examples and their levels of
effectiveness. Mr. Johnson noted that problems continued with fertilizer
runoff and grass clippings ending up in storm drains and eventually into
water bodies unless some system of pipe drainage or infiltration system was
put in place, allowing reduced pollutants keeping phosphorus out of those
water bodies.
Mr. Johnson
went through the planning and installation process involved for a property
owner to incorporate a rain garden or other BMP in Roseville, including
preparation of the rain garden site and soils and provided various samples in
the area of existing BMP’s. Mr. Johnson reviewed sizes and depths for rain
gardens, various infiltration systems based on soil types and water needed to
be captured, and varieties of plantings and pricing.
Mr. Johnson
noted that this design process and information was all available for property
owners through various resources available on line or by contacting him at
City Hall, to get them directed toward design resources and recommended
plantings. Mr. Johnson provided various examples of formal and public urban
rain gardens, some that didn’t look like rain gardens yet still functioned as
one. Mr. Johnson noted that there were various levels of maintenance,
depending on the type of plants used and soil amendments, as well as size and
other factors. Some of those online resources included:
§
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources website
§
Blue Thumb.org
§
And the more technical MN Stormwater Manual (November 2005
edition)
Mr. Johnson
reviewed other storm drainage options installed or in the process of being
installed in Roseville, one at the Manson/Stanbridge area where new piping
was being installed to decrease waters in the overall area and protect
adjacent properties.
Discussion
included permits for homeowners for installing a rain garden; impervious
surface requirements for properties and if in excess of 30%, requiring
mitigation; maintenance agreements for BMP’s between the City and homeowner
as applicable; and triggers for commercial properties when redeveloping based
on City Code and area Watershed District requirements and oversight.
Mr. Johnson
reviewed cost share monies available for BMP’s and technical support through
the Ramsey Conservation District in designing and installing rain gardens;
and regulations based on which of the three watershed districts in which a
property was located, and available cost-participation monies different among
each watershed district. Mr. Johnson noted that there was an application
process for each BMP, followed by approval whether by their staff or Board,
at which time the homeowner could install the BMP or hire a contractor to do
so. Mr. Johnson advised that, typically the cost-share program was based on
50% of the total project amount up to a maximum amount. Mr. Johnson advised
that various examples of installed BMP’s are already in place in Roseville,
with the BMP map done in draft form, and soon available to the public once
the data was completely compiled. Mr. Johnson encouraged residents to
contact him at City Hall for some addresses of BMP’s, noting that Twin Lakes
Parkway provided a great example for storm water treatment through multiple
cells.
Mr. Johnson
noted that plantings and the treatment areas could be formal, native, sod, or
trees and shrubs, including mowed versus non-mowed areas. Mr. Johnson
further noted that watershed districts were looking to educate the public and
encouraging property owner support in controlling stormwater for the benefit
of all. Once a property owner contacted their watershed district or Ramsey
Conservation District, Mr. Johnson advised that they would set up the next
steps to follow, goals and options available; with a five-year maintenance
agreement required once installed. No matter the size or how much benefit
was available, Mr. Johnson advised that any improvements were encouraged,
especially with the clay dominated soils in Roseville.
Recess
Chair Stenlund recessed the
meeting at approximately 7:52 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:57 p.m.
Chair Stenlund
thanked Mr. Johnson for his presentation; and asked him to provide a
follow-up in the future.
6.
Twin Lakes Improvements Feasibility Study
Mr. Culver provided a copy of his
presentation entitled “Twin Lakes Area Transportation Improvements,” attached
hereto and made a part hereof, including three key improvement areas:
·
I-35W
Northbound at Cleveland Avenue Interchange (and funding received to-date)
·
Twin
Lakes Parkway Extension (and funding received to-date)
Discussion
included grant applications anticipated to assist with a potential apartment
building project being developed; interest being received by staff from
various retail, hotel and grocery store interests; potential development or
redevelopment that could trigger improvements; and ongoing and future
analysis of how development expansions may impact Langton lake Park and the
watershed area, based on stormwater features as part of any future project.
Member Cihacek
expressed his personal concern with wildlife and water quality in that park
area, with Mr. Culver responding that it was the intent to stay out of the
heavily-wooded area of the park.
Mr. Schwartz
noted that the existing storm water ponds had been constructed as part of the
Arthur Street development.
Member Felice
noted that, in the past, concerns had been expressed with northbound traffic
on Fairview Avenue and the need for additional traffic controls to address
that.
Mr. Culver
recognized that this was an ongoing struggle, even though Fairview Avenue was
a Ramsey County roadway, and considered a minor arterial in the overall
transportation system. Mr. Culver noted that, if vehicles were discouraged
from using Fairview Avenue, they would simply use some other roadway that may
be even less desirable for residents. Mr. Culver admitted that further
improvements for Fairview Avenue and County Road D were needed to address
that heavy congestion, and suggested consideration of a roundabout versus
another traffic signal may be an option worth considering to better address
the concerns of all parties. While several roundabouts may be helpful as
suggested by Member Felice, Mr. Culver noted that there were always
right-of-way and other cost implications that needed balancing out.
·
Traffic
Signal at County Road C-2 and Cleveland Avenue
In general, Mr. Culver reviewed
the federal funds received to-date and previous tax increment financing (TIF)
funding used for construction of Twin Lakes Parkway and other improvements;
and remaining decisions in how to fund the remaining $4 million in
transportation improvements needed. Mr. Culver reviewed other options
available besides TIF, including assessing benefitting properties, using
Municipal State Aid (MSA) dollars, which would affect and impact their use
for other roadway maintenance, or use of General Fund dollars.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Culver reviewed pros and cons of using assessments versus TIF and the
methodology in identifying and assigning costs per parcel, as some would
benefit more than others. Mr. Culver reviewed State Statute requirements and
the process under Chapter 429 for assessing those benefits; and the
geographic district already established for TIF, and remaining $800,000
estimated in that TIF Fund that was already committed to the project.
At the request of Member Wozniak,
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would need to research and report back to the
PWETC on whether or not it would be feasible or prudent to extend the TIF
District for additional years.
Member Wozniak stated that he was
concerned about assessments to properties discouraging development, but would
not rule it out completely if there was benefit to properties, and no other
options were available.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that
developers were asked to contribute to improvements as part of a Development
Agreement for each property, provided their development project triggered
such a process and allowed the City some leverage. However, Mr. Schwartz
noted that there was not a consistent process in place for those developments
requiring them to install or improve infrastructure unless those triggers
were met.
Member Seigler noted that the Twin
Lakes Redevelopment Area represented one of the last primer areas of real
estate in Roseville.
Mr. Culver concurred, however, he
noted that any site in Roseville could be subject to redevelopment given the
right opportunity; and while little virgin land was available in Roseville,
there were large areas suitable for re-use and redevelopment, even though the
Twin Lakes area provided a good opportunity to start from scratch, but
dependent on those uses refreshing on their own, since the City could not
force redevelopment. However, Mr. Culver opined that, over time and as land
values increased with more development occurring around existing uses, the
land values would increase even more and it would then make sense for those
property owners to redevelopment their parcels.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Culver briefly reviewed the methodology in using TIF, with tax captured
on the original use and multi-year deferment of the improved property without
any payback while still having increased service and maintenance needs to
address, creating additional demand for services on the General Fund that
were not being funded.
Discussion included potential
blending of special assessments and TIF funding to fund remaining
infrastructure and traffic improvements; cash flowing for developers in
proposed projects; and the position of Roseville as an attractive location
from development perspectives, with staff continuing to field numerous
inquiries from the development community, but no concrete plans at this
point, but still requiring Roseville to remain competitive with other
metropolitan communities in the market place.
Further discussion included
potential internal loan from reserve fund or bonding for the improvements and
associated interest; pressures triggering proposed improvements from
developers and land use actions by a local jurisdiction triggering certain
improvements as traffic capacity increased, and addressed by Ramsey County
and MnDOT.
Mr. Schwartz also noted the funding
for the proposed construction of the interchange needed to be encumbered by
June of 2015 to remain available to the City for the improvement, including
costs for engineering and inflation.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz reviewed current Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
dollars available and annual projections for ongoing needs. Mr. Schwartz
reported that the CIP Subcommittee and City Council were fully aware of
long-term infrastructure needs; and as part of the City Manager-recommended
2015 Budget, the funds currently used to pay the old Street Bond issue being
retired this year, were recommended to be applied to the Street
Infrastructure Fund, or Pavement Management Program (PMP) fund. Mr. Schwartz
reviewed the purpose of the PMP when first endowed to create a fund for
ongoing street maintenance and reconstruction rather than assessing residents
for those improvements as other communities do. Mr. Schwartz noted that,
theoretically, funds could be used for these projected improvements, but over
time funding would become inadequate and require the City to assess residents
for mill and overlay projects, as well as other maintenance items.
Chair Stenlund suggesting
continuing this discussion to a future meeting; and encouraged PWETC members
to bring any additional ideas back to the table if they were aware of other
funding concepts or options to consider.
7.
Community Solar Discussion
Chair Stenlund noted that it was
imperative in the very near future for the PWETC to make a recommendation to
the City Council to access funding for community solar initiatives if that
was the intended goal. Chair Stenlund referenced the staff report and sample
ordinance provided from the City of Rosemount and the Roseville City Code
sections applicable to this discussion.
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed the
excerpts of Roseville Code and the Rosemount amended code pertaining to solar
recently reviewed; and recommended the input from the City’s Planning
Commission and Community Development Department staff, as well as other City
departments in this discussion. Mr. Schwartz suggested that input be
addressed through a joint meeting or with staff of those responsible
departments.
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed the
need to address this soon, as the Minnesota Department of Energy encouraged
the City of Roseville to be among forty Minnesota cities who would become
“solar ready cities” and eligible for grant funds to update their ordinances
and other procedures to implement solar systems. Mr. Schwartz noted that the
City Council’s goal was to participate in that process.
Over the next few months, Mr.
Schwartz suggested that the PWETC brainstorm other issues to be ready for the
application process for community solar to become an energy provider within
that two month window; and the role of the City in that process. Mr.
Schwartz suggested speakers be invited to the PWETC meetings to allow more
education of the PWETC and public on the entire process, including Public
Utility Commission (PUC) rules for energy credits produced under community
solar systems; financial equations for participants in community solar
projects; vendors willing to place solar gardens; and public and/or private
leasing of rooftops. Mr. Schwartz opined that having that wave of
information should allow the PWETC to get up to speed prior to their
recommendation to the City Council on how they should participate.
Mr. Schwartz sought feedback from
the PWETC on their additional information needs and/or requested speakers.
Mr. Johnson, in his research and
comparison of ordinances, specifically between those of the Cities of
Rosemount and Roseville, reported that he hadn’t found a lot of difference
between them. Mr. Johnson did note one obvious revision in the City of
Rosemount’s ordinance as they expanded references from “solar” as incorporated
in the current City of Roseville ordinance to “alternative energy systems”
and broadened the definition to allow more diversity, including satellite
dishes as part of the revised language. While the wording of both ordinances
is similar, Mr. Johnson noted that the revised Rosemount ordinance had been
broadened to cover more, making sure that everything had to blend with
building architecture, etc. Mr. Johnson suggested it would be good for
Roseville to consider those areas beyond solar energy that are now popular
and will continue as new technologies come forward; with the goal of
encouraging more participation to reduce carbon footprints.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Johnson reported that he didn’t find anything in the Roseville ordinance
that would be prohibitive of alternative solar initiatives.
Mr. Culver clarified that an
applicant may need to seek a variance if their installation exceeded certain
code heights, but concurred that staff had found no restrictions specific to
solar installations.
Chair Stenlund noted the
differences between the two communities, with more agricultural-based land
uses in Rosemount versus the more urban nature of Roseville. Chair Stenlund
asked staff to specifically review the application and permitting process
under current code if someone was to seek installation of a solar system in
one of four various scenarios: school, City Hall, other rooftop or rooftop on
rear yard property, or an industrial facility. Through such a process, Chair
Stenlund opined that this could determine if there were any barriers that may
prevent a homeowner or commercial property owner from proceeding with a solar
application.
Mr. Schwartz noted, as such a
scenario related to building and zoning ordinances, that expertise was
outside the realm of the Public Works/Engineering Department, and reiterated
his suggestion that representatives of the Community Development Department
as well as other speakers, should address those specifics with the PWETC.
Mr. Schwartz referenced previous speakers on this subject mentioning
potential impacts of neighboring properties through installation of solar
systems (e.g. shade trees or home additions).
Chair Stenlund opined that larger
lot sizes in Roseville may prove beneficial to avoid such negative impacts to
adjacent properties.
Member Seigler questioned if solar
panels, constituting an active solar system, would need a building permit to
ensure they were in compliance with the City’s building code; or whether
those applications were tied realistically to certain sizes. Member Seigler
also suggested reviewing any roadblocks experienced by those already having
solar systems in Roseville, or what vendors or property owners have
experienced in other communities that may need to be addressed in Roseville.
Chair Stenlund noted this was a
good question for the City’s Planning Representative as the City began
working with the CERTs program on revisions to City Code.
Mr. Schwartz noted that this would
be part of the Solar Community Grant to perform that research and any
revisions, how residents can coordinate, and involvement of the Planning
Commission and any other City departments as applicable. Mr. Schwartz
suggested a placeholder on the August 2014 PWETC agenda for more discussion,
including a solar developer or installer as a speaker, potential financial
partners interested in participating in development of the system, and
technologies beyond the City as a public agency.
Prior to those speakers being
brought in, Member Seigler suggested in-house discussions with the City’s
Planning and Community Development Department provide their initial reactions
for solar installations within the current City of Roseville ordinances,
their comparisons with Rosemount ordinances; and then in September seek
comments from vendors or other speakers after the current situation had been
sufficiently evaluated and any action steps outlined.
Ms. Schwartz advised that staff
would consult with other departments to determine their schedules over the
next four weeks.
Chair Stenlund suggested that
staff invite local church representatives, one of whom was already working
with CERTs on a community solar garden; and their application process in
installing it.
Mr. Schwartz noted that a local
group, Minnesota Interfaith Power and Water, were working with different
church groups on solar options; and suggested a representative from that
group would be another good speaker for the PWETC.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Schwartz duly noted the PWETC’s interest in addressing wind turbine
installations, obstacles and court cases from other communities that may be
part of this discussion as well.
Other areas of interest expressed
by PWETC members included: tree location, sizes and species as they related
to solar garden and compatibilities issues, and tree-dominates areas that may
not be amenable for solar gardens; similar concerns with adjacent buildings
on solar installations; and any areas where boulevard trees may be a conflict
of interest.
Member Lenz, as a former member of
the Parks & Recreation Commission, noted that that commission also served
as the City’s Tree Board, and should be consulted on tree issues related to
this issue.
Mr. Schwartz stated that staff
would send out a link for the PWETC’s information regarding a GIS mapping application
that students from the U of MN developed to look at property locations to
determine if they are or are not good candidates for solar installations.
8.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – August 26, 2014
·
Community
Solar
·
Information
on TIF Districts
(e.g. extension of time; financial information; or potential development
options and infrastructure funding) and other information from the Finance
Director and/or Community Development Director (Cihacek)
·
Costs
for intersections as displayed in cross section examples for Cleveland
Avenue, I-35W and Twin Lakes Parkway and as cost breakdown of materials,
engineering, labor and other costs for those proposed construction projects
(Gjerdingen). Member Gjerdingen stated that he was curious if double left
turn lanes would affect walkability depending on the width of those lanes.
Mr. Schwartz
advised that numbers were still preliminary at this stage, and refined
numbers would be available in the future, but not at this time, since the
designs were only preliminary at this stage for Phase III. Mr. Schwartz
recommended that this be a conversation for later on, as proposals for
professional consulting services were just due later this week, and it would
be 2-3 months after City Council award on August 11, 2014, for the consultant
to perform their work.
Mr. Culver
concurred, noting that the only numbers available at this time would be broad
estimates based on preliminary layouts. Mr. Culver noted that once the
consultant was hired and provided a detailed design, those refined numbers
and cross sections would be provided to the PWETC.
·
Current
zoning applications for parking lots (sizes and number of stalls) for retail
and office applications, specifically how it related to permeable surfaces,
storm water management, walkability, and available transit (Cihacek). Member
Cihacek stated that he was interested in learning about the general scope of
the ratio of parking to land use, and how the City’s other goals were
accomplished, based on changing allocations for developments and
environmental impacts, shared parking options, and transit corridor changes,
all within emerging trends and how the City could support those trends
through its zoning qualifications.
Member Gjerdingen
noted that the City of Arden Hills was looking at shared parking options; and
suggested part of this discussion include on-street parking in Roseville as
well.
Mr. Schwartz
advised that the previous ratio for parking was five to seven spaces per
1,000 square feet of building; but it had been reduced in current ordinance
to three to four spaces for that same square footage. Mr. Schwartz noted
that there were a number of issues related to parking, and suggested this
would be another good discussion with the Community Development Department.
Member Cihacek
noted that, his main concern was, that commercial land use produced a
considerable share of the City’s storm water runoff, and suggested looking at
more ways to mitigate that through infrastructure, etc.
While not sure if
it could be accomplished on the next agenda due to time constraints, Chair
Stenlund suggested it was a good topic and directed staff to add it to future
discussion.
·
Due
to his absence at the August PWETC meeting, Member Wozniak asked if the
proposed Ramsey County Recycling Presentation could be deferred to a
future agenda.
Mr. Culver and
Mr. Schwartz noted that staff was still working with Eureka Recycling on a
mid-year report; and suggested that topic would tie in with the Ramsey County
presentation, and could be deferred to September or October.
·
GreenStep
Inventory
9.
Adjourn
Member Cihacek
moved, Member Gjerdingen seconded, adjournment of the meeting at
approximately 9:00 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|